Institutional dynamics of sustainability transitions
How institutional logics steer change in Australia‘s water sector
Lea Fünfschilling, University of Basel / Eawag
17th SPRU DPhil Day, University of Sussex, May 23-24, 2011
Outline
1)
Context and research focus
2)
Theory: A dynamic approach towards institutions: institutional logics and
institutional work
3)
Empirical Analysis: Water sector logics in Australia (preliminary results)
4)
Conclusion and Outlook
Context and Research Focus
Sustainability transitions in utility sectors

Transition theory: Focus on “institutions”, “culture”,
“social environment” etc., but unsystematic
→
Add insights of institutional theory (org.Inst.) and
elaborate dynamic framework of institutions that
accounts for structure and agency and contributes
to the understanding of sector transformations

Higher order principles shape structure, action
and practices

Content of institutional setting
(concept of institutional logics)

Agency of actors to shape the institutional setting
(concept of institutional work)
Dynamic approach towards institutions

Institutional logics: “Logics have been conceived of as organizing principles
that govern the selection of technologies, define what kinds of actors are
authorized to make claims, shape and constrain the behavioral possibilities of
actors, and specify criteria of effectiveness and efficiency.” (Lounsbury et al.
2002)


Different sources of rationality, master principles of society
stemming from central institutions in western society: market,
corporation, profession, state, family, religion
Institutional Work: “the purposive action of individuals and organizations
aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions.” (Lawrence/Suddaby
2006)

Mobilization of resources, construction of rationales and establishment of
new relations, e.g. theorizing, educating, changing normative
associations, valorizing and demonizing of practices etc.
Dynamic approach towards institutions
• Market place
• Price
• Efficiency
• Legal bureaucracy
• Political parties
• Democracy
• Welfare
fes
si o
n
Family
Corporation
• Management
• M-form
• Roles
M
Pr
o
et
k
r
a
• Personal reputation
• Quality of innovation
• Prof. association
• Peer review
Sta
te
R
on
i
g
i
el
• Household
• Patriarchal domination
• Honor
• Loyalty/solidarity
• Deity
• Congregation
• Pray/preach
Empirical Analysis and Methods
 Task:
Identify institutional logics and their consequences
in the Australia’s water sector
 Sector analysis through documents, internet, expert
interviews
 Secondary data: literature on water sectors
 Mixed methods analysis of a public inquiry to urban
water reform (qualitative content analysis with qda
software, later cluster analysis with spss)
te
a
t
S
Ma
rk
Competing water sector logics
et
Old logic
New logic
Rationality
bureaucratic/professional
economic/managerial/professional
Values
domination of nature, national
development, tech. efficiency
efficiency, social equity,
sustainability
Mission
irrigation, consumption, electricity:
Single component of water cycle
Multi-purpose, different sectors,
Integrated mgmt of water cycle
Technologies
Dams
Recycling, decentralized
technology, fit for purpose
Main actors
Utility engineers, public authorities,
farmers
Consultants, NGOs, social
movements, supranational
commissions, environment
Expertise
Technical, engineering
Inter- and transdisciplinary
Evaluation
Security and quantity of supply
Economic, environmental, social
goals
Org.form
Vertically integrated state owned
utility
Disaggregated, corporatized,
commercialized, privatized utility
Who pays
government
consumers
Pro
fess
ion
rp
Co
ion
t
a
or
Conclusion and Outlook
 Characterize sector transformation and transition dynamics:
change in institutional setting → change in various industry aspects
 Discourse vs. action: How are they interrelated?
 The role of actors: How and with what consequences is
institutional work (agency) involved in the shift of logics?
 What are the most interesting aspects to analyze in-depth?
Thank you!