Abstract
The target paper by Elinor Ostrom in this Special Issue carries a clear message about her research agenda: be attentive to institutional diversity, be aware of the danger of ‘monoculture’ and ‘monocropping’ of rules. Although Ostrom was fully aware of the necessity to focus on relevant and simplified variables in order to build general explanations, she deliberately adopted a bottom-up research strategy that opposes the top-down approach dominating social sciences. Her framework, developed through extensive field studies, shows the central role of “clusters” of rules in defining institutions and understanding how they change. My discussion is organized around this privilege conferred to rules. Section 2 posits her contribution, particularly her IAD model, in relation to New Institutional Economics. Section 3 focuses on what I consider her main contribution: her analysis of rules as the strategic point through which changes happen. Section 4 discusses some methodological issues, and Sect. 5 concludes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alchian, A. A. (1987). Property rights. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1031–1034). London: MacMillan.
Bardhan, P. K., & Dayton-Johnson, J. (2002). Unequal irrigators: Heterogeneity and commons management in large-scale multivariate research. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons, National Research Council (pp. 87–112). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Barzel, Y. (1989). Economic analysis of property rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, L. E., & North, D. C. (1971). Institutional change and American economic growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Furubotn, E. G., & Richter, R. (1997). Institutions and economic theory. The contribution of the new institutional economics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
MacLeod, W. B. (2013). On economics: A review of why nations fail by D. Acemoglu and J. Robinson and pillars of prosperity by T. Besley and T. Persson. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 116–143.
Ménard, C. (2009). Redesigning public utilities: The key role of micro-institutions. In J. Kornai, L. Mathyas, & G. Roland (Eds.), Corruption, development and institutional design (Chap. 10, pp. 189–202). London: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Ménard, C., & Shirley, M. S. (2013). The contribution of Douglass North to new institutional economics. In S. Galliani & I. Sened (Eds.), Institutions, property rights and economic growth: The legacy of Douglass North (Chap. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
North, D. C. (1990a). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. (1990b). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(4), 355–367.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2013). Do institutions for collective action evolve? Journal of Bioeconomics. doi:10.1007/s10818-013-9154-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ménard, C. The diversity of institutional rules as engine of change. J Bioecon 16, 83–90 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9169-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9169-1