No end in sight:How regimes form barriers to addressing the wicked problem of displacement

Wicked problems are complex and dispersed challenges that go beyond the capacity of individual organizations and require a response by multiple actors, often in the form of transnational regimes. While research on regimes has provided insights into such collective responses, less is known about how such regimes may form barriers that hinder and block appropriate responses to addressing wicked problems. Exploring the problematic role of regime-level responses is timely given that many of today’s wicked problems are far from being alleviated and in many instances appear instead to be intensifying. We draw from complementary insights of regime theory and research on institutional barriers to explore our research question: How do regimes form barriers to addressing wicked problems, and which mechanisms sustain such barriers? We explore this question with a longitudinal case study of the transnational regime for refugee protection and its response to displacement in Rwanda. From our findings, we develop a model of dissociation that explains how actors move further away from addressing a wicked problem. We identify four dissociative mechanisms (discounting, delimiting, separating, and displaying) that each create a distinct regime-level barrier. These barriers are distributed and mutually reinforcing, which makes it increasingly hard for actors to find alternative ways of responding to an escalating problem. Our study provides insights for research on regimes and wicked problems as well as studies on institutional barriers. We conclude with policy implications for overcoming those barriers, in line with the wider concerns and motivations of this special issue

Transforming the architect: Ownership form and archetype change

The adoption of the incorporated form of ownership in preference to partnership is linked to the shift to a more modem organizational archetype in professional firms. Yet existing empirical research offers insufficient insight into the organizational processes of this transformation in different professional arenas. Where ownership and control become separated, there is a clearer theoretical explanation of the implications for the way the firm is run. Where ownership and control remain inside, the firm, however, the consequences are not so clear and have not been well explored. Using survey and interview materials derived from a study of architecture practices, we examine the processes by which differences based on ownership emerge. Then, by drawing on Weberian theories, where they are concerned with professionalization as a project with material and social rewards, we specify more clearly the context for change in professional firms' archetypes. This, we conclude, provides a stronger basis for understanding the change trajectories of firms within professions and comparative organizational analysis between professions