Recent studies of new institutional spaces typically underplay the uneven and contested process of institutional change by undervaluing the role of inherited institutions and discourses. This is a critical issue as neoliberal networked forms of governance interact with inherited institutional arrangements, characterised by important path dependencies that guide actors. Contradiction and tensions can emerge, culminating in crisis tendencies, and producing both discursive and material contestation between actors. It is with an understanding of path dependencies, ideas (structured into discourses), and (perceived and actual) crisis tendencies that this paper examines contested institutional change through a case-study analysis of one city, and a critical engagement with neoinstitutionalism. The purpose is to examine, firstly, the significance of inherited path-dependent arrangements in fostering conflict and crisis tendencies during interaction with emergent state action; secondly, the extent to which crisis is evident in processes of institutional change and the form that this takes; and, thirdly, the importance of ideas in producing institutional transformation. It is found that institutional conflict is evident between inherited institutions and emergent state action, and stems both from the way agents are organised by the state and from certain path dependencies, but that this does not lead to an actual material crisis. Rather, the nation-state, in partnership with senior city government actors, use ideational/discursive ‘crisis talk’ as a means by which to induce institutional change. The role of ideas has been in critical in this process as the nation-state frames problems and solutions in line with its existing policy paradigm and institutional arrangements, and with discourses further reinforcing existing material power relations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyNParkerAMcDonaldK, 1995Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy (UCL Press, London)
2.
BélandD, 2005, “Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective”Social Policy and Administration391–18
3.
BlythM, 2001Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
4.
BlythM, 2003, “Structures do not come with an instruction sheet: Interests, ideas, and progress in political science”Perspectives on Politics1695–706
5.
BogdanorV (Ed.), 2005Joined-up Government (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
6.
BrennerN, 2004New State Spaces (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
7.
BrennerNTheodoreN, 2002, “Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism”’, in Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe Eds BrennerNTheodoreN (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 2–32
CallinicosA, 2006The Resources of Critique (Polity Press, Cambridge)
10.
CameronA, 2008, “Crisis? What crisis? Displacing the spatial imaginary of the fiscal state”Geoforum391145–1154
11.
CampbellJ, 2005Institutional Change and Globalisation (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
12.
CochraneA, 2006Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Introduction (Blackwell, Oxford)
13.
DeanM, 1999Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (Sage, London)
14.
DowdingK, 2004, “Interpretation, truth and investigation: Comments on Bevir and Rhodes”British Journal of Politics and International Relations6129–164
15.
FinlaysonA, 2004, “The interpretive approach in political science: A symposium”British Journal of Politics and International Relations6129–164
16.
FischerF, 2003Reframing Public Policy (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
17.
FullerCGeddesM, 2008, “Urban governance under neoliberalism: New Labour and the restructuring of state-space”Antipode40252–282
18.
GeddesM, 2006, “Limits to local governance: Institutionalist analysis and political economy”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research3076–97
HajerM, 2005, “Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation”Administration and Society36624–647
21.
HajerMHWagenaar, 2003Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
22.
HallP, 1993, “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain”Comparative Politics25275–296
23.
HallPATaylorRCR, 1998, “The potential of historical institutionalism: A response to Hay and Wincott”Political Studies46958–962
24.
HaughtonG, 1998, “Private profits–public drought: The creation of a crisis in water management for West Yorkshire”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series23419–433
25.
HayC, 1999, “Crisis and the structural transformation of the state: Interrogating the process of change”British Journal of Politics and International Relations1317–344
26.
HayC, 2001, “The ‘crisis’ of Keynesianism and the rise of neo-liberalism in Britain: An ideational institutionalist approach”, in The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis Eds CampbellJLPedersonOK (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) pp 193–218
27.
HayC, 2004, “Taking ideas seriously in explanatory political analysis”British Journal of Politics and International Relations6142–149
28.
HayC, 2007, “‘Constructivist institutionalism”, in The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions Eds RhodesRAWBinderSRockmanB (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 56–74
29.
HayCRosamondB, 2002, “Globalisation, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives”Journal of European Public Policy9147–167
30.
HayCWincottD, 1998, “Structure, agency, and historical institutionalism”Political Studies46951–957
31.
HoltonRJ, 1987, “The idea of crisis in modern society”British Journal of Sociology38502–520
32.
JessopB, 2000, “Governance failure”, in The New Politics of British Urban Governance Ed. StokerG (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
33.
JessopB, 2002The Future of the Capitalist State (Polity Press, Cambridge)
34.
JohnsonCOsborneS, 2003, “Local strategic partnerships, neighbourhood renewal and the limits to co-governance”Public Money and Management23(3) 147–154
35.
JonesMWardK, 2002, “Excavating the logic of British urban policy: Neoliberalism as the ‘crisis of crisis-management”’, in Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe Eds BrennerNTheodoreN (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 126–147
36.
KaplanTJ, 1993, “Reading policy narratives: Beginnings, middles and ends”, in Argumentation Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Eds FisherFForesterJ (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 167–185
37.
KataokaS, 2009, “‘Posty’ urban political theory”, in Theories of Urban Politics Eds DaviesJSImbroscioDL (Sage, London) pp 73–88
38.
KingDHansenD, 1999, “Experts at work: State autonomy, social learning and eugenic sterilization in 1930s Britain”British Journal of Political Science2077–107
39.
LarnerWWaltersW, 2000, “Privatization, governance and identity: The United Kingdom and New Zealand compared”Policy and Politics28361–377
40.
MacKinnonD, 2000, “Managerialism, governmentality and the state: A neo-Foucauldian approach to local economic governance”Political Geography19293–314
41.
MasseyD, 2005For Space (Sage, London)
42.
MillerPRoseN, 1990, “Governing economic life”Economy and Society191–31
43.
NCC, 2005One City Partner: The Fresh Start ProcessNottingham City Council, Nottingham
44.
NRU, 2001National Strategy for Neighbourhood RenewalNeighbourhood Renewal Unit, London
45.
NRU, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, London2004aThe Places Project Report
46.
NRU, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, London2004b, “Notes of Place Project ministerial mini-summit”, 30 November
47.
OCPN Change Team, 2005, “Progress and outcomes: Report from the Fresh Start Change Team”, One City Partnership Nottingham, Nottingham
48.
ODPM, 2005Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships: Final ReportOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister, London
49.
OffeC, 1985Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations in Work and Politics (Polity Press, Cambridge)
50.
PiersonPSkocpolT, 2002, “Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science”, in Political Science: State of the Discipline Eds KatznelsonIMilnerHV (W W Norton, New York) pp 693–721
51.
RacoM, 2003, “Assessing the discourses and practices of regeneration in a growing region”Geoforum3437–55
52.
RoseN, 1996, “Governing advanced liberal democracies”, in Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism, and Rationalities of Government Eds BarryAOsborneTRoseN (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 37–64
53.
RoseNMillerP, 1992, “Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government”British Journal of Sociology43173–205
54.
SassenC, 2005Linguistic Dimensions of Crisis Talk (John Benjamins, Amsterdam)
55.
SchmidtV, 2002The Futures of European Capitalism (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
56.
SchmidtV, 2008, “Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse”Annual Review of Political Science11303–326
57.
StokerG, 2004Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
58.
StoneD, 2002Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-making (W W Norton, New York)
59.
StreeckWThelenK, 2005, “Introduction”, in Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies Eds StreeckWThelenK (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 1–39
60.
TorfingJ, 2001, “Path dependent Danish welfare reforms: The contribution of the new institutionalisms to understanding evolutionary change”Scandinavian Political Studies24277–309
61.
UitermarkJ, 2005, “The genesis and evolution of urban policy: A confrontation of regulationist and governmentality approaches”Political Geography24137–163
