Unimaginable Change

Abstract

Problem: Planning aspires to intervene and make positive change. However, our ideas about how to create institutional reform need to be revisited because they do not fully account for the changes we have witnessed. Purpose: This article assesses the state of our knowledge about institutions and of how we construct and change them. It identifies the major deficiencies in new institutionalism in planning theory and searches for ideas about how to influence positive institutional change. Methods: I analyzed over 90 publications in the planning literature and other social sciences that discussed “institutions,” and identified the varying definitions and underlying epistemologies and philosophies that are at odds with each other. I then examined empirical studies of successful economic development cases in order to critically appraise the efficacy of different theories to account for the observed changes. Results and conclusions: Disparate new institutionalism theories in the social sciences have been starting to converge by focusing on social cognition. The unimaginable, fundamental changes that have occurred in our lifetimes have not been the result of rational state planning, manipulation by political elites, or activist organizations. A society-wide process of tacit learning from peers and exemplars built new paradigms and practices, ultimately normalizing new realities. Takeaway for practice: Planning practice that aims toward large institutional changes rather than incremental ones should incorporate the empirical lessons of contemporary history and the latest findings in cognitive science. Knowing more about the social cognition process can help planners to more effectively engage in fundamental change. Furthermore, if it retains its strengths in empirical research and multiscalar, interdisciplinary analysis, planning practice and research can make policy-relevant contributions to our understanding of social cognition change. Research support: None.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.