Author
Listed:
- Hans Bressers
- Cheryl de Boer
Abstract
Purpose - – Sustainable regional development is often accompanied by the introduction and gradual implementation of innovative concepts, like, e.g. “integrated natural resources management” or “sustainable tourism”. From a managerial perspective, in order to contribute to improved sustainable regional development, the innovative concepts need to become rooted in everyday policy practice in such a way that they enable rather than hinder collective action. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - – Enabling collective action is a managerial challenge that is partly dependent on the presence of a sufficient degree of integration in the governance system that forms a context for the action. This challenge can be studied with the help of the concept of boundary judgments. Boundary judgments are normative and cognitive perceptions of actors on the relevancy of specific actors, factors, issues, etc. for their domain of action (what is “fit”, what is acceptable, what is needed?). The paper illustrates the importance of boundary judgments through two empirical studies in The Netherlands. Findings - – Divergent boundary judgments hamper the inclusion of the innovative concept in everyday actions for improving sustainable regional development. However, managers avoiding this complexity by relying on old definitions of their tasks also block the possible innovation. The challenge is to keep the balance between these two extremes. Originality/value - – The paper explains and illustrates the concept of “boundary judgments” and their importance for different types of managers (project leaders and policy makers) to take them into account, alongside the more obvious variation of values and interests among stakeholders.
Suggested Citation
Hans Bressers & Cheryl de Boer, 2013.
"Convergence of boundary judgments and innovative regional development concepts,"
Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 36(12), pages 1195-1209, October.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:mrrpps:v:36:y:2013:i:12:p:1195-1209
DOI: 10.1108/MRR-06-2013-0135
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:mrrpps:v:36:y:2013:i:12:p:1195-1209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.