DISCUSIÓN

Institutional theory makes a distinction between sociological (i.e. cultural, normative and cognitive behaviour) and economic (i.e. rational, self-interested, logical) explanations of human behaviour, including the role of power, its distribution and how it affects relationships, via ‘a set of related analytical ideas that help to bring theoretical dimensions together to explain the relationship of networks with outcomes’ (Blom-Hansen, 1997: 674). In particular, institutional insights consider issue of both agency (the behaviour of individuals) and structure (the role of organisations) for shaping policy.

Recognising there are different types of institutionalism (see Jessop, 2001), ontologically, the focus of the research interest here is to bridge economic, spatial and governance insights of institutions as

‘the basic unit of social organisation’ (Amin, 2001: 1237), by drawing on institutionalist

perspectives relevant to the study of economic development, emphasizing ‘the importance of social and cultural conditions’ of economic activity (Cumbers et al. 2003: 325).

To ensure ‘the role of institutions [is] considered in an explicit and systematic way’ (Blom-Hansen, 1997: 674), iinstitutional theory for understanding economic development policy in the context of this thesis draws mainly upon: Bathelt and Gluckler (2013) and Evenhuis, (2017) multi-scalar economic geography perspectives of institutions; Rodríguez-Pose (2013) conceptualization of informal and formal network rules, ties and structures; and Lowndes (2001) for understanding urban political processes. The view of institutions in this research is thus suited to the ontological view of institutions as shaping, but also being shaped by the environment, contrasted with more rationalistic perspectives (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013).

This section provides an overview of the institutional insights relative to: Rodríguez-Pose (2013), Bathelt and Gluckler (2013), Evenhuis (2017) and Lowndes (2001), in order to clarify and synthesis an extent understanding of institutions for economic development.

4.2.1 Defining Institutions:

Institutional analysis from a social science perspective, is regarded one of the ‘most widely used frameworks’ (Araral and Amri, 2016) for understanding networked processes, in particular, its use for understanding the influence of the recent ‘place-based approaches to territorial development’

(Tomaney, 2014: 231).

Public sector institutions and individuals involved in networks are viewed as predominately shaped and embedded in institutional context, resulting in network policy outcomes that are ‘influenced by a set of contextual factors (i.e. exogenous)’ (Araral and Amri, 2016: 74). Given the research focus on understanding ULAC as an economic development policy involving government agencies representing both national and urban scales, Bathelt and Glückler (2013) and Evenhuis (2017) multi-scalar conceptualisations are relevant in the context of this thesis. The ontological

perspective of institutions for economic development across various levels of scale, are viewed as:

‘structures that shape social interactions [and] the interplay of sets of social structures at various levels of scale’

Evenhuis (2017: 2-3)

‘…from a relational perspective [of] how institutions emerge in a contextual, path-dependent, yet contingent way…[through] the roles of agents and organizations, the economic practices and relationships in which they engage, and the resulting social institutions and their dynamics at different spatial and non-spatial scales’

Bathelt and Glückler (2013: 341-342) Evenhuis (2017) perspective of institutions for economic development makes a key distinction between various types of institutions and their somewhat diverse roles, recognizing that ‘structures can shape and constrain individual choices’ Gertler (2010: 4). Bathelt and Glückler (2013) provide a relational economic geography perspective by integrating approaches from different fields of the social sciences, whereas Evenhuis (2017) relational perspective is slightly wider as it focuses attention on the subnational scale of various types of institutions. Institutions can refer to both the institutional arrangement (i.e. organisations, regulatory agencies, procedures, agreements, routine processes, rituals) and the institutional environment (i.e. macro-environment context, norms, regulations) relative to both formal (i.e. rules, procedures, contracts) or informal structures (i.e.

norms, conventions, traditions, routines) (Evenhuis, 2017: 3), where the dynamics of institutional change vary relative to the different types of institutions (Evenhuis, 2017) (refer to Figure 9).

Therefore, understanding ULAC networks in economic development involving government agencies from differing institutional contexts, views institutions as: economic development networks for economic gain (Bathelt and Glückler, 2013) involving interaction between government actors embedded within different institutional contexts (Evenhuis, 2017).

4.2.2 Formal and Informal Institutions in Economic Development Networks:

A key theme in academic literature is recognition of the important role of institutions ‘in shaping processes of economic development’ (Cumbers et al. 2003: 328). Institutional analysis in

economic research broadly focuses on how activities are organised in different contexts and their importance for economic processes, highlighting the significance of ‘path dependency of collective practices, which circumscribe economic potential’ (Amin, 2001: 1239), recognising that economic activity of agents is conditioned and constrained by institutional structures. Institutional context is believed to impact economic activity and outcomes (Storper and Rodriguez-pose, 2006).

Williamson (2000) provides a comprehensive review of the New Institutional economics (NIE), its diverse nature, dimensions and complexity.

Traditional institutional geography insights view collaboration between local government agencies as being ‘inherently spatial’ (Gerber, 2015: 1), for information sharing, policy development, or land use planning, for example, from a ‘meso-level understanding of economic life of cities and regions’

(Amin, 2001: 1237). The economic geography literature suggests that ‘spatial context matters in different settings’ (p1238) for the features of ‘embededness’ (Amin and Thrift, 1994) and ‘path dependency’ (Storper, 1997) relative to the historical, political, cultural, and policy content shaping a places overall institutional context.

Regardless of a range of economic, spatial and governance institutional perspectives, institutionalisms largely perceive the economy through a broad set of social rules and norms (Amin, 1999), in terms of: the role of informal conventions as well as formal rules and structures;

the way in which institutions embody values and power relationships; and the impact of institutions upon behaviour, and interaction between individuals and institutions (Lowndes, 2001).

Institutional theory considers the role of institutional structures and activities (i.e. formal and informal) for economic, social, cultural, or political ends, that can: act both as a constraint (North, 1990), and enabler of networked behavior (Bathelt and Glückler, 2013); as well as define and shape actor behaviour according to organisational position, authority, and rules (Ostrom, 2005).

However, ‘how institutions matter’ (Rodriquez-Pose, 2013: 1035) is a key concern of this research, where economic development policy is understood as being largely embedded in national policy approaches that negate the importance of local institutional context (Pike et al. 2006). The view in this thesis is that ‘institutions matter’ (Rodriquez-pose: 2013: 1036) for economic development at the national level (Jackson and Deeg, 2008), but also, at the subnational level, across various scales, by taking into consideration the role of different types of institutions.

Evenhues (2017) conceptualises institutions for economic development by paying particular attention to the importance of a ‘differentiated and multi-scalar understanding of institutional change in regions and cities…provide[ing] scope for agency’ making a clear distinction between the different types and functions of institutions in economic development.

Therefore, the approach to the thesis research is sympathetic to the institutional approach in

Evenhues (2017) and Bathelt and Glückler (2013), sharing their ontological positions on the role of

institutions in economic development at the subnational level. The research analyses the role and impact of different dimensions of formal and informal institutions on the PV of ULAC, according to: functional, contextual and relationship dimensions, relative to the institutional environment, function and social embeddedness (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Path Dependent Institutional Dimensions in Economic Development

The figure provides a framework for understanding institutional impacts in economic development, and the different dimensions within a complex set of networked activity. ‘operational institutions’

relate to the working of the network itself in terms of constituted processes either formal or informal. The ‘environmental institutions’ relate more to the external scale of the network (i.e.

national or international level), which largely condition and impact the lower level institutions within the network, that affects the culture, beliefs, traditions, experiences, historical context, and political views (i.e. socio-cultural influences of the whole network context). Therefore, the

operational and environmental institutions can be both internal and external to the network process.

The background of larger political, economic and social structures at a certain point in time will

NETWORK INSTITUTIONS (ENVIRONMENTAL) macro-environment context; culture; history; economics

NETWORK INSTITUTIONS (OPERATIONAL):

governance; regulations; procedures; agreements; routine processes, rituals; norms;

FORMAL INSTITUTIONS:

Laws; procedures; contracts; organisations

INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS:

Norms; trust; conventions; traditions; Routines

Functional dimensions

Contextual dimensions

Relational dimensions

STRUCTURED INSTITUTIONS:

Standards, routines, work practices

GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS: (MULTI-SCALER/AGENCY):

Strategic and Operational

SCALE:

SUPRANATIONAL, NATIONAL, SUBNATIONAL

PATH DEPENDANT