Planners use symbolic markers in order to frame processes of urban change and to mobilise actors. How can we explain the fact that in some cases the symbolisation of new urban spaces manages to enhance and enlarge the meaning of social change while in other cases the symbolic markers remain powerless and might even have a reverse effect? The authors doubt whether the sophistication of symbolic markers as such has much impact. The explanation for the success or failure of symbolic communication is sought within the framework of institutional embedding. This conceptual paper attempts to elaborate institutions' transformative potential through their use of symbols. To this end, it undertakes a reappraisal of institutional thought in order to conceptualise institutional transformation, the establishment of a conceptual linkage between the transformative potential of institutions and symbolic markers, and the design of an operational model of research for the institutional investigation of symbols in the planning of changing cities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbrechtsLLievoisG, 2004, “The Flemish Diamond: Urban network in the making?”European Planning Studies12351–370.
2.
AminAThriftN, 2002Cities: Reimagining the Urban (Polity Press, Cambridge).
3.
AscherF, 1995Métapolis: Ou l'avenir des villes [Métapolis: Or the future of cities] (Odile Jacob, Paris).
4.
AugéM, 1995Nonplaces: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity (Verso, London).
5.
BaldassareM, 1986Trouble in Paradise: The Suburban Transformation in America (Columbia University Press, New York).
6.
BenfordR DSnowD A, 2000, “Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment”Annual Review of Sociology26611–639.
7.
BergerP LLuckmannT, 1966The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Doubleday, Garden City, NY).
8.
BilligM, 1995Banal Nationalism (Sage, London).
9.
BöllingLSievertsT, 2004Mitten am Rand: Auf dem Weg von der Vorstadt über die Zwischenstadt zur regionalen Stadtlandschaft [Amidst the edge: On the way from suburbia via ‘Zwischenstadt’ towards regional urban landscape] (Müller und Busmann, Wuppertal).
10.
BourdieuP, 1977Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
11.
BourdieuP, 1984Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).
12.
BourdieuP, 1991Language and Symbolic Power (Polity Press, Cambridge).
13.
BuchananJ MTullockG, 1962The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).
ColemanJ S, 1990Foundations of Social Theory (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
16.
DanielzykRWoodG, 2004, “Innovative strategies of political regionalization: The case of North Rhine-Westphalia”European Planning Studies12191–207.
17.
DavyB, 2004Die neunte Stadt: Wilde Grenzen und Städteregion Ruhr 2030 [The ninth city: Untamed boundaries and city region Ruhr 2030] (Müller und Busmann, Wuppertal).
18.
DouglasM, 1971, “Deciphering a meal”, in Myth, Symbol, and Culture Ed. GeertzC (W W Norton, New York) pp 61–81.
19.
DührS, 2004, “The form, style, and use of cartographic visualisations in European spatial planning: Examples from England and Germany”Environment and Planning A361961–1989.
20.
FaludiA, 1996, “Framing with images”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2393–108.
21.
FaludiAvan der ValkA, 1994Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht).
22.
FischerF, 2003Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
23.
FischerFForesterJ, 1993The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Duke University Press, Durham, NC).
24.
FishmanR, 1987Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia (Basic Books, New York).
25.
FriedlandRAlfordR R, 1991, “Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions”, in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis Eds PowellW WDiMaggioP J (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 232–263.
26.
FriedmannJMillerJ, 1965, “The urban field”Journal of the American Institute of Planners31312–320.
27.
GarreauJ, 1991Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (Doubleday, New York).
28.
GeertzC, 1973The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, New York).
29.
GeertzC, 1975, “Common sense as cultural system”Antioch Review335–26.
30.
GonzálezS, 2006, “Scalar narratives in Bilbao: A cultural politics of scales approach to the study of urban policy”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research30836–857.
31.
GospodiniA, 2006, “Portraying, classifying and understanding the emerging landscapes in the post-industrial city”Cities23311–330.
32.
HajerM, 2003, “Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void”Policy Sciences36175–195.
33.
HajerM AWagenaarH, 2003Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
34.
HallP ATaylorRCR, 1996, “Political science and the three new institutionalisms”Political Studies44936–957.
35.
HallPThomasRGraceyHDrewettR, 1973The Containment of Urban England (Allen and Unwin, London).
36.
HealeyP, 2007Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times (Routledge, London).
37.
HeldermanJ-K, 2007Bringing the Market Back In? Institutional Complementarity and Hierarchy in Dutch Housing and Health Care PhD dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
38.
HuttonT A, 2004, “Post-industrialism, post-modernism and the reproduction of Vancouver's central area: Retheorising the 21st-century city”Urban Studies411953–1982.
39.
ImmergutE, 1998, “The theoretical core of the new institutionalism”Politics and Society265–34.
40.
InnesJ EBooherD E, 1999, “Consensus building as role playing and bricolage”Journal of the American Planning Association659–26.
41.
KeesingR M, 1974, “Theories of culture”Annual Review of Anthropology373–97.
42.
KilperHWoodG, 1995, “Restructuring policies: The Emscher Park International Building Exhibition”, in The Rise of the Rustbelt Ed. CookeP (UCL Press, London) pp 208–228.
43.
KühnM, 2003, “Greenbelt and Green Heart: Separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions”Landscape and Urban Planning6419–27.
44.
LöwM, 2008, “The constitution of space: The structuration of space through the simultaneity of effect and perception”European Journal of Social Theory1125–49.
45.
LynchK, 1981Good City Form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
46.
MahoneyJ, 2000, “Path dependence in historical sociology”Theory and Society29507–548.
47.
MahoneyJRueschemeyerD, 2003Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
48.
MarchJ GOlsenJ P, 1989Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (Free Press, New York).
49.
MayntzRScharpfF W, 1995, “Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus” [The approach of actor-centred institutionalism], in Gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung undpolitische Steuerung [Social self-regulation and governance], Eds MayntzRScharpfF W (Campus, Frankfurt am Main) pp 39–72.
50.
MontgomeryJ, 1990, “Cities and the art of cultural planning”Planning Practice and Research517–24.
51.
NasPJMJaffeRSamuelsA, 2006, “Urban symbolic ecology and the hypercity: State of the art and challenges for the future”, in Hypercity: The Symbolic Side of Urbanism Eds NasPJMSamuelsA (Kegan Paul, London) pp 1–19.
52.
NorthD C, 1990Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge University Press, New York).
53.
OstromE, 1990Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
54.
PaasiA, 1986, “The institutionalization of regions: A theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity”Fennia164105–146.
55.
PaasiA, 1991, “Deconstructing regions: Notes on the scales of spatial life”Environment and Planning A23239–256.
56.
PiersonP, 2000, “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics”American Political Science Review94251–267.
57.
PowellW WDiMaggioP, 1991The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
58.
RikerW H, 1980, “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions”American Political Science Review74432–446.
59.
SaletWGM, 2002, “Evolving institutions: An international exploration into planning and law”Journal of Planning Education and Research2226–35.
60.
SaletWThornleyAKreukelsA, 2003Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning: Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions (Spon Press, London).
61.
ScharpfF W, 1997Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
62.
ScottW R, 1995Institutions and Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
63.
SievertsT, 1997Zwischenstadt: Zwischen Ort und Welt, Raum und Zeit, Stadt und Land [published in 2003 as Cities without Cities: An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt (Routledge, London)] (Vieweg, Braunschweig).
64.
SojaE W, 2000Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions (Blackwell, Oxford).
65.
SwidlerA, 1986, “Culture in action: Symbols and strategies”American Sociological Review51273–286.
66.
ThelenK, 1999, “Historical institutionalism in comparative politics”Annual Review of Political Science2369–404.
67.
ThrogmortonJ A, 1996Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical Construction of Chicago's Electric Future (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
68.
WebberM M, 1964, “The urban place and the nonplace urban realm”, in Explorations into Urban Structure Eds WebberM MDyckmannJ WFoleyD LGuttenbergA ZWheatonWLCWursterBauer C (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA) pp 79–153.
69.
WeberM, 1922Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft [Economy and Society] (J C B Mohr, Tübingen).
70.
WilliamsonO E, 1975Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (Free Press, New York).
71.
YehAGOXuJ, 2008, “Regional cooperation in the pan-Pearl River Delta: A formulaic aspiration or a new imagination?”Built Environment34408–426.
72.
ZonneveldWVerwestF, 2005Tussen Droom en Retoriek: De Conceptualisering van Ruimte in de Nederlandse Planning [Between Dream and Rhetoric: The Conceptualisation of Space in Dutch planning] (NAi/RPB, Rotterdam/The Hague).
73.
ZukinS, 1995The Cultures of Cities (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA).
