Beyond Hierarchies and Networks: Institutional Logics and Change in Transboundary Spaces

Abstract

In almost all subfields of political science in the last third of the twentieth century, it was claimed that we are witnessing a transformation of political order from hierarchies to networks. This paper traces institutional change during the twentieth century by examining structures and modes of interaction in transboundary regions in Europe and North America. First, it challenges functionalist explanations of institution-building and institutional change. Instead, the impact of general discourses and ideas is highlighted. Second, it takes a closer look at the hierarchies-to-networks transformation thesis. Whereas this thesis can be confirmed if we define hierarchies and networks as patterns of interaction, if we define hierarchies and networks in terms of modes of interaction this is less certain. De jure, institutional elements implying a "hierarchical order" have been supplanted in newer institutions by provisions allowing for "majority voting." De facto, nothing has changed, since these modes of interaction have never actually been used. In practice, the only way to achieve joint action has always been and still is through "agreement" or "consent." What has changed over the years, though, is the institutionalized approach to reaching "agreement." The older approach uses a technocratic-deductive logic. In recent years, we have been able to observe various new approaches in cross-border regions: a symbolic-inductive logic in Western Europe, a utilitarian-evolutionary logic along the U.S.-Mexican border, and a normative-constructivist logic along the U.S.-Canadian border. Based on the empirical findings, I conclude that institutional theory should pay more attention to the fact that many political institutions provide orientation, shape identities, and mobilize activities through emotional symbols.

‘Greatly exaggerated’: the death of EU studies–new regionalism dialogue? A reply to Jørgensen and Valbjørn

“…Second, the governance turn in EU studies reflects and is related to a broader shift in the way that politics happens under the conditions of both neoliberalism and globalization; in other words, the very fact that states and civil society actors have turned to regional structures and processes in recent years is part of the shift, or transformation, from 'government' to 'governance' (Blatter, 2003;Hettne 2003;Hettne and Söderbaum 2008). We will not labour this point because it is now such a feature of so much of the governance literature.…”

Image differentiation with corporate environmental responsibility

“…• Knowledge transfer (Barabási 2002;Blatter 2003;Crampton et al 1998;Mutch 2002): the research examined the role of internal networks (formal and informal) in disseminating sustainability-related knowledge through the organisation. Knowledge transfer, e.g.…”

Exploring Institutional Transformations to Address High-End Climate Change in Iberia

“…In our case, there is a clear need to build cross-border or trans-national institutional capacities capable of managing common environmental problems, such as those related to climate change. This is why we have also tried to look at the potential of existing agents to promote transformability in specific organizational arrangements [31,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47].…”

“…Different kinds of institutional synergies, as well as possible trade-offs, must be explored despite the large degree of uncertainty derived from a world going beyond 2 • C. In the case of transboundary river basins, cross-border organizations can play a major role in co-ordinating complex national and regional institutional structures, which often involve various types of actors at different scales. For this reason, cross-border organizations-including Euroregions and Working Communities (WC)-have long been considered to have an important transformative power [46], with the potential not only for improving co-ordination across spatial scales but also for enhancing the local capacity of agents to better respond to increasing climate change risks [48][49][50][51][52].…”