André Sorensen

Keywords： Urbanization; Institutions; Developmental Pathways; Urban Property System; Comparison

Abstract：

This essay develops an institutionalist approach to comparative research on urbanization, planning, and the production of urban space, focusing on three interrelated claims: First is that the urban transition is a process not just of economic and social change and the construction of new urban spaces and infrastructures, but also involves processes of institutional transformation, institution-creation, and institutionalization of space associated with the creation of new urban property systems. Second is that the choices made during urban transitions tend to have long lasting consequences in each place, as cities are complex socio-technical systems with high degrees of complexity and interdependence, and urban property systems have multiple self-reinforcing qualities that support path dependence. This is reinforced by the fact that in many jurisdictions soon after peak urbanization population starts to decline, removing the engine of urban population growth that was propelling urban institutional dynamism. Third is the suggestion that institutional theory provides a valuable lens to study these transitions and generates important new research questions.

Funds：

• [1] BELAND D. The idea of power and the role of ideas[J]. Political studies review, 2010, 8(2): 145-154.

  [2] BLOMLEY N. Landscapes of property[J]. Law & society review, 1998, 32(3): 567-612.

  [3] BOAS T C. Conceptualizing continuity and change: the composite-standard model of path dependence[J]. Journal of theoretical politics, 2007, 19(1): 33-54.

  [4] BOOTH P. Controlling development: certainty, discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong[M]. London: UCL Press, 1996.

  [5] BUITELAAR E, LAGENDIJK A, JACOBS W. A theory of institutional change: illustrated by Dutch city-provinces and Dutch land policy[J]. Environment and planning a, 2007, 39: 891-908.

  [6] CAMPBELL J L. Institutional reproduction and change[M] // MORGAN G, CAMPBELL C C, PEDERSEN K, et al, eds. The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 

  [7] CAPOCCIA G, KELEMEN R D. The study of critical junctures: theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism[J]. World politics, 2007, 59(3): 341-369.

  [8] DUNN J A. Driving forces: the automobile, its enemies, and the politics of mobility[M]. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.

  [9] FRIEDMANN J. Becoming urban: periurban dynamics in Vietnam and China introduction[J]. Pacific affairs, 2011, 84(3): 425-434.

  [10] GEELS F W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective[J]. Theory, culture & society, 2014, 21(5): 21-40.

  [11] GOLDEWIJK K K, BEUSEN A, JANSSEN P. Long-term dynamic modeling of global population and built-up area in a spatially explicit way: HYDE 3.1[J]. Holocene, 2010, 20(4): 565-573.

  [12] GRZYMALA-BUSSE A. Time will tell? temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes[J]. Comparative political studies, 2011, 44(9): 1267-1297. 

  [13] HACKER J S, PIERSON P, THELEN K. Drift and conversion: hidden faces of institutional change[M] // MAHONEY J, THELEN K, eds. Advances in comparative historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015: 180-208.

  [14] HALL P A. Cities of tomorrow[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.

  [15] HALL P A, SOSKICE D W. Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

  [16] HALL P A, TAYLOR R C R. Political science and the three new institutionalisms[J]. Political studies, 1996, 44(5): 936-957.

  [17] HAY C. Constructivist institutionalism[M] // RHODES R A W, BINDER A, ROCKMAN B A, eds. The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: 56-75.

  [18] HOMMELS A. Unbuilding cities: obduracy in urban socio-technical change Cambridge[M]. Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.

  [19] HUGHES T P. Technological momentum[M] // SMITH M R, MARX L, eds. Does technology drive histor y? the dilemma of technological determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994: 101-113.

  [20] KATZNELSON I. Periodization and preferences: reflections on purposive action in comparative historical social science[M] // MAHONEY J, RUESCHEMEYER D, eds. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 270-301.

  [21] KEIL R. Governance restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: amalgamation or secession?[J]. International journal of urban and regional research, 2000, 24(4): 758-781.

  [22] LOWNDES V, ROBERTS M. Why institutions matter: the new institutionalism in political science[M]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

  [23] MAHONEY J. Path dependence in historical sociology[J]. Theory and society, 2000, 29: 507-548.

  [24] MAHONEY J, RUESCHEMEYER D. Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

  [25] MAHONEY I, THELEN K, eds. Advances in comparative-historical analysis[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

  [26] MAHONEY I, THELEN K. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power[M]. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

  [27] MARCOTULLIO P J. Variations of urban environmental transitions: the experiences of rapidly developing Asia Pacific cities[M] // MARCOTULLIO P J, MCGRANAHAN G, eds. Scaling urban environmental challenges: from local to global and back. London: Earthscan, 2007: 45-68.

  [28] MELOSI M V. The sanitary city: urban infrastructure in America from colonial times to the present[M]. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

  [29] NORTH D C. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance[M]. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

  [30] OSTROM E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

  [31] PIERSON P. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics[J]. American political science review, 2000, 94(2): 251-267.

  [32] PIERSON P. Politics in time: history, institutions, and social analysis[M]. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.

  [33] PIERSON P. Power and path dependence[M] // MAHONEY J, THELEN K, eds. Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015: 123-146.

  [34] PRED A. Place as historically contingent process: structuration and the timegeography of becoming places[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1984, 74(2): 279-297.

  [35] SORENSEN A. The making of urban Japan: cities and planning from edo to the 21st century[M]. London: Routledge, 2002.

  [36] SORENSEN A. Evolving property rights in Japan: patterns and logics of change[J]. Urban studies, 2011, 48(3): 471-491.

  [37] SORENSEN A. Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history[J]. Planning perspectives, 2015: 30(1), 17-38.

  [38] SORENSEN A. Periurbanization as the institutionalization of place: the case of Japan[J]. Cities, 2016, 53: 134-140.

  [39] SORENSEN A. New intuitionalism and planning theory[M] // GUNDER M, MADANIPOUR A, WATSON V, eds. Rutledge handbook of planning theory. London, New York: Routledge, 2017: 250-263.

  [40] SORENSEN A. Global suburbanization in panning history[M] // HEIN C, ed. Routledge handbook of planning history. London; New York: Routledge, 2018a.

  [41] SORENSEN A. Institutions in urban space: land, infrastructure and governance in the production of urban property[J]. Planning theory and practice, 2018b, 19(1): 21-38.

  [42] SORENSEN A, HESS P M. Building suburbs, Toronto style: land development, institutions, critical junctures, and continuity[J]. Town planning review, 2015, 86(4): 411-436. 

  [43] STREECK W. Epilogue comparative-historical analysis: past, present, future[M] // MAHONEY J, THELEN K, eds. Advances in comparative historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015: 264-288.

  [44] SUTCLIFFE A. Towards the planned city: Germany, Britain, the United States and France, 1780-1914[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981.

  [45] TARR J A, KONVITZ J W. Patterns in the development of urban infrastructure[M] // GILLTTE H, MILLER Z L, eds. American urbanism: a historiographical review. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987: 195-226.

  [46] THORNLEY A. Urban planning under Thatcherism: the challenge of the market[M]. London: Routledge, 1991.

  [47] TSEBELIS G. Veto players and institutional analysis[J]. Governance: an international journal of policy and administration, 2000, 13(4): 441-474.

  [48] UNDESA. World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision[M]. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014.

  [49] UNRUH G C. Understanding carbon lock-in[J]. Energy policy, 2000, 28(12): 817-830.

  [50] URRY J. The ‘system’ of automobility. theory[J]. Theory, culture and society, 2004, 21(4/5): 25-39.

  [51] WAN G, ZHANG Y. Accelerating urbanization explained: the role of information[R]. ADBI Working Paper, 2017.

  [52] WARD S V. Planning the twentieth-century city: the advanced capitalist world[M]. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley and Sons, 2002.

  [53] WEBSTER D. An overdue agenda: systematizing East Asian peri-urban research[J]. Pacific affairs, 2011, 84(4): 631-642.