Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Planning Theory can be found at: Email Alerts: http://plt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://plt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://plt.sagepub.com/content/4/3/209.refs.html
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Article
Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) Vol 4(3): 209223 DOI: 10.1177/1473095205058494 www.sagepublications.com
Abstract For planners, institutional transformation is important in two ways. From the positive aspect they need to know their institutional environment: institutionalization theory can help. Three schools of institutionalization theory are presented: Historical, Rational Choice and Sociological Institutionalism. The normative aspect of institutional transformation is institutional design: planning often demands this. Institutional design is dened and described: what is it, where is it done, and who does it. The article identies the institutional-agent interactions that are the media and tools of institutional design, and reviews some of the knowledge base for institutional design practice under the headings of governance, coordination, and agency. Keywords agency theory, coordination, governance, institutional design, institutional transformation, institutionalization, institutions
209
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
210
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
211
involves new or amended legislation or regulations, it needs institutional design. All these examples also suggest that there are different approaches to institutional design, which varies signicantly according to context: I call them objective and subjective-dialogic institutional design.1 The rst appears in situations where the object of the undertaking the institutional structures and/or practices that are to be changed is outside the institutional design agents own institutional context, or at least that is how they perceive it. In the second the institutional design effort is aimed at the agents own institutional context. The institutional change agents awareness that they are an integral part of the institutional design object demands a reexive-dialogic approach that differs signicantly from the rst. This account of the relevance of institutional transformation for planning reveals two different ways of looking at institutional transformation, which are important for planners: positive and normative. As we shall see later, they are both essential because they are complementary and interdependent. The one: positive understanding of institutional transformation, enabling more effective action in institutional contexts, means descriptiveexplanatory knowledge based on reexive experience, empirical observation and analysis. The other: normative understanding of institutional transformation, means knowing how to effect intentional change. Deliberately creating and changing institutions, and affecting institutions, institutional structures and practices is institutional design. This article addresses both of these two aspects of institutional transformation. A brief review of positive knowledge from institutional analysis focuses on institutionalization theory. There follows a discussion of institutional design, which, while a bit more extended, is also very condensed. It denes and explains institutional design and reviews the limited knowledge that exists, with the aim of raising awareness in the planning community and ultimately to enable planners reexive practice of institutional design.2
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
212
economics). Hall and Taylor (1998) identied three schools of thought about institutionalization: the historical approach, the rational choice approach, and the sociological approach. Historical institutionalism denes institutions as systems of formal and informal rules, norms and practices in polities or political economies. This is the traditional approach to institutions, tending to see institutions associated with formal organizations. It offers a broad long-range perspective, focused on path-dependency and a heightened awareness of unintended consequences. Empirically based in history and political science, and oriented primarily to institutional analysis, this approach is hardly relevant for normative institutional design. Rational choice institutionalism is associated with institutional economics (e.g. North and Williamson),3 its behavioral assumptions premise rational actors with xed preferences and values. Emphasizing the role of strategic information and behavior in institutional emergence and change, this school of thought attributes the origin of institutions to deliberate design and voluntary agreement among actors (Hall and Taylor, 1998). Clearly this approach is highly compatible with normative institutional analysis4 based on a logic of efciency that leads directly to objective institutional design. Nevertheless, its theoretical models and analytical tools can also be deployed in a dialogical-recursive process of institutional analysis and design. Sociological institutionalism began as a subeld of organization theory, focused on institutional forms and procedures in organizations (perhaps in reaction to prior preoccupation with structure). In contrast to the rational choicers, sociological institutionalism concluded that institutionalization in organizations was not a result of a strategic search for maximum efciency. Instead, institutional forms and practices are adopted for legitimacy, in a logic of social appropriateness rather than a logic of instrumentality. Institutionalization is a historic accretion of culturally specic forms and practices (even including organizational myths and ceremonies), with their origins and diffusion related to their specic contexts: sectors, societies and subcultures. This approach denes institutions broadly, seeing them as including symbolic systems, moral values and societal norms. Blurring the distinction between institutions and culture, sociological institutionalism sees culture itself as a form of institution, where institutions give social life its meaning in an interactive and mutually constituitive relationship between institutions and action (Hall and Taylor, 1998). For institutional analysis and design, sociological institutionalism has several implications: it prescribes recursive-dialogic rather than objective-rational institutional design, and its logic of social appropriateness suggests the use of goodness-of-t assessment rather than rigorous criteria in designing and evaluating institutions. Hall and Taylor (1998) itemize the strengths and limits of each of their institutionalisms, nding enough common ground to warrant a synthesis.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
213
A blend of rational choice and sociological institutionalism offers a useful basis for institutional analysis and design, where the former provides useful models and rigorous analytical methods and tools, while the latter can complement these with a theoretical foundation for analyzing and inferring individual and collective preferences and values. This proposal is consistent with my own approach to institutional design.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
214
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
215
organizations, for example, the US Model Cities and NDP programs, the British GIA program; planning, implementing and managing new communities (Britains New Towns program, the US Greeneld new towns and its New Community Development program) and planned community development projects and programs in many other countries; environmental management programs and organizations, for example, river basin management authorities, natural hazard reduction programs; and planning and implementing major strategic infrastructure and development projects.10 At this level of institutional design, while elected decision-makers and appointed ofcials still have leading roles, administrators and experts in the respective elds and policy areas are signicant actors. As the above examples suggest, these may and often do include planners who are active in the relevant arena in their positional (public bureaucratic or organizational) or practitioner (expert consultant) capacities. Still, here too lawyers and economists are heavily involved as advisors. The lowest level of institutional design involves intra-organizational design, addressing organizational sub-units and small semi-formal or informal social units, processes and interactions, such as committees, teams, task forces, work groups etc. This occurs in every eld of endeavor, from the global corporation implementing its matrix form of organization through task-related work groups, to the players of the OBradys Bar weekly poker game setting rules for who pays for drinks and when. Intended to ensure effective and timely task performance, this kind of institutional design is involved in establishing and managing planning processes and policy, plan, or project implementation. A regional transportation planning agencys participatory structure of citizen and technical advisory committees for developing its metropolitan mass transit plan is this kind of institutional design. Formal mediation and conict resolution processes, for example, in environmental planning controversies (Susskind and Field, 1996) involve such institutional design. The problem of split loyalties of city agency neighborhood planners (to their public employer or to their neighborhood community clients) (Needleman and Needleman, 1974) is a typical institutional design problem at this level. As these examples show, planners continually confront this kind of institutional design challenge in their practice, as, indeed, do other professionals, managers and administrators in responsible positions. This level of institutional design involves almost everyone who is charged with structuring and managing an organization or organizational processes to ensure effective performance.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
216
material on which institutional design works? What are the tools institutional design can apply? How can we do institutional design and what information base can offer a source of knowledge for application?
Type a Performative
Cultural institutions Laws Rules/regulations Standards Governments Markets: hybrid markets2 articial/quasimarkets3 Interorganizational networks4 Organizations
Notes: a Elements of institutional design in the table (e.g. Laws, Governments) are shown in italics. Impacts, or interactions intended to be affected by ID, in the table (e.g. Transactions, Practices) are underlined. 1. As dened in Alexander (2001a: 501). 2. See Alexander (2001a: 55) and Williamson (1985). 3. See Alexander (1995: 22735). 4. See Alexander (1995: 199266). Source: After Table 2 (A map of institutional/agent interaction) (Bolan, 2000: 29, after Low, 1997).
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
217
(structuring individual and collective interactions). Both of these are also public and formal that is why they can be the subjects, tools, and products of institutional design. The other role of institutional-agent interactions is to be the objects of institutional design. They are the interactions institutional design is intended to affect, and through which institutional designs impacts are experienced in the course of signicant institutional or social change. The only public-formal interaction in this role is formal transactions, for example when an institutional design modication of a law (e.g. residency requirements) changes a formal transaction (e.g. voting as a political transaction), or a regulation (e.g. setting currency exchange rates) affects contracts (in economic transactions). All the other objects of institutional design the institutional-agent interactions through which institutional design aspires to affect action and behavior are tacit-informal; that is also why they cannot be positive institutional design elements, that is, institutional design tools or the subjects of active design manipulation. Performative interactions in this role include events and customary behaviors. A case of the rst is when legislation or another form of institutionalization creates a social event that later becomes enshrined in tradition: classic examples are Thanksgiving in the US and Bastille Day in France. The second is rife in every societal domain: institutional design affecting individual11 customary behaviors; topical examples range from smoking (changed by legislation) to carpooling (encouraged by differential road pricing). Other objects of institutional design are structural: norms, habits and practices which Low (1997) called ontological institutions and tacit systems of knowledge and world-views. There are some institutional-agent interactions that do not seem to be the objects of deliberate institutional design intervention, though they could be the unintended arenas of its effects. These include episodes, languages,12 tacit-informal games like practices, and informal social (including associational and kinship) networks.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
218
Nevertheless, there are three general areas of knowledge that may offer some support to the would-be institutional design practitioner;14 they correspond more or less with the levels of institutional design mentioned above. The rst is governance, most relevant at the higher levels; the second is coordination, applicable mainly at the meso-level; the third is agency, useful at the micro-level but also upwards. Governance Not to be confused with government, governance addresses not only the state, but all the sectors and actors involved in the processes of regulation, coordination and control (Pierre, 1999: 376) that enable or constrain the actions of members of a society. Knowledge about governance is spread across many disciplines including philosophy, jurisprudence, political science, sociology, and economics. There is one body of knowledge focusing on governance, which is especially relevant for institutional design: transaction cost theory (TCT). Originating as a branch of institutional economics, TCT offers plausible explanations for the emergence of various forms of governance, and also provides a kit of (conceptual) tools for institutional analysis and design. A repertoire of forms of governance emerges from transaction-related adaptations of the perfect market (for completely independent transactions) through hybrid forms of governance for mixed transactions, to integrated organization (the public bureau or the corporate rm) for recurring or extended transactions with high interdependence and uncertainty. Institutional design can draw on knowledge aggregated in integrated TCT. The rst stage must be institutional analysis of the design setting, viewing it as a sequence of transactions involving all the relevant actors. Detailed analysis of the critical transactions can match the subject process with appropriate forms of governance. This was done, for example, for land use planning and development control systems, where the relevant setting was the land development process and property market (Alexander, 2001a, 2001b). Coordination Just as governance is a major concern at the highest levels of institutional design, coordination is important at the next levels. At the meso-level coordination involves interorganizational networks and complex organizations, extending into the micro-level as simple organizations, intra-organizational units and informal societal units. At these levels, the concept of interorganizational coordination (IOC) structures (Alexander, 1995) provides the elements of an architecture of institutional design. The rst step in the institutional design process must be a systematic institutional analysis. The next step is to draw on a generic repertoire of IOC structures to specify a set of alternative feasible IOC structures or
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
219
more complex IOC systems specic to the relevant setting, which might respond to the institutional design problem. Evaluation of their appropriateness and prospective effectiveness will be based more on goodness of t than on tentative models of poorly understood relationships (Alexander, 2000). Agency For the lowest level of institutional design, agency theory offers an important conceptual tool. In agency theory the individual is the unit of analysis, and agency addresses interactions in principal-agent roles. Agency theory tries to account for (and avoid) conicts between principals and agents, identify (and minimize) agency costs, and explore alternative governance mechanisms, incentives and monitoring devices to reduce agency costs, and ensure maximal alignment of principals and agents interests. Agency theory research reveals the sources of task-implementation problems confronting simple hierarchical organization. These include employment supervision and incentives, complex supervisor-agent interdependencies, horizontal and vertical coordination and team-related problems such as hidden action, moral hazard, concealed information, opportunism, and ineffective incentives for managers and executives (Miller, 1992). For institutional design, agency theory is particularly relevant for public or mixed public-private institutions, because it offers a plausible account for some typical public sector inefciencies, attributing them to inadequate responses to multi-task and multi-principal-agent problems.
Conclusion
In this article I explored the links between institutional transformation and planning with two purposes in mind. One is consciousness-raising: to make planning theorists, educators and reective practitioners more aware of the importance of institutions, and to direct them to the domains of relevant knowledge.15 These offer positive knowledge about institutions and institutionalization to help them to understand the institutional contexts that frame almost everything they do. The second purpose is to give the planning community a better awareness of institutional design. As the normative aspect of institutional transformation, institutional design is in fact an integral and essential part of many planning and planning-related practices. To be effective in many of their roles, planners need a reexive consciousness of institutional design, and an intuitive or acquired skill at institutional design is the hallmark of the successful practitioner. Institutional design is not a craft that will ever have a usable handbook, and this article does not come close to being a comprehensive account.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
220
Here I have presented a condensed denition and review of institutional design: its actors, contexts, and the institutional-agent interactions that are its tools. Some possible sources of knowledge for institutional design are identied under the headings of governance, coordination, and agency. Planners exposure to these could enable more reexive and systematic institutional design, toward better planning practice.
Notes
1. This deliberately differs from Gualinis (2001) terminology, as discussed under Institutional Design below. 2. Parts of this article are based on and elaborated in Alexander (2002, 2004). 3. This is Hall and Taylors description; I would extend this school of thought to include game-theory based theories of institutionalization and institutional analysis (e.g. Aoki, 2001) and institutional design (e.g. Calvert, 1995). 4. A typical exponent is Aoki (2001). 5. To the best of my knowledge, the term seems to have been used rst in a political science paper by John Brandl (1988). 6. I could not nd any clear denition of institutional design in any of the previous discussions of or references to institutional design (e.g. Brandl, 1988; Innes, 1995; Weimer, 1995; Tewdr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998; Bolan, 2000) though some denitions are implied. Gualini (2001) is an exception: he devotes considerable attention to dening institutional design, but his nal denition is incorrect as argued below. 7. Some of the discussion is at odds with this denition, limiting its concern primarily to the higher levels of governance (e.g. Bolan, 1991) or asserting the failures of constitution writing (Flyvberg, 1998: 2346). This is consistent with a multi-layered sociological model that identies institutions only with the highest societal level (Scott, 1994). 8. This denition erases Gualinis distinction between institutional design, which he associates exclusively with the expression of an innovative intentionality, of a design rationality, and institution building: the unintentional, emergent, path-dependent dimension of institutional change (2001: 25, 49); for the fallacy in Gualinis argument, see Alexander (2006). 9. In some peoples view, in this role economists are usurping a function that planners should aspire to have (Markusen, 2000; Sanyal, 2000). 10. For more detail on institutional design cases, see Alexander (2006). 11. That is what distinguishes them from practices (below), which have a collective and structural dimension that customary behaviors do not. 12. This is probably true for the most part, though languages are not immune from institutional design. Contrary examples include the deliberate creation or revival of languages (e.g. Balasa-Indonesian and Hebrew), the regulation of language (e.g. the Acadmie Franaise) and the institutionalized oversight of IT languages and protocols. 13. This term is used here deliberately, to distinguish between applicable
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
221
knowledge with normative institutional design implications, and other knowledge theoretical and positive-empirical about institutions and institutionalization (e.g. regime theory, post-Marxist regulation theory, neo-Gramscian institutionalization theory, Bourdieus eld and habitus, Giddensian institutional analysis, Foucaults genealogies and governmentality) that is undoubtedly highly relevant to understanding institutions, but from which I believe it is difcult or impossible to extract design-relevant prescriptions. I encourage any who disagree with this assessment to share with us the institutional design implications they can draw from these or other authorities. 14. This does not pretend to be an exhaustive review of the possible knowledge-base for institutional design. For example, besides the general areas reviewed below, there are other useful sources for knowledge and skills, for example, games theory (see Calvert, 1995 and Aoki, 2001) and the design of common pool resource associations (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al., 1994). 15. I am referring here to the overview of institutionalization theories; in reviewing the literature the focus was not institutionalization (which is beyond the scope of this article) but institutional design.
References
Alexander, E.R. (1995) How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach. Alexander, E.R. (2000) Inter-organizational Coordination and Strategic Planning: The Architecture of Institutional Design, in W. Salet and A. Faludi (eds) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, pp. 15974. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences. Alexander, E.R. (2001a) A Transaction-cost Theory of Land Use Planning and Development Control, Town Planning Review 72(1): 4575. Alexander, E.R. (2001b) Governance and Transaction Costs in Planning Systems: A Conceptual Framework for Institutional Analysis of Land-use Planning and Development Control The Case of Israel, Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design 28(5): 75576. Alexander, E.R. (2002) Acting Together: From Planning to Institutional Design, paper presented at XIV AESOP Congress, Volos, Greece, 1015 July. Alexander, E.R. (2004) Planning and Institutional Transformation: Cases and Problems in Institutional Design, paper presented at XVI AESOP Congress, Grenoble, France, 14 July. Alexander, E.R. (2006, forthcoming) Institutional Design for Sustainable Development, Town Planning Review 77(1). Aoki, M. (2001) Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bolan, R.J. (1991) Planning and Institutional Design, Planning Theory 5/6: 734. Bolan, R.J. (2000) Social Interaction and Institutional Design: The Case of Housing in the U.S., in W. Salet and A. Faludi (eds) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, pp. 2538. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences. Brandl, J. (1988) On Politics and Policy Analysis as the Design and Assessment of Institutions, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7(3): 41924.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
222
Planning Theory 4(3) Calvert, R.L. (1995) The Rational Choice Theory of Institutions: Implications for Design, in D.L. Weimer (ed.) Institutional Design, pp. 6394. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Flyvberg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gualini, E. (2001) Planning and the Intelligence of Institutions. Aldershot: Ashgate. Hall, P.A. and Taylor, R. (1998) Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, in K. Soltan, E.M. Uslaner and V.I. Hauer (eds) Institutions and Social Order, pp. 1543. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Healey, P. (1998) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Healey, P. (1999) Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning and Shaping Places, Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(2): 21122. Innes, J.E. (1995) Planning is Institutional Design, Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(2): 1403. Low, N. (1997) What Made it Happen? Mapping the Terrain of Power in Urban Development, Planning Theory 17: 88112. Markusen, A. (2000) Planning as Craft and as Philosophy, in L. Rodwin and B. Sanyal (eds) The Profession of City Planning, pp. 26174. New Brunswick: CUPR-Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Miller, G.J. (1992) Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Needleman, M.L. and Needleman, C.E. (1974) Guerillas in the Bureaucracy: The Community Planning Experiment in the U.S. New York: Wiley. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. and Walker, J. (1994) Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pierre, J. (1999) Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics, Urban Affairs Review 34(3): 37296. Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds) (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Putnam, R.D. with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. (1998) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Raadschnelders, J.C.N. (1998) Evolution, Institutional Analysis and Path Dependency: An Administrative-History Perspective on Fashionable Approaches and Concepts, International Review of Administrative Sciences 64(4): 56582. Sanyal, B. (2000) Plannings Three Challenges, in L. Rodwin and B. Sanyal (eds) The Profession of City Planning, pp. 31233. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Scott, W.R. (1994) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Susskind, L. and Field, P. (1996) Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes. New York: The Free Press. Tewdr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning, Environment & Planning A 30(11): 197599.
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013
Alexander
223
Verma, N. (ed.) (2005, forthcoming) Institutions and Planning. New Brunswick: CUPR-Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Weimer, D.L. (1995) Institutional Design: Overview, in D.L. Weimer (ed.) Institutional Design, pp. 116. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Williamson, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Ernest Alexander, Emeritus Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (USA), teaches and practices in Israel. He is the author of Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues (2nd edn, 1992) and How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in Theory and Practice (1995). His research interests range from planning theories and rationalities through institutions and organizations, and his interest in evaluation has led to research on substantive plan evaluation and planning rights. Address: APD-Alexander planning & design, 41 Tagore St. #11, Tel-Aviv 69203, Israel. [email: eralex@inter.net.il]
Downloaded from plt.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on March 16, 2013