Institutional Re(turns) and the Strategic – Relational Approach

By B. Jessop. 2001

677 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The author distinguishes and comments on three different forms of the institutional turn: thematic, methodological, and ontological. He argues that there is a wide range of institutional turns that have been undertaken for quite different theoretical, empirical, and policy-related reasons; and suggests that the returns from any given institutional turn are by no means guaranteed to be positive. The different senses in which ‘institutions matter’ are explored and the need to contextualize the institutional turn, both at more macro and at more microlevels, is also emphasized. One way of undertaking this contextualization is through the ‘strategic – relational approach’ with its concern with both the structural and the strategic dimensions of a contextualized institutional analysis. As well as presenting the approach in general terms, the author also illustrates its relevance to the spatiotemporal dimensions of institutional analysis. Eight broad conclusions about the institutional turn are presented.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Administration, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7434f32648d0065d8dad31540d2c10d978ea7c9e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Public Administration

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Rethinking the Port (2006, background): “…to be premised in network relations alone: rather, it requires the insertion of power asymmetries to explain how and why networks and partnerships take placeöa point finding increasingly strong echoes in economic geography circles (Amin, 2001; Bathelt and Taylor, 2002; Jessop, 2001; Yeung, 2002).”
Geographies of production: growth regimes in spatial perspective 3 - toward a relational view of economic action and policy (2006, background): “The relational view presented is particularly well-suited to analyse institutions in thematic, methodological and ontological terms (Jessop, 2001).”
Land Financialization as a ‘lived’ process: The transformation of Milan’s Bicocca by Pirelli (2016, background): “…that desperately try to re-imagine their role and explore new forms of capital accumulation, we affirm that, although real estate may now be embedded in global capital markets as a financial asset (Rutland, 2010), its value is still produced at the local level (Jessop, 2001; Wood, 2004: 119).”
Institutional change in economic geography (2014, background): “The relational perspective is particularly well suited to analysing economic institutions in thematic, methodological, and ontological terms (Jessop, 2001).”
Building Trust in Economic Space (2006, background): “…relations and agents (eg, entrepreneurs) able to develop trusting relationships can create information and exchange opportunities unattainable to those more riskor trust-averse (Sako, 1992; 1998; Lane and Bachmann, 1996; Hardin, 2001; Jessop, 2001; Messick and Kramer, 2001; Yamagishi, 2001).”
Global production networks: realizing the potential (2008, background): “semiotic and the extra-semiotic, the discursive as well as the material properties, but also applies a strategic-relational approach (Jessop 2001)”
Constrained agency? Re-evaluating the geographies of labour (2011, background): “First, the approach seemed to focus more on the agency of knowledgeable social actors than on ‘the nature and effectivity of structures of domination’ (Jessop, 2001: 1222).”
Framing and selling global education policy: the promotion of public–private partnerships for education in low-income contexts (2012, background): “However, it also acknowledges the importance of non-semiotic factors (material, power relations) and structurallyinscribed selectivities (historical, institutional or legal) that may privilege or discriminate against certain ideas, actors and strategies over others (Jessop 2001; Robertson 2008).”
Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces (2020, background): “Giddens’ work has been criticized (Jessop, 2001; Coe and Jordhus-Lier, 2011), but the need to theorize and conceptualize the relation between structure and agency remains.”
Exploring evolutionary economic geographies (2007, background): “How institutions co-evolve with micro- and macro-levels in a specific spatio-temporal context opens up a complex set of questions related to ‘issues of path-dependence, path shaping and metagovernance [. . .]’ (Jessop, 2001, 1221).”
Devolution, constitutional change and economic development: Explaining and understanding the new institutional geographies of the British state (2005, background): “In short, the ‘forces acting added the business support functions of Business Connect to its remit (NA W, 2001), and took over respon- in and through the state’ ( J, 1990), as part of ‘filling in’, have been shaping the institutional form sibility for Wales Trade International designed to prom”