دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی رابطه بین نهادهای رسمی و غیر رسمی برای مدیریت حمل و نقل عمومی - الزویر 2018

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to understand the relationship between the formal (governance established in law) and informal institutions (governance not established in law) that underpin the planning, operation and improvement of local and regional public transport, by using case studies of four countries: Britain (more specifically England, outside London); the Netherlands; Germany; and Sweden. The paper uses a framework drawn from the literature on institutional change to analyse the interplay between the formal governance structures and the other actors and organisations that have an influence on public transport, the formal and informal relationships between them, and how informal institutions emerge to increase the effectiveness with which public transport is delivered. By selecting countries with some similarities in institutional structure, it is possible to explore how relationships can differ even within a relatively similar overall framework for public transport. Drawing on qualitative research with actors in the different countries, the research explores how informal institutions help actors negotiate the constraints of formal, statutory institutions. Findings reveal that informal institutions smooth the critical interfaces where formal institutions were producing sub-optimal public transport, thus providing evidence that the two modes of governance are, in fact, highly complementary.

Conclusion

In spite of the different categorisations or organisational collaboration models, it is still possible to identify a number of commonalities across the cases. Some are expected, and indeed are reasons for instituting governance in more formal institutions, such as the dependence on personal relationships, which on the other hand can put the institutions at risk since key people may leave. Beyond the informal activities themselves, conclusions may be drawn related to how the informal institution itself coheres, as opposed to the more visible presence of a formal institution which is normally an organisation or at least linked to one (or several). The informal institutions examined in this paper do not necessarily have a final concrete output but may instead be seen as part of a wider process, which can occasionally be a strength but is often perceived as a weakness. These institutions may produce reports or recommendations but these are then referred to a statutory decision making body for ratification. Perhaps of more interest is that, over time, the informal institutions may become so institutionalized that it is difficult to discern where the informal ends and the formal begins. A potential weakness from this reliance on informal institutions is that one important reason policy makers create formal governance institutions is due to the need for accountability, which informal institutions generally lack. The literature reviewed in Section 2.1 demonstrated the increasingly complex formal institutional structures that are found in the public transport sphere in Europe, often resulting in a lack of clear responsibility and agency to “get things done.” This paper has demonstrated that, in order to achieve a more ordered and functional system, it is often necessary to create an effective informal institutional structure. It thus supports the growing body of work identifying the importance of “steering cultures” to bind the various stakeholders together (Hansson, 2013; Hrelja, 2015).