To what extent are we experiencing a transformation from ‘spaces of place’ to a ‘space of flows’ as proposed by Manuel Castells? Applying his thesis to the political system leads to the following implications. Socio‐economic processes of ‘glocalization’ are undermining the gate‐keeper position of national governments. Furthermore, governance is becoming ‘deterritorialized’, an aspect which is characterized by Elkins as an ‘unbundling’ of identities and jurisdictions. But does this process of unbundling lead to a federal system of multi‐level governance where the national level is complemented by supranational and subnational levels of governance; or does it imply an even more radical transformation towards an architecture of governance which is characterized by a proliferation of single‐purpose governments with variable and flexible spatial scales? A final implication is the transformation from ‘government to governance’— which means a broader array of actors and changing modes of interaction. This article traces these theses by analysing institutions of governance in four cross‐border regions in Europe and North America. In all regions we indeed find many cross‐border networks and institutions undermining the national gate‐keeper position. In Europe, cross‐border collaboration is producing another soft, but institutionalized, comprehensive, stable and territorially‐defined layer in the European ‘multi‐level‐system’. In North America, by contrast, only informal, fluid, specific and non‐territorial institutions are evolving across national borders. Here, the territorially‐based nation state is not complemented by similar kinds of political institutions, but is instead being challenged more fundamentally by new kinds of institutions: transnational socio‐economic exchange networks and transnational ideological coalitions which embody enormous transformational power. In conclusion, cross‐border regional governance in Europe still follows the logic of ‘spaces of place’, whereas in North America quite different ‘spaces of flows’ are emerging as complementary logics of community and institution building. Jusqu'où s'exerce la transformation d'un ‘espace de lieux’ en ‘espace des flux’, comme le suggère Manuel Castells? L'application de cette théorie au système politique a plusieurs implications. Les processus socio‐économiques de ‘glocalisation’ désagrègent la position de garde‐barrière des gouvernements nationaux. De plus, la gouvernance se ‘déterritorialise’, phénomène qu'Elkins appelle la ‘séparation’ des identités et des domaines de compétence. Mais à quel type de gouvernance cette ‘séparation’ mène‐t‐elle: à un système fédéral à plusieurs niveaux où le plan national est complété de plans supra‐ et infra‐nationaux de gouvernance? ou à un changement plus radical vers une architecture caractérisée par une prolifération de gouvernements à finalité unique dont les échelles spatiales varient et s'adaptent? Une dernière conséquence est le passage de gouvernement à gouvernance, qui se traduit par une diversification des acte...

No abstract

In almost all subfields of political science in the last third of the twentieth century, it was claimed that we are witnessing a transformation of political order from hierarchies to networks. This paper traces institutional change during the twentieth century by examining structures and modes of interaction in transboundary regions in Europe and North America. First, it challenges functionalist explanations of institution-building and institutional change. Instead, the impact of general discourses and ideas is highlighted. Second, it takes a closer look at the hierarchies-to-networks transformation thesis. Whereas this thesis can be confirmed if we define hierarchies and networks as patterns of interaction, if we define hierarchies and networks in terms of modes of interaction this is less certain. De jure, institutional elements implying a "hierarchical order" have been supplanted in newer institutions by provisions allowing for "majority voting." De facto, nothing has changed, since these modes of interaction have never actually been used. In practice, the only way to achieve joint action has always been and still is through "agreement" or "consent." What has changed over the years, though, is the institutionalized approach to reaching "agreement." The older approach uses a technocratic-deductive logic. In recent years, we have been able to observe various new approaches in cross-border regions: a symbolic-inductive logic in Western Europe, a utilitarian-evolutionary logic along the U.S.-Mexican border, and a normative-constructivist logic along the U.S.-Canadian border. Based on the empirical findings, I conclude that institutional theory should pay more attention to the fact that many political institutions provide orientation, shape identities, and mobilize activities through emotional symbols.

No abstract