Agency, structure, institutions, discourse (ASID) in urban and regional development

Abstract

This paper presents the relations among agency (A), structure (S), institutions (I), and discourse (D) and their analytical relevance for socioeconomic development. It argues that an adequate account of these relations must recognize their inherent spatio-temporality and, hence, their space-time dynamics. This is not an optional extra but a definite descriptive and explanatory requirement. Moreover, while structure is recognized as a product of pathdependent institutionalization and path-shaping (collective) agency, agency is seen in turn as discursively and materially reproduced and transformed. This approach treats structure in terms of a differential spatio-temporal configuration of constraints and opportunities, reference to which informs the empirical analysis of strategic agency within the overall agency, structure, institutions, discourse (ASID) heuristic. The paper concludes with an eightfold typology of particular combinations of ASID features to guide analyses of socioeconomic development in all its (dis-) junctural complexity.

Responsibility for Sustainable Development in Europe: What Does It Mean for Planning Theory and Practice?

“…Is it the planning system/institution (the structure) or the planners/individuals (the agency)? The planning system/institution is understood as a relatively enduring ensemble of structural constraints and opportunities shaping planning activities (Moulaert et al, 2016) and includes formal regulations and procedures as well as informal norms and routines defining appropriate behaviour in planning (Raitio, 2012). Planning agency is the capacity of planning agents as individuals and/or collective actors (e.g.…”

Spatial Practices and the Institutionalization of Water Sanitation Services in Southern Metropolises: The case of Jakarta and its Kampung Kojan

“…In the light of these analytical concerns, this article disentangles the varying informalities embedded in the urban water and water sanitation sector using a framework with three interrelated layers of explanation. The framework directly or indirectly makes use of theories in political economy (Bakker, ; Walker, ), political ecology (Swyngedouw et al, ; Swyngedouw, ), scalar geography (Swyngedouw, ; Brenner, ; Jonas, ) and territorial development (Moulaert and Nussbaumer, ) as well as the institutional and cultural turns these theories have adopted (Moulaert et al ., ).…”

Lost in Mobility?: Labour Migration from Baltic Lithuania to Sweden

“…The already discussed critical realist way of theory formation through iterative abstraction, which relies on a modified version of Grounded Theory, can be further detailed by employing the methodological guidance that defines what to look for in various theories; in the words of Bakewell (2010), these are the 'building blocks' of theory construction. Here, the ASID heuristic framework is a helpful tool to use (Moulaert et al 2016). First, it is based on a critical realist view.…”

“…The last note in the ASID model looks at the time and space or scale. In order to account for the relations among agency, structure, institutions, and discourse, it is necessary to acknowledge that 'space-time dynamics' is inherent (Moulaert et al 2016). These dynamics is also crucial when looking at the social change stemming from these dynamics.…”

“…Looking back at the ASID model, context is defined here as encompassing structures and institutions in time and space or scale. Structures constrain and facilitate the action and institutions 81 shape and impede action by mediating between structures and agency (Moulaert et al 2016). In migration studies, these are often defined as opportunity structures or opportunities and constraints.…”