Search

In this paper we question the validity of the arguments against Turkey's membership of the EU and challenge the political wisdom of excluding Turkey from Europe. First, we argue that fundamental European values are not as uniform as they are made out to be. There are significant differences among the member states and the different European regions on basic values relating to religion and democracy. Second, we argue that many of Turkey's supposed cultural differences with the rest of Europe are in fact unsubstantiated. We support our arguments by analyzing widely available macroeconomic evidence and the data from the European Values Study, 1999 (EVS99).

Policy formation is only one the three main components in the continuum of policy formation – policy implementation – policy evaluation – policy formation. To fully understand why policy outcomes often fall significantly short of policy intentions we need to examine the structuring factors, i.e., the institutions of governance, that shape the policy process. This paper focuses on the interplay between the policy process, governance, and institutions to articulate a framework for conducting institutionally sensitive policy analysis. A comparative study of the waste subsystems in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom reveals that each subsystem is the product of its “own” institutional landscape, and not directly and immediately subject to the whims of policy making at the EU scale of governance. Although there are signs of “Europeanization” in both cases, national problems, policies, and politics as manifest through the full spectrum of formal and informal institutions continue to play a major role in facilitating and curtailing change in each of the two waste subsystems. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of institutionally sensitive policy analysis for the current discourse on governance for sustainable development at the European scale.

Development and growth are products of the interplay and interaction among heterogeneous actors operating in specific institutional settings. There is a much alluded-to, but under-investigated, link between economic growth, innovation systems, and institutions. There is widespread agreement among most economists on the positive reinforcing link between innovation and growth. However, the importance of institutions as catalysts in this link has not been adequately examined. The concept of innovation systems has the potential to fill this gap. But these studies have not conducted in-depth institutional analyses or focussed on institutional transformation processes, thereby failing to link growth theory to the substantive institutional tradition in economics. In this paper we draw attention to the main shortcomings of orthodox and heterodox growth theories, some of which have been addressed by the more descriptive literature on innovation systems. Critical overviews of the literatures on growth and innovation systems are used as a foundation to propose a new perspective on the role of institutions and a framework for conducting institutional analysis using a multi-dimensional typology of institutions. The framework is then applied to cases of Taiwan and South Korea to highlight the instrumental role played by institutions in facilitating and curtailing economic development and growth.

In recent years, the concept of Regional Innovation Systems has evolved into a widely used analytical framework generating the empirical foundation for innovation policy making. Yet, the approaches utilizing this framework remain ambiguous on such key issues as the territorial dimension of innovation, e.g., the region, and the apparently important role played by "institutions" or the institutional context in the emergence and sustenance of regional innovation systems. This paper reviews and summarizes the most important ideas and arguments of the recent theorizing on regional innovation systems to provide the basis for a critical examination of such issues as (1) definition confusion and empirical validation; (2) the territorial dimension of regional innovation systems; and (3) the role of institutions. Far from having the last word on these issues, our intent in this paper is to draw attention to the definitional deficiencies of regional system of innovation theorizing and the need to address them

Agenda 21-inspired local visions and goals have not translated into actual local change. Increased interdependencies and interconnectedness at the global and other scales, inherent to varying degrees in all definitions of sustainable development, necessitate adopting a multi-level, multi-scale, multi-system, and integrated approach for analyzing the development and implementation of Agenda 21-based policies. Adopting such an approach this paper examines the causes for the failure by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to meet its objectives on sustainability. The picture that emerges from this study is one of dissatisfaction with bureaucratic rhetoric, concerns about increased polarization, disagreement with the focus on economic growth at all costs, weak or inadequate regulatory tools to curb unsustainable activity, the size and complexity of problems to be addressed, unwillingness by politicians to take charge, inadequate discourse mechanisms, and there not having been a serious, acute local problem to rally everyone around a common goal and into action. This paper identifies “Systems-related Factors” and “Inter-relational Factors” as constituting barriers to sustainability at a regional scale. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of its findings for policy.

The arena of mobile telecommunication in Europe has undergone a technological transition from analogue (first generation) to digital (second generation) technologies. While this transition is immediately attributable to shifts in demand and supply patterns, closer examination reveals that there are numerous other intervening factors that have facilitated this transition. This paper utilizes a conceptual framework for institutional analysis developed in earlier work to identify and discuss some of these factors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications from this study for an institutional perspective on technological change.

A transition to a new technological regime is complete (and stable) when accompanied with a co-stabilization between the mode of regulation and the regime of accumulation. Key to understanding the dynamics of transitions are the factors, including institutions, that “regulate” and stabilize the regime of accumulation over time. However, the available frameworks for institutional analysis employ arbitrary and narrow definition of institutions, focus mainly on the policy domain, and do not pay sufficient attention to the evolutionary characteristics of change as manifested in emergence of numerous institutions that underlie transitions. This paper consists of three parts. The first part critically reviews and synthesizes some of the main approaches for conducting institutional analysis. The second part rearticulates the concept of “transitions”, or technological regime shifts, from a systems perspective to make a case for investigating transitions as multi-level, multi-scale, and multi-system phenomena best understood in their institutional contexts. The third part proposes a framework for examining institutional change and demonstrates how this framework may be used to identify the key factors and conditions whose convergence might result in transitions in a given subsystem. Examples are drawn from the Dutch waste management subsystem to demonstrate how this framework should be operationalized.