How Do Administrative Organizations Handle Difference and Environment?

This study examines the analytical utility and scope of a 2×2 framework composed of the Rational-Natural and Closed-Open dimensions by applying it retrospectively to five administrative cases. The framework was originally proposed by adapting Scott's organizational perspectives to interorganizational relations in public administration. Rational denotes treating different parts through a common structure, whereas Natural denotes treating different parts as different. The Closed-Open dimension distinguishes arrangements centered on established internal structures, jurisdictions, and procedures from those shaped by continuing interaction with other organizations and the environment. The five cases concern jurisdictional overlap in science and technology policy, disability employment policy, a nuclear-information exchange network, changes in jurisdiction in marine policy, and informatization governance in Korea's national nanotechnology initiative. The analysis indicates that the empirical value of the 2×2 framework lies less in assigning whole organizations to four fixed types than in identifying how organizations handle differentiation and environmental relations and in tracing coexistence and movement across positions. The two dimensions are empirically distinguishable: movement toward Open does not necessarily imply movement toward Natural.Multiple modes may coexist, and in some cases the evidence supports a position on one dimension while leaving the other unconfirmed. The study finally relates this framework to the provisional theory developed in Choi (2026). The 2×2 framework provides an organizational lens on how actors handle difference and environment, whereas the preceding model addresses the configuration and operation of boundaries, relations, and administrative paths. The two therefore constitute distinct but connectable analytical layer