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).
