Regulatorische Unsicherheit und private Standardisierung: Koordination durch Ambiguität

Chapter
Part of the Managementforschung book series (MGTF)

Zusammenfassung

Steuerung durch Regeln bedeutet den Versuch, fundamentale durch regulatorische Unsicherheit zu ersetzen und so die Handlungen verschiedener Akteure zu koordinieren. Eine Form von regulatorischer Unsicherheit sind dabei die jeder Regel inhärenten Ambiguitäten, die den Versuch Unsicherheit zu reduzieren zumindest teilweise konterkarieren. Am Beispiel privater Standardisierungsbemühungen im Bereich des Urheberrechts versucht sich der vorliegende Beitrag an einer Beantwortung der Frage nach dem Zusammenhang zwischen dem Ausmaß regulatorischer Unsicherheit und der Koordinationswirkung einer Regel. Hierzu wird die regulatorische Konversation rund um eine konkrete Regel – dem Creative-Commons-Lizenzmodul der „nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung“ – sowohl hinsichtlich ihres organisationalen Entstehungskontextes (Regelsetzung) als auch im Zusammenhang mit der Adoption und Diffusion dieser Regel (Regelanwendung) analysiert. Es zeigt sich dabei, dass regulatorische Unsicherheit nicht notwendigerweise zur Ineffektivität oder gar Dysfunktionalität von Regeln führen muss, sondern auch produktiv genutzt und als eine, der Koordination dienliche, Leerstelle interpretiert werden kann. Im Ergebnis trägt die Ambiguität der hier untersuchten Regel entscheidend zu ihrer Verbreitung sowie zur Effektivität ihrer Steuerungswirkung bei.

Abstract

Implementing rules as a means of governance represents the attempt to replace fundamental uncertainty with regulatory uncertainty and thereby coordinate the conduct of different actors. One type of regulatory uncertainty is related to the ambiguities inherent in any rule, which, at least partially thwart the attempt to reduce uncertainty. Looking at private standardization efforts in the realm of copyright law, this paper investigates whether there is a relation between the degree of regulatory uncertainty and the coordination effect of a rule. More precisely, we analyze the regulatory conversation around a specific rule – the Creative Commons “non-commercial” license module – with regard to its organizational genesis (rule setting) as well as in relation to its adoption and diffusion (rule application). We find that regulatory uncertainty does not necessarily imply ineffectiveness or even dysfunctionality; rather, regulatory uncertainty can be used productively and thus be interpreted as a void or as a source of flexibility effectively supporting coordination. In the case under study, ambiguity contributed to standard diffusion as well as to the rule’s effectiveness in terms of governance.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Ahrne, G./Brunsson, N. (2006): Organizing the world. In: Djelic, M.-L./Sahlin-Andersson, K (Hrsg.): Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge, S. 74–94.Google Scholar
  2. Ahrne, G./Brunsson, N. (2011): Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. In: Organization 18 (1), S. 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, D. (2004): The double punch of law and technology: Fighting music piracy or remaking copyright in a digital age? In: Business and Politics 6 (2), S. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, E./Buhse, W./Günnewig, D./Rump, N. (Hrsg.)(2003): Digital rights management: Technological, economic, legal andpolitical aspects. Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Beckert, J. (1996): Was ist soziologisch an der Wirtschaftssoziologie? Ungewißheit und die Einbettung wirtschaftlichen Handelns. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 25 (2), S. 125–146.Google Scholar
  6. Black, J. (2002): Regulatory conversations. In: Journal of Law and Society 29 (1), S. 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boje, D.M. (1991:) The storytelling organization: A study of performance in an office supply firm. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (1), S. 106–126.Google Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, J. (2002): Rules and principles: A theory of legal certainty. In: Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27, S. 47–82.Google Scholar
  9. Braithwaite, J./Drahos, P. (2000): Global business regulation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J.S./Duguid, P. (1991): Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. In: Organization Science 2 (1), S. 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creative Commons (CC 2009): Defining noncommercial. Full report and all appendices. Online: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_noncommercial_fullreport.pdf [12.04.2011]
  12. Dequech, D. (2000): Fundamental uncertainty and ambiguity. In: Eastern Economic Journal 26, S. 41–60.Google Scholar
  13. Djelic, M.-L./Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Hrsg.)(2006): Transnational governance: InstitutionalGoogle Scholar
  14. dynamics of regulation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2010a): Epistemic communities and social movements: Transnational dynamics in the case of creative commons. In: Djelic, M.-L./Quack, S. (Hrsg.): Transnational communities: Shaping global economic governance. Cambridge, MA, S. 226–251.Google Scholar
  16. Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2010b): Urheberrecht zwischen Kreativität und Verwertung: Transnationale Mobilisierung und private Regulierung. MPIfG Discussion Paper 10/6, Online: http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp10–6.pdf Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2011): Organisationale Netzwerke und digitale Gemeinschaften: Von Beiträgen zu Beteiligung? In: Managementforschung 21, S. 171–213.
  17. Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2012): Framing standards, mobilizing users: Copyright versus fair use in transnational regulation. In: Review of International Political Economy (im Druck).Google Scholar
  18. Dolata, U. (2011): The music industry and the internet. A decade of disruptive and uncontrolled sectoral change. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Organisations- und Innovationsforschung 2011–02. Discussion Paper der Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  19. Engau, C./Hoffmann, V.H. (2011): Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: Evidence from uncertainty about post-Kyoto regulation. In: Policy Science 44 (1), S. 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elkin-Koren, N. (2005): What contracts cannot do: The limits of private ordering in facilitating a creative commons. In: Fordham Law Review 74, S. 375–422.Google Scholar
  21. Ellsberg, D. (1961): Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, S. 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farrell, J./Saloner, G. (1987): Competition, compatibility and standards: The economics of horses, penguins and lemmings. In: Gabel, H.L. (Hrsg.): Product standardization and competitive strategy. Amsterdam, S. 1–21.Google Scholar
  23. Feldman, M.S./Pentland, B.T. (2003): Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (1), S. 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fish, S.E. (1976): Interpreting the „Variorum”. In: Critical Inquiry 2 (3), S. 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fish, S.E. (1980): Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer-Lescano, A./Teubner, G. (2006): Regime-Kollisionen: Zur Fragmentierung des globalenGoogle Scholar
  27. Rechts. Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  28. Gasser, U./Bambauer, D./Bragin, A./Harlow, J./Hoffmann, C./Hwang, R./Jackson, J./Krog G./Locke, E./Mohr, S./Reidel, I./Slater, C.D./Wilson, L./Palfrey, J. (2004): iTunes: How copyright,Google Scholar
  29. contract, and technology shape the business of digital media – A case study BerkmanGoogle Scholar
  30. Publication Series No. 2004–07. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=556802
  31. Giddens, A. (1984): The constitution of society. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Hardy, C./Lawrence, T.B./Phillips, N. (1998): Talk and action: Conversations and narrative in interorganizational collaboration. In: Grant, D./Keenoy, T./Oswick, C (Hrsg.): Discourse and organization. London, S. 65–83.Google Scholar
  33. Hauser, T./Wenz, C. (2003): DRM under attack: Weaknesses in existing systems. In: Becker, E./Buhse, W./Günnewig,Google Scholar
  34. D./Rump, N. (Hrsg.)(2003): Digital rights management: Technological, economic, legal and political aspects. Berlin, S. 206–223.Google Scholar
  35. Hietanen, H. (2008): Creative commons’ approach to open content. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1162219 Hoffmann, V.H./Trautmann, T. (2006): The role of industry and uncertainty in regulatory
  36. pressure and environmental strategy. In: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 2006, S. D1-D6.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffmann, V.H./Trautmann, T./Hamprecht, J. (2009): Regulatory uncertainty – A reason to postpone investments? Not necessarily. In: Journal of Management Studies 46 (7), S. 1227–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hume, D. (1964[1742]): Eine Untersuchung über den menschlichen Verstand. Hamburg. Kerwer, D. (2005): Rules that many use: Standards and global regulation. In: Governance 18 (4), S. 611–632.Google Scholar
  39. Keynes, J.M. (1937): The general theory of employment. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics 51, S. 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kilduff, M./Mehra, A. (1997): Postmodernism and organizational research. In: Academy of Management Review 22 (2), S. 453–481.Google Scholar
  41. Knight, F.R. (2002[1921]): Risk, uncertainty and profit. Washington.Google Scholar
  42. Lemley, M.A. (2011): Is the sky falling on the content industries? In: Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 9, S. 125–135.Google Scholar
  43. Majumdar, S.K./Marcus, A.A. (2001): Rules versus discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. In: Academy of Management Journal 44, S. 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortmann, G. (2003): Regel und Ausnahme: Paradoxien sozialer Ordnung. Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  45. Ortmann, G. (2008a): Organisation und Welterschließung: Dekonstruktionen. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  46. Ortmann, G. (2008b): Regeln der Klugheit? In: Scherzberg, A. (Hrsg.): Klugheit. Begriff, Konzepte, Anwendungen. Tübingen, S. 45–92.Google Scholar
  47. Ortmann, G. (2010): On drifting rules and standards. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management 26, S. 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Philips, P.W.B./Kerr, W.A. (2002): Frustrating competition through regulatory uncertainty. In: World Competition 25 (1), S. 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pisano, G. (2006): Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. In: Research Policy 35, S. 1122–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapiro, C./Varian, H.R. (1999): Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston.Google Scholar
  51. Sherkat, D.E. (1997): The cognitive structure of a moral crusade: Conservative protestantismGoogle Scholar
  52. and opposition to pornography. In: Social Forces 75 (3), S. 957–980. Siwek, S.E. (2006): Copyright industries in the U.S. economy: The 2006 report. In: http://www.iipa.com/pdf/2006_siwek_full.pdf[10.03.2009]
  53. Tamm Hallström, K. (2004): Organizing international standardization: ISO and the IASC in quest of authority. Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  54. Tamm Hallström, K./Boström, M. (2010): Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization: Organizing fragile non-state authority. Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  55. Timmermans, S./Epstein, S. (2010): A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. In: Annual Review of Sociology 36, S. 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsiavos, P. (2007): Cultivating creative commons: From creative regulation to regulatory commons. Doctoral thesis, Online: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/ pdf/theses/tsiavos.pdf [09.04.2011]
  57. Vaughan, D. (1996): The challenger launch decision. Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago.Google Scholar
  58. Vaughan, D. (2004): Theorizing disaster. Analogy, historical ethnography, and the challenger accident. In: Ethnography 5, S. 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walgenbach, P. (2000): Die normgerechte Organisation. Eine Studie über die Entstehung, Verbreitung und Nutzung der DIN EN ISO 9000er Normenreihe. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  60. Witzel, A. (2000): Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (1), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1- 00/1–00witzel-d.htm [29.04.2006]
  61. Wu, T. (2010): The master switch: The rise and fall of information empires. New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Freie Universität Berlin –Institut für ManagementBerlinDeutschland
  2. 2.Johannes Kepler Universität Linz – Institut für Philosophie und WissenschaftstheorieLinzÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations