Innovation and institutional change: the transition to a sustainable ...

Innovation and institutional change: the transition to a sustainable ... Innovation and institutional change: the transition to a sustainable ...

doc.utwente.nl
from doc.utwente.nl More from this publisher
31.07.2013 Views

Theoretical perspectives 31 cohesive and closed, or more open and differentiated (the tighter and more cohesive, the less vulnerable). Last, we may imagine institutional arrangements that impose high switching costs on incumbent regimes and that promote good connectivity within it, or alternatively a set of arrangements that tend to reduce switching costs (perhaps by giving incentives for switching) or promote better connectivity within competing regimes. Again the former arrangement would tend to favour an incumbent regime. In practice it is likely that different regimes will exhibit different sets of characteristics at different points in time, dynamically reshaping the profile of their robustness or vulnerability”. For a regime change to unfold, they argue that “it must be recognised as necessary, feasible and advantageous by a broader range of actors and institutions than would normally be the case for a discrete technological change”. If we sum up this overview we can discern between factors exogenous to the regime (external shocks and scientific results), either exogenous or endogenous (technological breakthroughs which can occur either from inside or outside the regime; new organisational forms, institutional changes), and endogenous (misadaptations, tensions within the regime, changes in preferences and niche markets (although probably exogenous factors play a role in explaining, e.g. environmental concerns, ICT penetration), and nonaverage actors. We basically adhere to the formulation of Unruh (2002) that for a process of transition such as escaping carbon lock-in several interconnected changes will have to take place, both initiated from within and outside the regimes, and consisting of combinations of institutional, organisational and technological changes. Although maybe this is not much of a help, it on the other hand makes clear that there may be a range of developments available to which new innovations may hook on to. Moreover those innovations that emerge at the intersection of different regimes may gain strength by exploiting combinations of tensions in different regimes. This bears some similarity with remarks made on cluster development by Porter (1998: 241) that “cluster development often becomes particularly vibrant at the intersection of clusters. Here, insights, skills, and technologies from different fields merge, sparking new businesses. The presence of multiple intersecting clusters further lowers barriers to entry, because potential entrants and spin-offs come from several directions. Diversity of learning stimulates innovation”. 2.3.2 The nature of institutions, institutional change and its contribution to systems change The importance attributed in this thesis to the role of institutions and institutional change in systems change demands a more careful consideration

32 Chapter 2 of these concepts and their roots. We provide a short introduction of the concept of institutions and institutionalisation and follow with an overview of several approaches that integrate institutional change within their theoretical concepts, institutional economics, the new institutionalism in organisational analysis, and ecological modernisation. Scott (2001: 48) conceptualises institutions as follows: – Institutions are social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience; – Institutions are composed of cultured-cognitive, normative, and regulative element elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life; – Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers, including symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, and artifacts; – Institutions operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction, from the world system to localised interpersonal relationships; – Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject to change processes, both incremental and discontinuous. The way institutions become established can be termed institutionalisation. Institutionalisation refers to increasing coordination of activities through institutions of a regulative, normative and cognitive nature (Zucker, 1988; Holm, 1995; Scott, 2001). As representatives of the cognitive approach Meyer and Rowan (1977: 341) define institutionalisation as involving “the processes by which social processes, obligations, or actualities come to take on a rulelike status in social thought and action”. A further important concept is that of legitimacy, which expresses the continuous need to be able to justify and explain why things are done in a certain way (Berger and Luckmann, 1966: 58; Scott, 2001: 58-61). Opposite to institutionalisation one can speak of de-institutionalisation involving weakening or disappearance of institutions (Oliver, 1992; Scott, 2001). New institutional economics A predominant focus on institutions of a regulative nature is visible in the work of economists such as Williamson (1981) and North (1990). Williamson points at the transaction as the basic unit of economic analysis and sets out to clarify why certain transactions take place within firms and others within markets. His main premise is that transactions may be costly due to their specificity, the bounded rationality of actors, and the possibility of deceit by interacting parties (Williamson, 1981: 553-555). In order to make transactions as efficient as possible, governance structures need to be “tailored to the specific needs of each type of transaction” (Williamson, 1981: 568). Governance structures may vary from organisation of exchanges

32 Chapter 2<br />

of <strong>the</strong>se concepts <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir roots. We provide a short introduction of <strong>the</strong><br />

concept of institutions <strong>and</strong> <strong>institutional</strong>isation <strong>and</strong> follow with an overview<br />

of several approaches that integrate <strong>institutional</strong> <strong>change</strong> within <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

<strong>the</strong>oretical concepts, <strong>institutional</strong> economics, <strong>the</strong> new <strong>institutional</strong>ism in<br />

organisational analysis, <strong>and</strong> ecological modernisation.<br />

Scott (2001: 48) conceptualises institutions as follows:<br />

– Institutions are social structures that have attained a high degree of<br />

resilience;<br />

– Institutions are composed of cultured-cognitive, normative, <strong>and</strong><br />

regulative element elements that, <strong>to</strong>ge<strong>the</strong>r with associated activities <strong>and</strong><br />

resources, provide stability <strong>and</strong> meaning <strong>to</strong> social life;<br />

– Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers, including<br />

symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, <strong>and</strong> artifacts;<br />

– Institutions operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction, from <strong>the</strong> world<br />

system <strong>to</strong> localised interpersonal relationships;<br />

– Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject <strong>to</strong> <strong>change</strong><br />

processes, both incremental <strong>and</strong> discontinuous.<br />

The way institutions become established can be termed <strong>institutional</strong>isation.<br />

Institutionalisation refers <strong>to</strong> increasing coordination of activities through<br />

institutions of a regulative, normative <strong>and</strong> cognitive nature (Zucker, 1988;<br />

Holm, 1995; Scott, 2001). As representatives of <strong>the</strong> cognitive approach<br />

Meyer <strong>and</strong> Rowan (1977: 341) define <strong>institutional</strong>isation as involving “<strong>the</strong><br />

processes by which social processes, obligations, or actualities come <strong>to</strong> take<br />

on a rulelike status in social thought <strong>and</strong> action”. A fur<strong>the</strong>r important<br />

concept is that of legitimacy, which expresses <strong>the</strong> continuous need <strong>to</strong> be able<br />

<strong>to</strong> justify <strong>and</strong> explain why things are done in a certain way (Berger <strong>and</strong><br />

Luckmann, 1966: 58; Scott, 2001: 58-61). Opposite <strong>to</strong> <strong>institutional</strong>isation<br />

one can speak of de-<strong>institutional</strong>isation involving weakening or<br />

disappearance of institutions (Oliver, 1992; Scott, 2001).<br />

New <strong>institutional</strong> economics<br />

A predominant focus on institutions of a regulative nature is visible in <strong>the</strong><br />

work of economists such as Williamson (1981) <strong>and</strong> North (1990).<br />

Williamson points at <strong>the</strong> transaction as <strong>the</strong> basic unit of economic analysis<br />

<strong>and</strong> sets out <strong>to</strong> clarify why certain transactions take place within firms <strong>and</strong><br />

o<strong>the</strong>rs within markets. His main premise is that transactions may be costly<br />

due <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir specificity, <strong>the</strong> bounded rationality of ac<strong>to</strong>rs, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> possibility<br />

of deceit by interacting parties (Williamson, 1981: 553-555). In order <strong>to</strong><br />

make transactions as efficient as possible, governance structures need <strong>to</strong> be<br />

“tailored <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> specific needs of each type of transaction” (Williamson,<br />

1981: 568). Governance structures may vary from organisation of ex<strong>change</strong>s

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!