Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How far does evolution take us? Comment on Elinor Ostrom’s: do institutions for collective action evolve?

  • Published:
Journal of Bioeconomics Aims and scope

Abstract

Elinor Ostrom’s article in this issue suggests that institutions for collective action evolve, highlights parallels between biological and institutional evolution, and describes an hypothetical example of institutional evolution related to an irrigation system. The article is provocative but not definitive in that it does not demonstrate that evolution is more than a metaphor for institutional change and that institutions actually evolve. This commentary unpacks the concept of evolutionary change and evaluates how well various aspects of institutional change fit within this model of change. The analysis supports Ostrom’s contention that evolution is not just a metaphor for institutional change, but also suggests that not all institutional change can be classified as evolutionary. The commentary highlights the need for further conceptual and theoretical development to delineate various forms and processes of institutional change, distinguish between evolutionary and non-evolutionary change, and draw out the consequences of various forms of change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For reviews of the most common types, see Hall and Taylor (1996); Immergut (1998), and Schmidt (2008).

  2. Ostrom does recognize the role of the state in either facilitating or hindering the development and survival of institutions developed by local communities. See, for example, her treatment of this issue in the conclusion of Ostrom (1990).

  3. Thelen and colleagues present these ideas in slightly different formulations across the publications cited. My discussion represents a synthesis.

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immergut, E. M. (1998). The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics and Society, 26(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, C. (2006). Twilight institutions: Public authority and local politics in Africa. Development and Change, 37(4), 685–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migdal, J. S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2013). Do institutions for collective action evolve? Journal of Bioeconomics. doi:10.1007/s10818-013-9154-8

  • Poteete, A. R. (2012). Levels, scales, linkages, and other ‘multiples’ affecting natural resources. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2 Aug), 134–150. http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/318/269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J. C., Chhatre, A., & Lankina, T. (2008). Introduction: Institutional choice and recognition in the formation and consolidation of local democracy. Conservation and Society, 6(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, S. (2010). The evolution of modern states: Sweden, Japan, and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 1–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Thelen, K. (2010). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 208–240). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • von Benda-Beckmann, K. (1981). Forum shopping and shopping forums: Dispute processing in a Minangkabu village in West Sumatra. Journal of Legal Pluralism, 19, 117–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge the support of Concordia University, Montreal, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve West, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Amy R. Poteete

Authors
  1. Amy R. Poteete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy R. Poteete.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poteete, A.R. How far does evolution take us? Comment on Elinor Ostrom’s: do institutions for collective action evolve?. J Bioecon 16, 91–98 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9163-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9163-7

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation