Explorations in Planning Theory

Public Choice, 1986

Our goal is to develop a theory that combines the best insights of philosophical and scientific theories of institutions. We are not committed a priori to save the commonsense notion of institution, or the thesis of human exceptionalism. We think that human cognition is important, but we do not claim that common knowledge or collective intentions are necessary for coordination. Like most of our commentators, we believe that there is continuity between simple rules of precedence and sophisticated institutions like property, marriage, or money. Finally, we argue that a satisfactory account of institutions must be compatible with different theories of normativity, specifying the social and psychological mechanisms that make it possible to override selfish desires.

Performance Research, 2018

2012

In this comment, we respond to comments raised by Eastwood (2010) in Q1 Q2, Q3 response to our article on the role of evolutionary psychology in understanding institutions (Boyer and Petersen, 2011). We discuss how evolutionary psychological models account for cultural variation and change in institutions, how sociological institutionalism and evolutionary models can inform each other, how evolutionary psychological models illuminate the role of power in institutional design and the possibility of a 'general theory' of institutions. We are grateful to Jonathan Eastwood for his thoughtful discussion (Eastwood, 2012) of our argument concerning the 'naturalness' of institutions (Boyer and Petersen, 2011). We are particularly encouraged by the fact that he focuses on po

2006

The following pages explore the social reality of institutional lag. Since existence is processive, institutions founded on certain principles and circumstances must be subject to careful examination and subsequent adjustment when they no longer produce valued results. The social reality of institutional lag, however, has roots in a more personal reluctance to relinquish certitude and undergo change. Since growth is accomplished through such a process, the reluctance to address change and make adjustments must be addressed. Thus, this inquiry begins with the recognition and analysis of institutional lag, evolves into an analysis of the individual and, finally, discusses the complicated and interwoven nature of the problem and possible solutions.

Institutions: a promising topic insufficiently clarified, 2022

The basic question of sociology is what sets of rules and order are used in society and how they are maintained. One possible answer is based on the concept of institutions, which still provokes theoretical discussions due to, among other things, a certain ambiguity, since the term 'institution' is, figuratively speaking, shrouded in a kind of fog that prevents it from being captured in any direct, clear way. Today, ambitions of philosophy, political science, anthropology or mathematical game theory, which try to solve this problem outside the sociological framework, contribute to the deepening of the ambiguities surrounding the concept of institutions. Some approaches tend to define institutions as a cyber black box with inputs and outputs, whose working remains largely hidden (especially philosophical and mathematical approaches strive to find some common universal principle or even mathematical formula). From the perspective of general sociological theory, the article considers the topic of institutions. The author identifies this topic as a central issue that needs to be reconsidered in sociology. The starting point of the article is the analysis of concepts related to the topic, their definitions and paradigmatic integration. In the following part, the author considers the theoretical interpretations in the works of Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, John Searle, and the concepts inspired by game theories and rational behaviour theories. After that, ten basic issues of the current approaches are identified. The author pays particular attention to the fact that methodological individualism tends to dominate, which explains the ignorance of certain issues, especially of a holistic and macro-social nature, thus, leading to some problematic simplifications. The article shows what needs to be changed in the current social-scientific thinking on institutions in order to develop a more appropriate starting point for the further development of sociological theory.

DESCRIPTION There is a curious paradox for the theory of planning that has come to light with the collapse of communism in the USSR and Central and Eastern Europe. The institutional setting that one would imagine most amenable to planning -- a totalitarian state controlling the entire economy and wholly dedicated to "central planning" as the primary tool of governance-- actually ended up as a serious impediment to effective planning. In essence, rigid, closed institutions, even though dogmatically dedicated to planning in theory, actually helped to defeat planning in practice. Equally challenging for planning theory is to examine the process of building new institutions in Central and Eastern Europe since their peaceful revolutions of 1989 and what these transformations imply for planning. In this presentation, I will try to address both questions, since they are interrelated, and will explore the issue from recent theory in sociology.

As is well known, many social sciences have recently attempted a sort of ‘institutional turn’ by recognizing the centrality of the institutional framework, when dealing with social and economic phenomena. Interest in such an approach has also begun to emerge in planning theory. But the passage from understanding the decisive role of institutional frameworks to suggesting how to design and modify those frameworks, is sometimes, in planning literature, overly simplistic and still somewhat ‘engineeristic’. I believe that this institutional turn could be of considerable importance for planning theory and practice, although it is perhaps better not to adopt a strictly ‘instrumentalist’ view of institutions and to recognize the marked specificity of them that calls for a more prudent and ‘evolutionary’ approach.

International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies, 2008

Institutional theory, a building block of today’s organization studies, drawing from sociology, social psychology, political science, and economics, offers explanations for social order, social action and cultural persistence. It does it with regard both to the stability of social systems at various levels (i.e. organization, field, society, world), and to the effects of institutional processes in situations of change or of conflicting legal, cultural or normative jurisdictions. Institutional theory highlights the role of rules, norms, and typifications (cultural beliefs and scripts) in constraining and empowering social action and giving meaning to social life. Earlier contributions emphasized the stabilizing role of institutions through the constitution of structures, organizational forms, fields and social actors’ identities. More recent contributions draw attention to the concurrent role of institutions in situations of change, where interests, agency and power play their own role in reaching stability or domination.