Abstract
Institutions and actors both play a critical role in sustainability transitions, yet they have never been investigated together. This study combines both dimensions, systematically applying an institutional logics and boundary spanning lens to examine the interplay between structure and agency over the course of a particular system innovation: the case of urban stormwater management in Melbourne, Australia. Looking through this dual lens reveals the socio-institutional patterns and mechanisms that determine inertia and practice change in the urban stormwater management system. We found that structure and agency co-evolve; when their relationship changes, the dynamics between boundary spanning and institutional logics change too – as do the corresponding niche and regime developments. Our findings suggest that even radical innovations can be successfully institutionalized when using certain forms of boundary spanning at specific phases of a system innovation.
Highlights
Tackling the societal challenges of the twenty-first century requires urgent, system-wide change in sectors such as energy (Verbong & Loorbach 2012), mobility (Geels et al, 2011), agriculture (Spaargaren et al, 2012) and water management (Pahl-Wostl, 2006)
While the ideal types developed by Fuenfschilling and Truffer offer a helpful typology of institutional logics in urban water management, we have adapted the last column in Table 3 based on current scientific, political, and public thinking and discourse about a Water Sensitive Logic (WSL) as used in Melbourne
This study investigated the co-evolution of structure and agency over the course of a system innovation through an institutional logics and boundary spanning lens
Summary
Tackling the societal challenges of the twenty-first century requires urgent, system-wide change in sectors such as energy (Verbong & Loorbach 2012), mobility (Geels et al, 2011), agriculture (Spaargaren et al, 2012) and water management (Pahl-Wostl, 2006). While established sociological theory emphasizes that these two dimensions are inextricably linked (Bourdieu, 1977; Giddens, 1984), they have mostly been examined separately in transitions research, with little attention paid to their interactions. This overemphasis on one dimension at the expense of the other reduces the explanatory power of institutional and agency theory and leads to one-sided views of inertia and practice change in socio-technical systems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call