Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning

Hazem Abu-Orf

doi:doi:10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning

Hazem Abu-Orf

Published in Urban and Regional Planning (Volume 3, Issue 3)

Received: 8 September 2018 Accepted: 4 October 2018 Published: 24 October 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The background to this study is addressing how formal and informal institutions might intersect in planning. This article has at its aim addressing not only the effects that formal and/or informal institutions have but also how both shape each other. In fulfilling this aim, analysis in this study adopts qualitative research methods, including qualitative interviewing, direct observation and archival records, which are applied to the Nicosia Master Plan that is considered in this study as a particular case study because it arguably helps this study to fulfill its aims. The perspective of formal/informal ‘dialectics’, marked by a ‘mutual-shaping’ exercise, is applied to this case study. Its application reveals several arguments as follow. First, formal institutions are found in this study to be blocked from mobilizing any development, however, remain the key determinant. The second argument concerns informal institutions that have been found to adopt strategies capable of mobilizing development, nevertheless, these strategies could not obviate the central role of formal institutions. Thirdly, formal institutions formalize informal institutions by ‘absorbing’ the latter into their hierarchy while equally denying any degree of autonomy, nor a role assigned, to informal institutions. Altogether, the findings revealed in this study stress the importance of the political and economic contexts of power that are key to how the formal/informal ‘dialectics’ occur.

Published in	Urban and Regional Planning (Volume 3, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
Page(s)	80-91
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

‘Mutual-shaping’, Dialectics of Formal/Informal Institutions, New Formality, Formal/Informal Configurations

References

[1]	Bolan R (1991): ‘Planning and institutional design’, Planning Theory, Vol. 5, pp. 6 7-34.
[2]	Gualini E (2002): “Institutional capacity building as an issue of collective action and institutionalisation: some theoretical remarks”, in Institutional Capacity Building as an Issue of Collective Action and Institutionalisation: Some Theoretical Remarks Eds G Cars, P Healey, A Madanipour, C de Magalhaes (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp. 29 -44.
[3]	Healey P, Cars G, Madanipour A, de Magalhaes C (2002): “Transforming governance, institutionalist analysis and institutional capacity”, in Transforming Governance, Institutionalist Analysis and Institutional Capacity Eds. G Cars, P Healey, A Madanipour, C de Magalhaes (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp. 6 – 28.
[4]	Alexander E R (2000): “Inter-organizational coordination and strategic planning: the architecture of institutional design”, in Inter-organizational Coordination and Strategic Planning: The Architecture of Institutional Design Eds. W Salet, A Faludi (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam) pp. 159-174.
[5]	Healey P, 1998, “Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning'' Environment and Planning A, Vol. 30, pp. 1531 – 1546.
[6]	Mahoney J and Thelen K (2010): ‘A theory of gradual institutional change’, in J. Mahoney and K. Thelen (eds), 1–37.
[7]	Waylen G (2014): “Informal institutions, institutional change, and Gender equality, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 67(1), pp. 212-223.
[8]	Hall V and Taylor R (1996): ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44, 936–57.
[9]	Hay C (2008): ‘Constructivist institutionalism’, in R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder and B. A. Rockman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 56–74.
[10]	Pontusson J (2005): Inequality and Prosperity: Social Europe vs. Liberal America, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[11]	North D (2001): Needed: A theory of change in Meir, G. M. & Steigler, J. E., Eds. Frontiers of development economics: The future in perspective, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 491.
[12]	Rizzello S and Turvani M (2002): Subjective diversity and social learning: a cognitive perspective for understanding institutional behaviour in Constitutional Political Economy, Vol 13, pp. 197-210.
[13]	Williamson E (2000): The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 38(3), pp. 595-613.
[14]	North D (1990): Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, New York, NY, Cambridge.
[15]	Lowndes V and David R (2013): Why Institutions Matter, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
[16]	Radnitz S (2011): “Informal Politics and the State”, Comparative Politics, Vol. 43 (3): pp. 351–71.
[17]	Helmke G and Levitsky S (2004): “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research genda”, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 2 (4): pp. 725–40.
[18]	Helmke G and Levitsky S (2006): “Introduction.” In Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from atin America, edited by Gretchen Helmke and Steven Levitsky, 1–32, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[19]	Azari J and Smith J (2012): “Unwritten Rules: Informal Institutions in Established Democracies.” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 10 (1): pp. 37–55.
[20]	Grzymala-Busse A (2010): The best laid plans. The impact of informal rules on formal institutions in transitional regimes., Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 45, pp. 311-333.
[21]	Van Assche K, Beunen R, Duuineveld M (2014): ‘Formal/informal dialectics and the self-transformation of spatial planning systems’, Administration and Society, Vol. 46 (6), pp. 654-683.
[22]	Tsai, Kellee. 2006. “Adaptive Informal Institutions and Endogenous Institutional Change in China”, World Politics Vol. 59 (1): pp. 116–41.
[23]	Williams, N and Vorely, T (2015): Institutional asymmetry: How formal and informal institutions affect entrepreneurship in Bulgaria, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 33 (8), 840-861.
[24]	Salet M (1994): Om Recht en Staat (On law and state). The Hague, the Netherlands: WRR (Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy).
[25]	Giddens A (1984): The constitution of society, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
[26]	Kiser J and E Ostrom (1982): The three worlds of action. In Strategies of political enquiry, edited by E. Ostrom, 179-222. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[27]	Weber M (1921): Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Berkeley, University of California Press, Vol. 2, 1978.
[28]	Ostrom E (1990): Governing the commons, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[29]	High C, Pelling M and Rengasamy S: (2004): Local agency, adaptation and the shadow system: The institutional architecture of social learning in rural areas of the UK and India. XI World Congress of Rural Sociology, Trondheim, Norway.
[30]	North D. (1997), ‘Understanding Economic Change’, in J. Nelson, C. Tilly, L. Walker, eds., Transforming Post-communist Political Economies, Washington D. C., National Academy Press, 13-18.
[31]	North D (1994): ‘Economic Performance Through Time’, American Economic Review, 84(3), June, 359-368.
[32]	Pejovich S (1999): “The Effects of the International of Formal and Informal Institutions on Social Stability and Economic Development”, Journal of Markets & Morality, Vol. 2 (2): pp.164–81.
[33]	Winiecki J (2000): ‘Formal Rules, Informal Rules, and Economic Performance’, Acta OEconomica, Vol. 51(2), pp. 147-172.
[34]	Nee V (1998): ‘Norms and Networks in Economic and Organizational Performance’, American Economic review, Vol. 88 (2), May, pp. 85-89.
[35]	Voigt S and Engerer H (2001): ‘Institutions and Transition. Possible Policy Implications of the New Institutional Economics’, SSRN, Working paper, December.
[36]	Lutzoni, L (2016): “Informalized urban space design: rethinking the relationship between formal and informal, City, Territory and Architecture, Vol. 3 (20), pp. 1-14.
[37]	Levitsky S and Slater D (2011): “Ruling Politics: The Formal and Informal Foundations of Institutional Reform”, Paper, Workshop on Informal Institutions, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
[38]	Hegel F (2011): Nauka logiki [Logics science] t.I, Warszawa: PWN.
[39]	Cozzolino, S (2017): The City as action: the dialectic between rules and spontaneity, Polytechnic University of Milan, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Milan, Italy.
[40]	UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat) (1984): Nicosia Master Plan: Final Report, Nicosia (south): UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat).
[41]	UNCHS (Habitat) (1988): Nicosia Master Plan: A landmark for Future Cyprus, Nairobi: UNCHS.
[42]	Demetriades L (1998): ‘The Nicosia Master Plan’, Journal of Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 8 (2), pp. 169-176.
[43]	UNHCR (1996): The Nicosia Sewerage Project: A plan for Nicosia A strategy for the World, UNCHR: Nicosia (south).
[44]	UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat) (1985): Nicosia Central Area, Vol. VIII, Investment programme, Nicosia (south).
[45]	Mitchell J (1983): ‘Case and institutional analysis’, Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 186-211.
[46]	Hocknell P (2001): Boundaries of Collaboration: Cyprus, de facto Partition, and the Delimitation of Transboundary Resource Management, Boston: Kluwer Law International.
[47]	UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat) (1981): Nicosia Master Plan C.B.D. (Central Business District) – Analysis of Existing Situation, Nicosia (south): UNDP/UNCHS (Habitat).
[48]	UNDP (1991): UNDP in Cyprus: 1960-1990, Nicosia (south): UNDP office.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Hazem Abu-Orf. (2018). Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning. Urban and Regional Planning, 3(3), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Hazem Abu-Orf. Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning. Urban Reg. Plan. 2018, 3(3), 80-91. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Hazem Abu-Orf. Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning. Urban Reg Plan. 2018;3(3):80-91. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11,
  author = {Hazem Abu-Orf},
  title = {Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning},
  journal = {Urban and Regional Planning},
  volume = {3},
  number = {3},
  pages = {80-91},
  doi = {10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.urp.20180303.11},
  abstract = {The background to this study is addressing how formal and informal institutions might intersect in planning. This article has at its aim addressing not only the effects that formal and/or informal institutions have but also how both shape each other. In fulfilling this aim, analysis in this study adopts qualitative research methods, including qualitative interviewing, direct observation and archival records, which are applied to the Nicosia Master Plan that is considered in this study as a particular case study because it arguably helps this study to fulfill its aims. The perspective of formal/informal ‘dialectics’, marked by a ‘mutual-shaping’ exercise, is applied to this case study. Its application reveals several arguments as follow. First, formal institutions are found in this study to be blocked from mobilizing any development, however, remain the key determinant. The second argument concerns informal institutions that have been found to adopt strategies capable of mobilizing development, nevertheless, these strategies could not obviate the central role of formal institutions. Thirdly, formal institutions formalize informal institutions by ‘absorbing’ the latter into their hierarchy while equally denying any degree of autonomy, nor a role assigned, to informal institutions. Altogether, the findings revealed in this study stress the importance of the political and economic contexts of power that are key to how the formal/informal ‘dialectics’ occur.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning
AU  - Hazem Abu-Orf
Y1  - 2018/10/24
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
T2  - Urban and Regional Planning
JF  - Urban and Regional Planning
JO  - Urban and Regional Planning
SP  - 80
EP  - 91
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1697
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
AB  - The background to this study is addressing how formal and informal institutions might intersect in planning. This article has at its aim addressing not only the effects that formal and/or informal institutions have but also how both shape each other. In fulfilling this aim, analysis in this study adopts qualitative research methods, including qualitative interviewing, direct observation and archival records, which are applied to the Nicosia Master Plan that is considered in this study as a particular case study because it arguably helps this study to fulfill its aims. The perspective of formal/informal ‘dialectics’, marked by a ‘mutual-shaping’ exercise, is applied to this case study. Its application reveals several arguments as follow. First, formal institutions are found in this study to be blocked from mobilizing any development, however, remain the key determinant. The second argument concerns informal institutions that have been found to adopt strategies capable of mobilizing development, nevertheless, these strategies could not obviate the central role of formal institutions. Thirdly, formal institutions formalize informal institutions by ‘absorbing’ the latter into their hierarchy while equally denying any degree of autonomy, nor a role assigned, to informal institutions. Altogether, the findings revealed in this study stress the importance of the political and economic contexts of power that are key to how the formal/informal ‘dialectics’ occur.
VL  - 3
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Hazem Abu-Orf

Faculty of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning, University of Palestine, Gaza, Palestine

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Hazem Abu-Orf. (2018). Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning. Urban and Regional Planning, 3(3), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Hazem Abu-Orf. Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning. Urban Reg. Plan. 2018, 3(3), 80-91. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Hazem Abu-Orf. Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning. Urban Reg Plan. 2018;3(3):80-91. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11,
  author = {Hazem Abu-Orf},
  title = {Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning},
  journal = {Urban and Regional Planning},
  volume = {3},
  number = {3},
  pages = {80-91},
  doi = {10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.urp.20180303.11},
  abstract = {The background to this study is addressing how formal and informal institutions might intersect in planning. This article has at its aim addressing not only the effects that formal and/or informal institutions have but also how both shape each other. In fulfilling this aim, analysis in this study adopts qualitative research methods, including qualitative interviewing, direct observation and archival records, which are applied to the Nicosia Master Plan that is considered in this study as a particular case study because it arguably helps this study to fulfill its aims. The perspective of formal/informal ‘dialectics’, marked by a ‘mutual-shaping’ exercise, is applied to this case study. Its application reveals several arguments as follow. First, formal institutions are found in this study to be blocked from mobilizing any development, however, remain the key determinant. The second argument concerns informal institutions that have been found to adopt strategies capable of mobilizing development, nevertheless, these strategies could not obviate the central role of formal institutions. Thirdly, formal institutions formalize informal institutions by ‘absorbing’ the latter into their hierarchy while equally denying any degree of autonomy, nor a role assigned, to informal institutions. Altogether, the findings revealed in this study stress the importance of the political and economic contexts of power that are key to how the formal/informal ‘dialectics’ occur.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Conceptualizing the Co-Existence of Formal and Informal Institutions Within Planning
AU  - Hazem Abu-Orf
Y1  - 2018/10/24
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
T2  - Urban and Regional Planning
JF  - Urban and Regional Planning
JO  - Urban and Regional Planning
SP  - 80
EP  - 91
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1697
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20180303.11
AB  - The background to this study is addressing how formal and informal institutions might intersect in planning. This article has at its aim addressing not only the effects that formal and/or informal institutions have but also how both shape each other. In fulfilling this aim, analysis in this study adopts qualitative research methods, including qualitative interviewing, direct observation and archival records, which are applied to the Nicosia Master Plan that is considered in this study as a particular case study because it arguably helps this study to fulfill its aims. The perspective of formal/informal ‘dialectics’, marked by a ‘mutual-shaping’ exercise, is applied to this case study. Its application reveals several arguments as follow. First, formal institutions are found in this study to be blocked from mobilizing any development, however, remain the key determinant. The second argument concerns informal institutions that have been found to adopt strategies capable of mobilizing development, nevertheless, these strategies could not obviate the central role of formal institutions. Thirdly, formal institutions formalize informal institutions by ‘absorbing’ the latter into their hierarchy while equally denying any degree of autonomy, nor a role assigned, to informal institutions. Altogether, the findings revealed in this study stress the importance of the political and economic contexts of power that are key to how the formal/informal ‘dialectics’ occur.
VL  - 3
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download