Making institutions more reflexive – governance structures for transformative change

Reflexive institutions are upheld as critical for greening states and societies. However, attempts to increase institutional reflexivity are generally introduced through projects and institutional add-ons, which makes them difficult to maintain, while the established institutions can reproduce unsustainability. This paper explores possibilities for established institutions to become (more) reflexive, assessing two established forms of governance, bureaucracy and networks. It is conceptually argued that institutional structures can enable as well as constrain institutions’ reflexive capacity. The two organizational forms face different combinations of constraints on reflexivity (formal institutions, entrenched interests, and dominant ideas). Two empirical cases are used to illustrate this point: the bureaucratic mining permit process and the network-based organization Fossil-free Sweden. Insights from the two cases suggest, counter to dominant views and organizational trends, that bureaucracy can have a critical function for reflexive institutions. It is argued that bureaucratic structures are essential to balance the constraints on reflexivity and thereby safeguard the inclusion of conflicting perspectives, which are the most valuable seeds for reflexivity. While network-based governance faces less institutional constraints, interest-based and ideational constraints are more entrenched. Exploiting the strengths of each governance form seems critical to effectively and sustainably tackle the environmental challenges that modern society is facing.