The purpose of this paper is to understand the relationship between the formal (governance established in law) and informal institutions (governance not established in law) that underpin the planning, operation and improvement of local and regional public transport, by using case studies of four countries: Britain (more specifically England, outside London); the Netherlands; Germany; and Sweden. The paper uses a framework drawn from the literature on institutional change to analyse the interplay between the formal governance structures and the other actors and organisations that have an influence on public transport, the formal and informal relationships between them, and how informal institutions emerge to increase the effectiveness with which public transport is delivered. By selecting countries with some similarities in institutional structure, it is possible to explore how relationships can differ even within a relatively similar overall framework for public transport. Drawing on qualitative research with actors in the different countries, the research explores how informal institutions help actors negotiate the constraints of formal, statutory institutions. Findings reveal that informal institutions smooth the critical interfaces where formal institutions were producing sub-optimal public transport, thus providing evidence that the two modes of governance are, in fact, highly complementary.

Introduction

West European public transport has undergone quite fundamental reforms during recent decades. These reforms have created points in the planning and organisation of the public transport system where formal structures may produce sub-optimal outcomes (Sørensen & Longva, 2011). In some countries, this has resulted in more fragmented transport operations on the ground (O’Sullivan & Patel, 2004; Van de Velde and Wallis, 2013). For the purposes of this research, such points are termed “critical interfaces”. In this paper we explore how planning, operation and improvement of local and regional public transport are managed in situations where the formal institutions (governance established in law) are not adequate, and informal institutions (governance not established in law) have arisen to play a complementary role. This is done by comparing and contrasting case studies of four countries: Britain (more specifically England, outside London); the Netherlands; Germany; and Sweden. The paper identifies certain “critical interfaces” in the public transport sphere where sub-optimal transport was being delivered and where better collaboration is needed in order to deliver measures and policies that will help make public transport more efficient. In such situations, informal institutions become important if progress is to be made towards more effective public transport. While previous work has considered individual countries’ governance structures for public transport, there is a lack of comparative studies; in addition, this paper adds to knowledge by considering how the informal works to support the formal in the operation and improvement of public transport. More specifically, the paper uses the literature on institutional change to chart the process through which the informal governance form emerges and how it interacts with the formal governance structure already in place. The paper first briefly reviews relevant previous literature in this area as well as the literature on institutional analysis, before presenting an analytical framework that is later used to compare the case studies. After explaining the empirical methods used, the paper then moves on to provide a taxonomy of formal and informal structures in Sweden, Germany, England outside London and the Netherlands. It then identifies a number of critical interfaces and uses case studies of individual actions to demonstrate how the informal institutions have arisen to negotiate these situations. Finally, conclusions are drawn as to the role and importance of informal institutions in negotiating the constraints resulting from formal governance structures.