Speakers
Description
There has long been a debate on whether and how civic action can contribute to redefining the role and functioning of institutions. Institutional change is not merely a rational or regulatory process; it is a path of trial and error. This process can lead to changes not only in the set of rules, procedures and methods of labor division in a given organization but also in the actual system of power, affecting relationships of conflicting interests that drive institutional dynamics (De Leonadis, 2024).
Institutions can be seen as both cognitive and practical routines, embodied in the habitus of social agents, guiding their action along already marked paths shaped by the flow of past actions. They are therefore often taken for granted as they are, so much so that their inertia very often leads to an impoverishment of the cognitive repertoire of the actors themselves who compose it. However, this does not mean that they cannot change (Ibidem, 2024).
Institutions are supra-individual units of analysis, with properties that cannot be reduced to the aggregation of individual motives or interests (Powell, Di Maggio, 1991). Processes of learning and change strongly depends on the nature of institutions, which are products of intentional human action. This action does not occur in a vacuum, but it is immersed – anchored or embedded – in a socially and culturally structured field. Social ties, regulatory technologies, moral considerations, material objects and places influence how institutions and decision making processes occur (Lieto, 2013).
Focusing on institutional learning and change do not mean to shifting attention away from civic action. On the contrary, the potential for learning and change within institutions heavily relies on how civic action is organized, shaped, and infused with competencies and visions.
Despite for years, planning scholars have focused on the relationship between civil society and institutions (Friedmann, 2011) – ranging from collaboration (Healey, 1997; Forester, 1999) to harsh conflict (Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000; Miraftab & Wills, 2005), from coproduction (Albrechts, 2013; Balducci, Mäntysalo, 2013; Watson, 2014; Ostanel, 2024) to agonism (Mouffe, 2005; Purcell, 2008) – we think it is time for a step forward.
Based on these premises, this roundtable aims to understand the preconditions, mechanisms, and outcomes of learning processes within what have been defined as ‘instituting processes’ (Esposito, 2021; 2022; Li Destri Nicosia & Saija, 2023), emphasizing the various impacts of civic action on the body of institutions and discussing the real potential for driving institutional change and the production of public value.
We seek scholars and researchers who aim to join us and discuss these main issues.
- How institutions of different kinds and at different levels can ‘learn’ in the field of urban transformations being confronted with civic action?
- What are the outcomes of this process of change in the institutional body, thus considered not only a procedural fact but a very complex environment made by routines, cultures, competencies, instruments and decision-making processes? What’s the outcome on the production of public value?
- How is the potential learning relation organized and shaped and how possible routines or instruments be seen as facilitators/translators?
This roundtable is organized in the framework of the Project of National Interest PNRR 2022 RESISTING - REconnecting Social innovation with InSTitutions in urban plannING.
| Keywords | planning; institutions; coproduction; conflict; civic actions |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
