Institutional analysis and development framework
 | This article or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring, and is not yet ready for use. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. This template was placed by Anupmehra (talk · contribs). If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was last edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) 10 years ago. (Update timer) |
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD framework) was originally developed[when?] 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.[1]
Elinor Ostrom, an American political economist have 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.[2]
Charlotte Hess noted researcher on Commons-pool resources[3], said that the 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.[4]
Before Ostrom passed away in 2010, she further elaborated the possible rules which should be considered in analysing a particular action situation.[2]
| Rule type | Description |
|---|---|
| Position | The number of possible "positions" actors in the action situation can assume (in terms of formal positions these might be better described as job roles, while for informal positions these might rather be social roles of some capacity |
| Boundary | Characteristics participants must have in order to be able to access a particular position |
| Choice | The action capacity ascribed to a particular position |
| Aggregation | Any rules relating to how interactions between participants within the action situation accumulate to final outcomes (voting schemes etc) |
| Information | The types and kinds of information and information channels available to participants in their respective positions |
| Pay-off | The likely rewards or punishments for participating in the action situation |
| Scope | Any criteria or requirements that exist for the final outcomes from the action situation |
References
- ^ Charlotte Hess; Elinor Ostrom. "Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Resource". Duke University School of Law. p. 22. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- ^ a b Elinor Ostrom (2009). Understanding Institutional Diversity (PDF). Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400831739. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- ^ "SelectedWorks of Charlotte Hess". Retrieved 1 February 2015.
- ^ Charlotte Hess (May 1995). "The Virtual CPR: The Internet as a Local and Global Common Pool Resource" (PDF). Indiana University. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
 | This article has not been added to any content categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (January 2015) |