Institutional analysis and development framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:49, 30 January 2015

Revision as of 22:54, 30 January 2015

Line 1:

{{AFC submission|r||u=PlaceChanger|ns=2|reviewer=Anupmehra|reviewts=20150130204947|ts=20141219205437}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->

'''The institutionalInstitutional analysisAnalysis and developmentDevelopment Framework''' (IAD) framework) was originally developed to help unpicking the complexities of institutions and institutional configurations. The IAD views institutions as set of rules, which determine the proceeding of reoccurring actions.

'''Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework'''

== Introduction to the IAD ==

The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework was originally developed to help unpicking the complexities of institutions and institutional configurations. The IAD views institutions as set of rules, which determine the proceeding of reoccurring actions.

The IAD framework was particularly successful in analysis of arrangements for sustainably maintaining natural common pool resources (commons). For example, in the case of fishery districts, rules govern individuals' ability to extract fishes, determine the actions in case of violation of the rules, and are developed through higher level rules which describe how to agree on the first set of rules (referred to as operational).

More recently with the advent of digital information resources such as Wikipedia and open source programming efforts both depending on active participation, the IAD framework was adapted to fit these new type of commons.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Charlotte Hess|author2=Elinor Ostrom|title=Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Resource|url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lcp|publisher=Duke University School of Law|accessdate=30 January 2015|page=22}}</ref> This was particularly driven by Hess (1995) who noted that repositories at her academic institutions resembled commons in respects to the incentives for contributing information and the sharing of network capacity in the cases where information resource is in high demand.<ref name="Charlotte Hess">{{cite web|author1=Charlotte Hess|title=The Virtual CPR: The Internet as a Local and Global Common Pool Resource|url=Chttp:\Users\Anup\Downloads\Documents\//dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/234/iascp-95-II.pdf?sequence=1|publisher=Indiana University|accessdate=30 January 2015|pages=5-6|date=May 1995}}</ref>

== Components in the IAD framework ==

Ostrom (2005) described the IAD as a "multi-level conceptual map" with which one could zoom in and out of particular hierarchical parts of the regularised interactions in an established social system. It assumes a context to the particular interaction in which the general network of regular actors would be analysed, the particular rules-in-use, and the particular common outcome that they hope to achieve. In the traditional analysis of common pool arrangements, the common outcome would be a particular resource which the actors draw on.<ref name="Understanding Institutional Diversity">{{cite book|last1=Elinor|first1=Ostrom,|author1author=Elinor Ostrom|title=Understanding Institutional Diversity|date=2009|publisher=Princeton University Press|___location=Princeton|isbn=9781400831739|url=http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8085.pdf|accessdate=30 January 2015}}</ref>

The main unit of analysis assumed in the framework are however particular "action arenas", i.e. (inter)action situations in which the actors involved in this social system interact, given respective operational rules-in-use which guide their possible action outcomes. Before Ostrom passed away in 2010, she further elaborated the possible rules which should be considered in analysing a particular action situation.<ref name="Understanding Institutional Diversity"/>