Scholarlink

<p>In regularised settlements, informal practices continue to shape everyday decision-making, leading to a paradox of institutions that have hitherto been unexplored. Focusing on two regularised settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this study explored how the interaction between formal and informal institutions produces an institutional paradox. Using critical institutionalism, together with a mixed-methods approach that included in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, field observations, photographic and document analysis, the findings indicate that informal norms prevail because of accessible, responsive, and trusted local authorities. Formal authority is constrained by bureaucracy, resource limitations, and declining public trust. Thus, informal institutions compete, complete, and dominate formal institutions. A paradox emerges where formal rules are on paper, but in practice, decisions are shaped by socially legitimate informal norms rather than by formal rules. Despite the benefits of informal institutions, they undermine formal rules and contribute to disorderly land development. There is a need to integrate informal norms with formal rules and to enhance formal enforcement and oversight to address paradoxical institutional and spatial outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Formality in Policy, Informality in Practice: The Paradox of Land Development Decision-Making in Regularised Settlements

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月1日

查看全文
  • Neema Munuo,
  • Daniel Msangi,
  • Wilbard Kombe

摘要

In regularised settlements, informal practices continue to shape everyday decision-making, leading to a paradox of institutions that have hitherto been unexplored. Focusing on two regularised settlements in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this study explored how the interaction between formal and informal institutions produces an institutional paradox. Using critical institutionalism, together with a mixed-methods approach that included in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, field observations, photographic and document analysis, the findings indicate that informal norms prevail because of accessible, responsive, and trusted local authorities. Formal authority is constrained by bureaucracy, resource limitations, and declining public trust. Thus, informal institutions compete, complete, and dominate formal institutions. A paradox emerges where formal rules are on paper, but in practice, decisions are shaped by socially legitimate informal norms rather than by formal rules. Despite the benefits of informal institutions, they undermine formal rules and contribute to disorderly land development. There is a need to integrate informal norms with formal rules and to enhance formal enforcement and oversight to address paradoxical institutional and spatial outcomes.