Public Organization Review

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 79–90 | Cite as

Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for Policy Analysis and Institutional Change

Article

Abstract

Despite its importance and its widespread employment in policymaking practice, the theoretical and epistemic foundations of institutional mapping have not been elaborated and its legitimacy is yet to be fully granted by the academic community. This paper is a contribution to this overdue effort. The paper has two parts. First it introduces mapping as a cognitive process and explore in this context the structural similarities between maps and theories. While doing that it identifies the basic elements of mapping as a cognitive procedure and based on that it outlines the optimal features of the possible meta-theories framing policy-oriented institutional mapping. The second part goes a step further and discusses two concrete examples that may come close to illustrate the meta-theoretical ideal-type outlined at the end of the first part: the theoretical system implied in the Chicago School of sociology and the Institutional Analysis and Development framework inspired by the new institutional economics.

Keywords

Policy analysis Stakeholder mapping Public policy design Institutional analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott A (1997) Of time and space: the contemporary relevance of the chicago school. Soc Forces 75(4):1149–1182Google Scholar
  2. Abbott A (1999) Department and discipline: Chicago sociology at 100. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo J (1997) Mapping reality: an evolutionary realist methodology for the natural and social science. SUNY Series in the Philosophy of the Social Science, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Boettke P (2003) The new political economy. Mercatus Center Working Papers. George Mason University, FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulmer M (1984) The Chicago School of Sociology: institutionalisation, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15(3):239–246Google Scholar
  7. Faris R (1967) Chicago sociology, 1920–1939. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Gordon S (1991) The history and philosophy of social science. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. McGinnis M (2000) Polycentric games and institutions: readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  10. Macpherson I, Brooker R, Ainsworth P (2000) Case study in the contemporary world of research: using notions of purpose, place, process and product to develop some principles for practice. Int J Soc Res Methodol 3(1):49–61Google Scholar
  11. Monmonier M (1993) Mapping it out: expository cartography for the humanities and social sciences. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan P, Taschereau S (1996, June) Capacity and institutional assessment: frameworks, methods and tools for analysis. Prepared for CIDA Policy BranchGoogle Scholar
  13. Ostrom E (1986) An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice 48:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ostrom E, Kiser L (1982) The three worlds of action. A meta-theoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In Ostrom E. (ed) Strategies of Political Inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills pp. 34–35Google Scholar
  16. Ostrom E, Crawford S (1995) A grammar of institutions. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(3):582–600Google Scholar
  17. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  18. Rubinstein RA, Laughlin CD, McManus J (1984) Science as a cognition process. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Turnbull D (1989) Maps are territories: science is an atlas. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercatus Center at George Mason UniversityArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations