Institutional Grammar: Foundations and Applications for Institutional Analysis 3030863719, 9783030863715

Citation preview

Institutional Grammar Foundations and Applications for Institutional Analysis Christopher K. Frantz · Saba Siddiki

Institutional Grammar “Institutional Grammar is a must read for social scientists and legal scholars who study the complex interplay between institutional arrangements and actors’ behavior, as well as scholars interested in the semantics of institutions. Beginning with a careful exposition of Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development Framework and its affiliated grammar of institutions (aka IG 1.0), the authors present IG 2.0, identifying how it corrects the shortcomings of IG 1.0, as well as substantively expanding it to allow for the coding of regulative and constitutive institutional statements at different levels of granularity. Importantly, the authors include guidance on how to implement IG 2.0 and analyze the coded data, making the grammar accessible and highlighting its practical value. This book represents the definitive text on the grammar of institutions.” —Edella Schlager, Professor, University of Arizona “Frantz and Siddiki summarize the Institutional Grammar 2.0 for the systematic analysis of institutions. In doing so, their book revolutionizes the study of institutions and provides a sturdy foundation for building knowledge about them. This book is without peers, and its impact on the analysis of institutions will stretch across disciplines and extend far into the future.” —Christopher M. Weible, Professor, University of Colorado Denver “Institutions are ubiquitous but can be challenging to study. With their development and description of the Institutional Grammar 2.0, Frantz and Siddiki provide a de-facto open standard for a new field we might call ‘Computational Institutional Analysis.’ This is a must-read for anyone interested in contributing to this emerging area of social science.” —Charlie Schweik, Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Christopher K. Frantz · Saba Siddiki

Institutional Grammar Foundations and Applications for Institutional Analysis

Christopher K. Frantz Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Gjøvik, Norway

Saba Siddiki Syracuse University Syracuse, NY, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-86371-5 ISBN 978-3-030-86372-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: Alex Linch/shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The Institutional Grammar (IG) is a well-established approach for institutional analysis. It was conceptually defined by Crawford and Ostrom in 1995. Over the last quarter of a century, a rich body of work has applied “the Grammar” in the context of policy analysis, computational modeling, as well as in other domains. Throughout this process, scholars developed associated methodological guidance, and also identified challenges to the general applicability and conceptual validity of the IG. However, there have not yet been attempts to view these developments and challenges in concert, so as to consider how they link to the core conceptual and methodological foundations of the IG, and more importantly, how they can be reconciled in an integrated way to bolster the IG as a robust approach for analyzing the structure and meaning of institutions. This book responds to this gap by offering a comprehensive introduction to the foundational principles of the IG, how it has been used, and the opportunities and challenges presented in existing research. But more than just taking a retroactive view, the book reconciles the original IG with a modernization, a New Institutional Grammar labeled “Institutional Grammar 2.0,” that revises it for novel applications within and beyond existing research fields. It aids in establishing linkages of the IG to fields in which institutions are studied more generally, but in which the IG has not yet found broad recognition or adoption. The IG 2.0 provides the basis for a consistent and unambiguous encoding and representation of institutional information independent v

vi

PREFACE

of application field and analytical method. Working toward this effort, the refined Grammar offers both a platform for more comprehensive characterization of institutional information as well as the ability to systematically capture parameterizing information in the form of constitutive statements, the latter of which was not at all considered as part of the original IG. Overarching these revisions is the shift from a primarily syntactic focus emphasized by the original IG toward a semantic perspective that explicitly focuses on institutional meaning, functions and effect of statements, dissociating the “institutional” from a “linguistic” grammar, enabling and preparing for advanced analyses not possible with the IG to date. Responding to the diverse application fields of the IG, the different features associated with this “New Institutional Grammar” are organized by levels of expressiveness that respond to specific analytical needs, but explicitly recognize its purpose in extending the original IG. The structure and content of the book reflects this orientation by initially focusing on Foundations of the IG, that includes both Crawford and Ostrom’s Institutional Grammar and existing applications (Chapters 1 and 2), before moving to an integrated discussion of the conceptual refinements that form the core of this book (Chapters 3 to 6). The latter part of the book focuses on the Application of the IG, and offers methodological guidance for the encoding of institutional information, both including general principles of research design as well as operational guidance (Chapter 7), alongside supplementary resources available via the book website (https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org). Looking toward the adoption of the conceptual innovations, the substantive part of the book ends with an exposition of existing applications of the IG as well as discussion of prospective analytical opportunities of the IG (Chapter 8). This includes applications that focus on fine-grained elements (e.g., complexity metrics) as well higher-level applications that provide the basis for systemic analyses of institutions. In both its structure and orientation, the book reflects the empirically observed convergence between independent approaches to institutional analysis that rely on the IG. To this end, it is instructive that the authors themselves approach this effort from different perspectives, including the mainstay application of the IG in the context of public policy, with a primary focus on a formal-legalistic perspective on institutions, and a complementary socio-institutional perspective that emphasizes the analysis of simulated behavior in the context of computational modeling. Central to the vision is the belief that the IG is equally suited to capture

PREFACE

vii

diverse perspectives on institutions as the fabric of social systems, independent of the nature of institutions, applied methods and techniques, and analytical foci (e.g., levels of analysis). Recognizing and developing the IG as an analytical paradigm, as opposed to merely a tool, the book provides a foundational introduction to the IG that is intended to be accessible to researchers that engage in traditional applications of the IG, but also scholars who have no prior exposure and wish to explore the IG and associated analytical opportunities. Inasmuch as the book is written by the authors, the ideas represented herein have been developed with feedback and critiques from a broader community of scholars equally committed to the IG. We specifically acknowledge the Affiliates of the Institutional Grammar Research Initiative (IGRI), with whom we have engaged in various valuable and thought-provoking interactions, including through working groups, research presentations and workshops, meetings, and individual conversations. We are especially grateful to Ute Brady, Edella Schlager, Matia Vannoni, Bartosz Pielinski, ´ Seth Frey, Marcello Ceci, Doug Rice, Tanya Heikkila, Chris Weible, Charlie Schweik, and Brenda Bushouse. We also wish to thank IGRI interns that helped explore selected features of the proposed refinements, including Anamaria Rizo, Beyza Gurler, Stephanie Potts, Angelo Baldado, Umberto Tabalappi, as well as Johanne Bognøy, who explored visual IG coding tools as part of her Master’s study. The authors further wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of our IG 2.0 research, both the ideas presented in the proposal of this manuscript, as well as complementary peer reviewed published work. We also wish to thank the United States National Science Foundation (grant no. 1917908) for supporting this research and broader development of the IG research program through a research coordination network grant titled, “Coordinating and Advancing Analytical Approaches for Policy Design.” Finally, but certainly not least, we wish to express deep gratitude to our families. Gjøvik, Norway Syracuse, USA November 2021

Christopher K. Frantz Saba Siddiki

Contents

1

2

Introduction 1.1 What Is Institutional Analysis? 1.1.1 Institutional Analysis by Discipline 1.1.2 Convergence Toward Interdisciplinary Institutional Analysis 1.2 Institutional Analysis with the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework 1.3 Primer on the Institutional Grammar 1.4 Overview of Chapter Contents References Review of Institutional Grammar Research: Overview, Opportunities, Challenges 2.1 Guiding Research Questions 2.2 Analytical Approaches Used in Institutional Grammar Research 2.2.1 Frameworks, Theories, and Concept Measurement 2.2.2 Collecting and Analyzing Institutional Grammar Data 2.3 Research Opportunities and Challenges References

1 6 7 16 18 19 26 26 33 33 36 36 38 44 48

ix

x

CONTENTS

3

Motivation for a New Institutional Grammar 3.1 Ontological Consistency 3.2 Toward a Comprehensive Representation of Institutional Meaning 3.3 Grammars in the Linguistic and Institutional Sense References

4

5

Institutional Grammar 2.0: Conceptual Foundations and General Syntax 4.1 Conceptual Foundations 4.1.1 Levels of Expressiveness 4.1.2 Constitutive and Regulative Statements 4.2 IG Core 4.2.1 Regulative Syntax 4.2.2 Statement Combinations (Horizontal Nesting) 4.2.3 Regulative Institution Types 4.2.4 Delta Parameters in the Institutional Grammar 4.2.5 Constitutive Syntax 4.2.6 Constitutive Institution Types 4.3 Summary of Chapter Content References Institutional Grammar 2.0: Deep Structural Parsing and Hybrid Institutional Statements 5.1 IG Extended 5.1.1 Component-Level Structure 5.1.2 Institutional Statements vs. Institutional States 5.1.3 Reconstructing Embedded Institutional Meaning 5.1.4 Object-Property Hierarchy 5.1.5 Property Types 5.1.6 Context Taxonomy 5.2 Hybrid Institutional Statements 5.2.1 Revisiting Constitutive Rules in Literature 5.2.2 Integrating Constitutive and Regulative Statements 5.3 Summary of Chapter Content References

53 54 61 65 72 75 75 76 79 81 82 94 101 114 116 130 133 135 141 141 141 143 151 160 164 166 172 172 174 187 190

CONTENTS

6

7

8

Institutional Grammar 2.0: Semantic Features and Analytical Linkages 6.1 IG Logico 6.1.1 Semantic Specification 6.1.2 Semantic Annotations 6.1.3 Statement References 6.1.4 Statement Transformation Rules 6.1.5 Summary of Chapter Contents 6.2 Synthesizing the Institutional Grammar References Methodological Guidance for Encoding Institutional Information 7.1 The IG Coding Process: Planning, Execution, Assessment 7.2 Planning 7.2.1 Data Collection Considerations 7.2.2 Tool Support 7.2.3 Determining applicable Institutional Grammar Feature Set 7.2.4 Determining Data Processing Practices 7.2.5 Coder Selection 7.3 Execution 7.3.1 Data Selection 7.3.2 Coding Platform Selection 7.3.3 Preprocessing Institutional Data 7.3.4 Operational Coding of Institutional Statements 7.4 Assessment 7.5 Concluding Remarks References Institutional Analysis and Applications 8.1 IG Core—Establishing Fundamental Institutional Metrics 8.1.1 Component-Level Aggregate Metrics 8.1.2 Network Analysis 8.1.3 Additional Analytical Pathways 8.2 IG Extended—Structural and Behavioral Analysis of Institutional Design 8.2.1 Structural Analysis

xi

193 193 194 201 221 224 232 233 240 243 243 244 244 245 246 250 251 251 251 252 252 260 273 275 276 277 280 280 287 288 291 291

xii

CONTENTS

8.2.2 8.2.3

Institutional Modeling Discussion of Structural and Behavioral Analytical Approaches 8.3 IG Logico—Semantic Analyses 8.3.1 Perspective Extrapolation in Institutional Statements 8.3.2 Chaining Transformation Rules 8.3.3 Epistemological Linkage Through Institutional Functions Analysis 8.3.4 Additional Analytical Opportunities 8.4 Summary of Analytical Approaches and Opportunities References 9

Contextualization and Future Development of the Institutional Grammar 9.1 The Institutional Grammar: An Analytical Paradigm for Institutional Analysis 9.2 Future Directions in Institutional Grammar Research 9.2.1 Conceptual Directions 9.2.2 Disciplinary Directions 9.2.3 Catalyzing Theory and Framework Development References

314 334 336 337 342 344 352 353 358 363 363 369 370 371 374 375

Appendix A: Institutional Statement Structure

377

Appendix B: National Organic Program Regulation

379

U.S. National Organic Program Regulation

381

Glossary

389

Index

395

List of Figures

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.1

Combined Institutional Grammar patterns example Combined Institutional Grammar patterns example Separated Institutional Grammar patterns example Levels of expressiveness in the Institutional Grammar 2.0 Interaction of constitutive and regulative statements Continuous Deontic conception Direct and indirect objects in regulative institutional statements Activation Conditions vs. Execution Constraints Regulative statement structure Nesting principles Regulative statement type structures Constitutive statement component relationships IG 2.0 Features by Level of Expressiveness Institutional statements vs. institutional states Schematic overview of nesting characteristics Institutional Statement Coding Process Institutional Statement Component Linkage to Action Situation Exemplified linkage of objects and properties Property Typology Context taxonomy Institutional Statement Variants IG 2.0 Features by Level of Expressiveness Constitutive Functions Taxonomy

57 70 70 78 80 84 86 88 94 100 114 130 134 146 152 154 159 162 165 170 186 187 212

xiii

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

6.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Fig. 8.5 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9

Fig. 8.10 Fig. 8.11 Fig. 8.12 Fig. 8.13 Fig. 8.14 Fig. 8.15 Fig. 8.16 Fig. 8.17 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21

Fig. 9.1

Fig. A.1

First-order Linkages between Taxonomies and IG Components IG 2.0 Levels of Expressiveness and Associated Features Structural Composition Patterns for Nested Institutional Statements Institutional Grammar Overview Analytical Applications by Levels of Expressiveness Network structure of compliance excerpt Atomic statement distribution across subsections Atomic statement distribution across policy (Complexity Landscape) Institutional State Complexity Metrics across Institutional Tree Institutional State Complexity Aggregation IG Compositional Patterns Overview IG Compositional Patterns for Illustrative Statement IG Compositional Patterns for two statements (Vertical Linkage) IG Compositional Patterns (Horizontal and Vertical Linkages) IG compositional patterns example with selected component information Excerpt of Conceptual Entity Organization in Scenario General conceptual mapping of IG components to agent-based models Exemplary Execution Cycle of a farmer in the Organic Farming Scenario Generated Agent Society Exemplary Institutional Statement Output Systemic Interlinkage of Institutional Function Annotations Systemic Interlinkage of Action Situations Systemic decomposition with effect quantification Analytical Applications by Levels of Expressiveness Summary of analytical approaches and metrics based on analytical focus Institutional Grammar 2.0 by Levels of Expressiveness and associated Perspectives, Concepts and Analytical Applications Institutional Statement Structure in the Institutional Grammar 2.0

215 234 235 238 278 288 289 290 293 296 303 304 306 307 310 312 322 327 328 329 347 348 349 354 357

367 378

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table Table Table Table Table Table

4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2

Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table Table Table Table Table

8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8

Ontological inconsistencies in the Institutional Grammar Comparison of key characteristics between linguistic and Institutional Grammar Institution type characteristics Semantic distinction between norms and rules in the Institutional Grammar 2.0 Institution types of regulative and constitutive statements Types of nesting in institutional statements Indicators of Hybrid Statements IG Extended Features Summary IG Component Symbols IG Logico Taxonomies and affected Institutional Statement Components Most frequently occurring component information (regulative statements) Most frequently occurring component information (constitutive statements) Most frequently paired institutional information across syntactic components Statement stringency operationalization Constitutive-regulative Dynamics Degrees of State Variability for Logical Operators Institutional Tree Metrics Institutional State Regimentation based on associated Logical Operators

60 70 104 113 133 150 186 189 197 219 282 282 283 284 286 295 300 301

xv

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This book offers guidance on the analysis of institutions. Institutions are rules, norms, and strategies that govern social systems (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995; Frantz & Siddiki, 2021). They regulate behavior within social systems, by structuring opportunities and constraints for actions, and they establish features of social systems in which, and through which, behavior occurs. They can be emergent – reflecting regularities in behavioral manifestations that have developed among actors over time. Or, they can be specifically crafted and applied in a deliberate attempt to alter behavioral or systemic features or states of affairs. In this light, institutions can be reflected in social norms that emerge and evolve within communities over time, or as laws or regulations that are purposely designed and administered to influence social systems. Further, this quality of institutions means that they can be conceived of in terms of antecedents or products of other features of social systems. Given the salience of institutions in social systems and the recognition of their role as a structural foundation of every aspect of society, their study has garnered the interest of scholars representing the gamut of social science disciplines, including political science, public policy, economics, and sociology, as well as fields such as computer science. As well, the study of institutions has also been of interest to scholars whose work lies at the intersections of these disciplines; for example, scholars of political economy and computational social scientists. Core questions © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_1

1

2

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

variably associated with scholarship in these various disciplines that motivate the study of institutions, include: What are the institutions that communities use to govern behavior? How exactly do institutions opportune and constrain individual and collective behavior within particular settings? What qualities of institutions make them more or less effective in meeting specific objectives? How do institutions interact with environmental factors (e.g., resources, shocks) in order to produce efficient outcomes? Are the institutions used in one community more or less effective at achieving particular outcomes than others? What shapes institutional emergence and evolution? When and why do actors comply with institutions? How does the specific nature of institutions interact with the scale at which they operate (e.g., social groups, communities, society)? Notably, the breadth of disciplines for which the study of institutions is relevant has contributed to a theoretically and methodologically rich body of scholarship. As a corpus, institutional scholarship relies on a wide array of theories and methods, with varying epistemological roots, reflecting the diverse disciplinary backgrounds of its contributors. This theoretical and methodological diversity has led to the generation of novel insights regarding institutional phenomena. At the same time, it has challenged the identification of generalizable insights, insofar as theories and accompanying analytical approaches rooted in different disciplinary traditions often rely on distinctive conceptualizations and operationalizations of institutions. Efforts have been made to reconcile diversity in theoretical and methodological approaches engaged in the study of institutions, while at the same time respecting it, in order to foster the development of generalizable knowledge regarding institutional phenomena. This is the very effort that motivated the generation of the Institutional Grammar, which is the focus of this text. The Institutional Grammar, originally referred to as the “Grammar of Institutions,” was first proposed by Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom in 1995 in an article published in the American Political Science Review. Essentially, the Institutional Grammar (IG) offers an approach for the systematic characterization of institutions along generalizable, constituent parts, fundamentally lending the ability to more precisely define what institutions are, and more precisely predict how institutions will influence behavior within different situations. Parts of institutions are captured with syntactic components which combine to form a “grammar” of institutions. Crawford and Ostrom posited that all institutions, which are themselves assumed to be comprised of individual

1

INTRODUCTION

3

statements that regulate behavior or constitute features of the institutional system, are made up of some configuration of syntactic components. The particular array of components of which institutions are comprised determines how they are expected to compel behavior or parameterize social systems. The IG, while intriguing to many at the time of its publication, was applied by few in the years following. Though the IG was introduced in 1995, it was not until 2008 that the first academic journal article explicitly incorporating a discussion of it was published (Smajgl et al., 2008). This first article was shortly followed by another set of publications (Basurto et al., 2010; Schlüter & Theesfeld, 2010). Noteworthy about this first set of articles on the IG was that, although published in relatively quickstep, articles were authored by distinctive research teams, in different parts of the world, and by scholars with varying disciplinary orientations. Smajgl et al. (2008) used the IG to characterize features of rules endogenously generated in simulated environments. Schlüter and Theesfeld (2010) addressed the premise of the IG’s embedded syntax. Basurto et al. (2010) approached the IG from a methodological and use case perspective, delineating a set of operational guidelines for applying it toward the study of institutions taking the form of public policy. Interest in the IG has surged over the last ten years since this initial set of articles was published, and studies have largely followed one of a few distinct tracks according with the different topics of this early work. Indeed, extant IG research generally falls into one of three camps tracking with the foci of Smajgl et al. (2008), Schlüter and Theesfeld (2010), and Basurto et al. (2010). In one camp of IG research, scholars engage it within the context of computational methods (e.g., agent-based modeling), showcasing, as Smajgl et al. (2008) did, that the IG can be used to analyze institutions that emerge in simulated environments, as well as highlighting the utility of the IG in the parameterization of agent-based models (Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016), and to analyze endogenous emergence of “institutions in use” (Frantz et al., 2015b). In the second camp of IG research, scholars have used it to study the design of public policies. In the context of this pursuit, these scholars demonstrate how policy design concepts can be operationalized using the Grammar’s syntactic components, identify the amenability of using the Grammar to study the kinds of highly structured statements found in policy documents, and offer practical guidance on applying the IG. While less populated than the others, the third camp of IG research follows in

4

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

the steps of Schlüter and Theesfeld (2010) and offers critiques of the Grammar’s syntax on an ontological basis, in general terms, but also in connection with particular analytical applications (Frantz et al., 2013; Frantz & Siddiki, 2021). Given their differing objectives, as well as theoretical and methodological orientations, published research connected to the three different camps of IG scholarship mentioned above has explored distinctive (albeit not uncomplementary) kinds of research questions. One implication of this is that the applicability of insights derived from studies in one camp to studies in others is not always readily apparent. For example, for computational social scientists who are interested in modeling behavior in silico within the context of institutionally derived constraints, or using the IG syntax to characterize a limited set of emergent institutions, comprehensive guidance on how to manually code the entirety of statements comprising a public policy, or how to leverage syntactic components toward the measurement of policy design concepts, may be of limited use. Further, for policy scholars who are primarily interested in capturing institutional information from highly structured statements found in policy texts (i.e., only in the design, not application or interpretation, of formally conveyed institutions), challenges to the ontological integrity of the IG syntax that relate to how institutional statements are interpreted by policy actors clearly may not be perceived to be that salient, or at least not prohibitive. Importantly, recent publications signal an impending paradigm shift in the trajectory of IG scholarship. The hallmark of this recent scholarship is that it integrates research and insights from the three camps of IG researchers; in particular, through the engagement of computational methods in the study of policy design, which, for some computational applications, begs improvements in the ontological consistency of the IG syntax (i.e., logically unambiguous definition of the meaning of syntactic components) (see Chapter 3 for elaborated discussion) and syntactic extensions to accommodate heterogeneous structures of statements. Some use computational methods for automated coding of policy design (Heikkila & Weible, 2018; Rice et al., 2021). Rice et al. (2021) and have developed software specifically for the automated IG coding of policy documents. In doing so, not only have they expanded analytical opportunities relating to the application of the IG, they have developed the first natural language processing software variant that is specifically

1

INTRODUCTION

5

suited to capturing the structure and semantics of the kinds of regulative language unique to policy texts. Other natural language processing software is well suited to parse and identify natural language observed in prose, oral communication, and the like. Other recent research extends previous scholarship that speaks to the opportunity of using the IG for agent-based model parameterization by offering empirical validation. Siddiki and Frantz (2019), for example, rely on IG-coded policy data to identify actors and related choice sets and outcomes in a simulated organic farming setting. Taken altogether, this scholarship makes clear that accuracy in classification of policy text along the IG’s syntactic components, as well as usability of IG-coded data in model parameterization, will be enhanced with greater precision in the definitions of its syntactic components, as well as the ability to operationally parse these syntactic components in more granular terms—both of which are essentially linked to improved ontological consistency. The kind of conceptual, methodological, and use case integration observed in recent research, which effectively bridges the three aforementioned camps of IG scholarship, is notable for at least two reasons. First, it can lead to further exchange among scholars currently using the IG to guide their research, while at the same time fostering collaboration among scholars from different disciplines. This integration may also encourage uptake of the IG among social and computer scientists insofar as it highlights the versatility of the analytical use. The policy use case observed in recent IG research may be particularly appealing to computer scientists and computational social scientists seeking to develop empirically grounded models. Engagement of computer scientists can bring to light computational approaches and novel analytical features that can support policy scholars in their study of policy design. In effect, IG-coded policy data can provide the basis upon which to build simulations, let alone establish a more robust foundation for the general computational and logical treatment of IG-coded information. But while recent scholarship has laid the groundwork for supporting the possibilities highlighted here, we argue that significant progress from this point on cannot be made without (i) resolution of ontological inconsistencies miring the existing IG syntax; (ii) adaptation of the IG to more accurately account for heterogeneous structures of statements commonly observed in written, and even orally communicated, institutions; and (iii) adaptation of the grammatical form to make it computationally tractable. Fundamentally, we argue that a revised specification of the IG is needed

6

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

at this time, and it is this very argument that motivates this text. In this book, we present a revised specification of the IG, which we refer to as the “Institutional Grammar 2.0,” or IG 2.0, signaling a structural and paradigmatic shift to a New Institutional Grammar. Relatedly, we provide a comprehensive description of the IG 2.0 and operational guidelines to support its usage. We also provide guidance on how to analyze institutional data that has been coded according to the IG 2.0. Finally, throughout the text, the IG 2.0 is contextualized with reference to the existing – or original – IG, and related institutional analysis approaches and scholarship. In the remainder of this chapter, we (i) provide a brief introduction to institutional analysis, describing what it is and how it is approached and used by scholars with different disciplinary orientations; (ii) provide an overview of the institutional analysis framework in which the IG embeds, called the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework; and (iii) offer a more detailed description of the IG as presented by Crawford and Ostrom in 1995 and revised since then. We conclude the chapter with an outline of this book.

1.1

What Is Institutional Analysis?

Broadly, institutional analysis refers to the study of institutions that govern social systems. As stated earlier, institutions are defined as rules, norms, and shared strategies that regulate behavior or constitute features of governed systems; for example, by defining artifacts relevant within a particular system, establishing positions that actors within a system can hold, or establishing entities or venues in which system actors can interact. In doing so, institutions foster regularity in behavior, which is regarded as critical for enabling effective collective action in societies. Behavioral regularity, in supporting understanding of what actors can expect of their own and others’ actions, can minimize the transaction costs of decision-making and interaction (Williamson, 1975), minimize the cognitive load associated with decision making (Simon, 1955), foster the generation of social capital and reciprocity (Ostrom & Walker, 2003), and enable the efficacy of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms (Ostrom, 1990). Institutional scholarship acknowledges that institutions can be either formal or informal in kind. Formal institutions (also referred to as institutions in form throughout this book) are institutions that result from institutional decision-making processes engaged by recognized authorities

1

INTRODUCTION

7

(e.g., a public policy that results from a policy-making process engaged by a legislature), and often codified in written form. Other examples of formal institutions are organizational bylaws, treaties (Brady, 2020), or written rules developed to govern online communities (Frey & Sumner, 2019). Informal institutions (also referred to as institutions in use) are those represented in social conventions or cultural habits—strategies, norms, or rules that build on internal or decentralized social enforcement and may not be formally codified (Ullmann-Margalit, 1977). Most of the time, social systems are simultaneously governed by arrays of formal and informal institutions that can vary in their extent of congruence (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004), relative salience, and interactivity (i.e., dynamic development) over time (North, 1990). A single institution— i.e., public policy or social convention pertaining to a particular topic— can be comprised of one or more institutional statements that individually detail what actors are required, permitted, or allowed to do within particular constraints, or constitute entities with varying degrees of specificity and to varying extents. Scholars engaged in the institutional analysis have been particularly interested in identifying the presence and features (i.e., design) of institutions, analyzing their emergence and/or antecedents, assessing outcomes linked to institutionally governed behavior, and studying instances and explanations of institutional non/compliance. Among the various approaches used by institutional scholars for data collection and/or analysis are formal modeling, historical and longitudinal case studies, laboratory experiments, ethnography, interviews, and surveys. This chapter will briefly review institutional analysis as rooted in different disciplinary and methodological traditions. 1.1.1

Institutional Analysis by Discipline

In this section, we briefly review how institutional analysis is conducted by scholars of public policy and administration, political science, economics, sociology, social psychology, law, philosophy, and computer science. While scholars of different disciplines emphasize distinctive factors in their studies, rely on different epistemological assumptions, and/or engage different analytical tools, there does seem to be overlap in the broader institutional perspectives that motivate their work. Three institutional

8

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

perspectives predominate in institutional studies: historical institutionalism, sociological institutionalism, and rational choice institutionalism. Historical institutionalism emphasizes the role of temporal processes in institutional evolution, and particularly how institutional formation and evolution are shaped by features of the social and political contexts in which they embed (Greif, 2006; Thelen, 1999). The contextual orientation of historical institutionalism is also reflected in sociological institutionalism insofar as the latter conceives of institutions as reflecting habits of individuals that emerge within particular contexts to serve material and non-material aims of individuals and communities (Zafirovski, 2004). Consistent with this view is the take that institutions embody individual preferences and cognition. As noted by Campbell (2020): “Institutions are thus repositories of taken-for-granted cognitive schemata that shape people’s understandings of the world they live in and provide scripts to guide their action.” Whereas both historical and sociological institutionalism adopt an endogenous orientation in their conception of institutions, rational choice institutionalism embraces both endogenous and exogenous perspectives. Taking each in turn, rational choice institutionalists conceiving of institutions in endogenous terms see them as emerging in practice over time and reflective of individuals’ strategic and utility-maximizing decisions (Shepsle, 2009). Those conceiving of institutions in exogenous terms view them as generated outputs specifically designed to shape behavior. Recalling North (1990, p. 3)’s popular definition of institutions that accords with this perspective, “[institutions are] … the rules of the game in a society or, more formally … the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction.” An underlying presumption is that behavior compelled by the imposition of devised institutions will in some way be social welfare enhancing. 1.1.1.1 Public Policy and Administration Public administration and policy scholars have dedicated substantial effort to understanding the design, function, and impacts of institutions engaged in various aspects of governance. The following discussion provides a brief overview of distinctive tracts of institutional research within public administration and policy, particularly policy process, scholarship. Extant public administration and policy scholarship in which institutions are conceived of as behavioral constraints, as opposed to organizations, draws inspiration from all of the dominant institutional

1

INTRODUCTION

9

perspectives. Within public administration research, the study of institutions orients on theorizing and evaluating their role in structuring the delivery of public goods and services as well as administrative settings, and guiding the behavior of administrative actors that act within these settings. With respect to administrative settings, institutions are assessed in terms of their constitutive function; identifying the structural and procedural boundaries of administrative settings in which a variety of deliberative (i.e., collective decision-making) and operational (i.e., day-to-day practices) activities will occur (Toonen, 1998). With the latter, institutions are investigated with respect to their specific role in shaping operational activities, which can come to embody “administrative styles.” Extending beyond behavior, public administration scholars highlight the role of institutions in shaping how actors within administrative environments interpret problems and solutions. Fundamentally, research linked to this line of inquiry posits that understanding what occurs at an operational level, as reflected in regularized patterns in behavior, requires a complementary understanding of what is happening at higher levels of decision making and activity. Public administration scholars also highlight the relevance of institutions within the broader study of administrative reform and change (Barzelay & Gallego, 2006; Howlett, 2003). An important subset of this research, rooted in a sociological perspective, examines how organizations adapt their form and practices over time in accordance with community norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Whereas the study of institutions within public administration scholarship focuses primarily on how institutions structure administrative environments and govern the behavior of actors operating within them, the study of institutions within public policy scholarship focuses on how and why they emerge and change, their role in governing individual and collective decision-making and behavior, and their impacts on broader, systemic outcomes. As aptly summarized by Cairney (2012), those interested in studying institutions have exhibited an enduring interest in responding to the following types of questions: What is an institution? How does an institution influence individual behavior? How does an institution become established in the first place? How does an institution change? How does institutionalism inform comparative public policy; that is, how do institutions explain country-level differences? Policy scholars adopting a historical institutional perspective, have posited and responded to various questions linked to better understanding institutional trajectories, such as how do previously enacted institutions shape

10

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

future institutions, politics, resource distributions, political learning, and attitudes, and what are the reciprocal effects relating thereto (Mettler & Sorelle, 2018). But while path dependency is a key underlying dimension of theories rooted in historical institutionalism, specific operational guidance on how to model or otherwise analyze this dimension though empirical application is limited. Policy scholars interested in the historical trajectories of institutions have drawn heavily on the research of political scientists focused on the same. The following section further describes how political scientists have engaged in the study of institutions. 1.1.1.2 Political Science Political scientists’ research on institutions has focused primarily on contextualizing institutions; that is, identifying how institutions emerge and develop in relation to context-specific social, political, and economic factors. Similarly, political scientists have also been keenly interested in identifying and understanding the political implications of the trajectories along which institutions develop over time (Mettler & Sorelle, 2018; Skocpol, 1995). Another branch of political science research on institutions focuses more specifically, on how institutions fit into decisionmaking calculi of political actors. Yet a third branch of political science research focuses specifically on the role of institutions in governing collective action in political processes (Olson, 1965; Ostrom, 2005). This research details individuals’ motivations and incentives for engaging in collective action in political processes and the role of institutions in overcoming common collective dilemmas. Policy scholarship and political science scholarship focused on assessing institutional dynamics have considerable topical overlap. 1.1.1.3 Economics Economists have made important contributions to the study of institutions, focusing primarily on how institutions influence the decisionmaking and behavior of individuals, as well as how institutions shape markets more broadly given their role in defining features of markets and in governing collective action occurring with markets (North, 1990). More generally, the study of New Institutional Economics (Hodgson, 2006, 2019; North, 1991) has aimed at developing explanatory approaches to analyze institutions at different scales; drawing on the microscopic transaction cost perspective (Williamson, 1975), as well as perspectives that support investigation of the effect of institutions

1

INTRODUCTION

11

on prosperity outcomes at macro scales, with increasing reference to contextual factors such as resource governance that define or affect prosperity outcomes (e.g., Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012; Diamond, 1997). Other aspects, interlinked with focus on historical institutionalism include assessments of path dependence to support the explanation of modern institutional arrangements (Greif, 2006; Milgrom et al., 1990), as well as to motivate the evolution of institutional structure and enforcement regimes (North et al., 2009). Rooted in assumptions of rational decision-making, economic research on institutions views actors as utility-maximizing agents that seek optimal decisions within informational, resource, and importantly, behavioral constraints. The latter assumes that individuals do not pursue decisions with complete autonomy, but rather do so within systems of exogenously applied or endogenously generated rules that outline behavioral opportunities and constraints, govern their interactions with others, and constitute aspects of markets with which they engage in transactions. Seen through the lens of institutional economics, exogenous rules are those that are created and applied by a governing authority, whereas endogenous rules are those that represent strategic equilibria in decision-making (Aoki, 2007). 1.1.1.4 Sociology Sociological research on institutions sheds light on the role of social conventions and cultural habits—i.e., socially communicated or tacitly understood strategies, norms, and rules—in shaping individual and collective behavior. A pervasive theme in sociological studies is the interaction between micro-level actors and macroscopic institutional arrangements, recognizing the mutual dependence in the shaping of new behavior, and in consequence coordination thereof, an interaction conceptually explored by Coleman (1990) as well as Hedström and Swedberg (1998). Whereas policy studies more generally emphasize the importance of the formal institutional perspective as elaborated above, the sociological study interprets institutions primarily as social norms (Ullmann-Margalit, 1977) that emerge, and evolve based on continuous interaction between micro-level entities, pre-existing or established formal institutions, and the associated frictions. Given the important role of theory generation in this field, the study of the cognitive bases and social processes by which norms, and, in extension, institutions emerge (Bourdieu, 1977; Giddens,

12

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

1984), reflect an essential linkage to the disciplines referenced above, but, combined with the consideration of legal studies, lay the foundation for the computational study of institutions more generally.1 Linking sociological applications to organizational studies specifically, scholars also focus on the role of institutions in shaping forms and practices within social organizations; for example, community or government organizations. Sociological research on government organizations applies sociological theory to the study of bureaucracy, contributing to the advancement of public administration research on such. Institutional perspectives gained prominence in the study of social organizations during the 1990s, in part reflecting broader interest in institutions across the social sciences, and in part as a reaction to the way that organizational research was developing prior to this period. Leading up to the 1990s, organizational scholars were drawing heavily on economics-based perspectives, which emphasized the role of financial and resource constraints in shaping organizational form and practices (Senge, 2013). Limited attention was given to the role of cultural habits and social conventions in shaping organizational dynamics, on which sociologists were well positioned to contribute scientific insights. 1.1.1.5 Social Psychology Social psychologists merge assumptions according to sociological institutionalism and rational choice institutionalism with theories of cognition and psychology to investigate, for example, how institutions designed to govern social systems and interactions interface with cognitive and psychological factors to inform individual decision-making and behavior, as well as how cognitive and psychological factors inform how individuals respond to (e.g., comply with) institutions that govern social systems (Deci & Ryan, 2015). Recent social psychology research suggests ways to extend the prevailing conception of rational choice decision-making to offer a more complete accounting of the cognitive and psychological factors that shape how individuals make decisions in institutionally governed domains. For instance, this includes the effectiveness of enforcement based on its facilitative vs. punitive nature (May, 2004), let alone the traditional studies on the influence of authority to guide enforcement or compliance behavior (Burger, 2009), as well as the general cognitive 1 Section 4.2.3 provides an extended discussion of the sociological perspective on institutions.

1

INTRODUCTION

13

biases that influence individuals’ decision-making to an extent that it may appear detached from any rationality (Kahneman & Tversky, 1972). Consequently, research in this direction emphasizes the perceived value of developing and/or implementing institutions that foster social cooperation toward the resolution of social dilemmas in an individual’s decision-making calculus (DeCaro, 2019). As well, it emphasizes ways that institutions, by their design, can respond to fundamental human needs (e.g., procedural justice) and thereby support the attainment of institutional objectives (DeCaro et al., 2015). 1.1.1.6 Law Legal scholarship has much to offer toward the study of institutions generally, given that laws are ubiquitous kinds of formal institutions used to govern social systems, but also specifically for institutional studies employing the Institutional Grammar, given that legal scholars follow diverse (and at times politicized) traditions of analysis (Huhn, 2014) that are fundamentally focused on the content of the law. Given the traditional appeal to interpret and apply laws in terms of sets of rules and the accurate characterization of context (e.g., to reflect the activation or termination of applicability of legal provisions), scholars in the area of legal studies have an intrinsic interest in the formal characterization of law, including the legal-theoretical perspective (e.g., Katz et al., 2021), a tradition that has continued and is reflected in the subfield of Legal Informatics. Legal Informatics (Katz et al., 2021) is particularly relevant in the context of this book given that it addresses the use of computational methods for assessing laws.2 Institutionally oriented legal scholars are principally interested in understanding the design of laws, the circumstances under which laws were devised (and corresponding contemporary interpretation), as well as investigating conformance, or the lack of, among de jure and de facto law (Cole, 2017), essentially focusing on the study of their effect. Relating to institutional analysis are recent efforts in comparative legal scholarship focused on the development of quantitative approaches for measuring linguistic features of laws (Cooter & Ginsburg, 2005). These approaches are considered valuable for comparative institutional analysis, insofar as they accommodate a comparison of values representing 2 Specific techniques and research directions are discussed below in the context of Computer Science perspectives on institutions.

14

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

linguistic characteristics of laws found in different settings. This interest in computational analysis of legal text is also observed outside of the comparative legal analysis domain (Ceci et al., 2012). In step with syntactic innovations presented in this book, some scholars interested in the use of computational methods in legal research have given particular attention to representing linguistic features of constitutive (versus regulative) institutions to accommodate machine interpretability (Ceci et al., 2018). 1.1.1.7 Philosophy Philosophers have made important contributions to the study of institutions. Given the focus of this book, this brief overview of scholarship on institutional analysis will highlight the contributions of philosophers of language in particular (Austin, 2011; Searle, 1969). Philosophers of language are interested, among other topics, in the bases and logic of linguistics (Lycan, 2018). Relevant for the discussion in this book is scholarship that examines how language is captured in different types of “rules” (i.e., institutions) (Midgley, 1959). This scholarship highlights fundamental differences in the meaning of rules that describe what may or may not be done (i.e., regulate behavior), and rules that constitute objects or behaviors within a system, essentially by defining what these objects and behaviors count as (Grossi et al., 2006; Searle, 2018). In addition to differentiating the meaning of rules that regulate behavior from rules that constitute aspects of systems, Midgley (1959) also noted the inherent non-violatability of the latter. Searle (2018, p. 52) highlights the varying syntactic forms of regulative and constitutive rules; noting that regulative rules typically exhibit a syntactic structure accordant with an imperative form, whereas constitutive rules typically exhibit a declarative syntactic structure of the form “X counts as Y,” or “X counts as Y in context Z.” Searle also distinguished between brute facts and institutional facts; defining the former as facts that exist independently of any institution, and the latter as facts within the context of a particular institutional setting, and often expressed through constitutive rules. This philosophy scholarship that addresses assumptions and logic of linguistic meaning, linkages between linguistic meaning and syntactic structure, and the interpretation of institutional meaning is foundational to the “New Institutional Grammar.” 3

3 An extended discussion of the philosophical challenges is provided in Sect. 5.2.

1

INTRODUCTION

15

1.1.1.8 Computer Science The final disciplinary orientation called out in this initial chapter is the computational study of institutions. As many of the areas referenced above, the role of computer science in the study of institutions is diverse, but features cross-sectional linkages with these very areas. Foregoing the general opportunities that computation offers more generally (e.g., analytics, automation of data processing), these subfields differentiate based on the focus of the operational application of institutions in the context of socio-technical systems, the analysis of institutional systems as they simulate the exploration of decentralized coordination mechanisms, or variably explore formal properties of normative or legal rule systems. Discussed under the umbrella term mechanism design are approaches that embed institutional features into software systems, and more specifically, socio-technical systems aimed at directly interacting with humans, designed to display social behavior, or to operationalize legal institutional rules. The approaches first dedicated to the explicit representation of institutional concepts are captured under the label Electronic Institutions (Noriega, 1997; Rodríguez-Aguilar, 2001), essentially translating existing institutional arrangements into formal systems representing the institutional features observed in real systems. The focus on the interaction with human actors, or resemblance of social systems, is reflected by drawing on the principles of multi-agent systems (Ferber, 1999; Shoham & Leyton-Brown, 2014). Contemporary developments loosely linked with this tradition is the implementation of institutions in the form of smart contracts (Szabo, 1997) as part of distributed ledger systems (see e.g., Frantz & Nowostawski, 2016; Zheng et al., 2020), and the principles of algorithmic governance (Katzenbach & Ulbricht, 2019) that aim at representing conceptual and practical alternatives to automate, monitor, or socialize governance functions assumed by human actors. Evolving from the mechanistic view on institutions, the role of social coordination mechanisms has found recognition in a set of approaches presented under the label Normative Multi-Agent Systems (Boella et al., 2006). Approaches under this label capture both the computational exploration of normative processes, such as norm emergence and evolution, with variable focus on the cognitive or social bases, as well as a focal emphasis on the norm concept itself, as captured in the concept of norm lifecycles (Frantz & Pigozzi, 2018). The formal interpretation of norms is referenced as Norm Change (Boella et al., 2009) and

16

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

draws on fundamental principles of logic and argumentation to analyze normative systems with focus on obligations and prohibitions, as well as transitions between different normative statements, from a theoretical perspective. The computational analysis of institutions in the form of agent-based models (Epstein, 2007) (an approach explored in greater detail in Chapter 2 and Sect. 8.2.2) intersects with this particular field, but puts stronger emphasis on the empirical study of domain-specific scenarios and the coordinative functions norms or rules play therein. Hence, unlike the theoretical orientation of Normative Multi-Agent Systems, computational social scientists often identify as social scientists based on the social-scientific nature (including theory and method) of their research. The third and last approach referenced in this brief overview is the study of formal institutions of a primarily legal kind. Laying the foundations for both the implementation of institutional concepts in sociotechnical systems referenced above (e.g., information systems, robotics), but also contributing to the legal-philosophical development of institutional concepts, this field is broadly captured under the label Legal Informatics (Katz et al., 2021). Linked to reasoning techniques associated with traditional Artificial Intelligence approaches as well as the modern incarnation as data-centric Machine Learning techniques, a purview of legal informatics is to extract legal information (e.g., policy documents), and its logical treatment to accurately capture contextual interpretation (e.g., based on temporal logics, event calculi). Objectives in this field can be practical in kind (e.g., facilitating the parsing of legal texts) or inherently theoretical [e.g., classification of legal statements (Ceci et al., 2018), formal verification of legal constructs (Katz et al., 2021)]. Efforts with relevance to the IG is the development of standards for the formal representation (e.g., Palmirani et al., 2018) and computational interpretation of law (e.g., Athan et al., 2015; Palmirani et al., 2011). Scholars in this field often possess interdisciplinary backgrounds, involving logic, philosophy as well as legal studies. 1.1.2

Convergence Toward Interdisciplinary Institutional Analysis

The purpose of the preceding discussion is in part to convey the salience of institutional analysis across major social science disciplines. It is also in part to convey the considerable overlap in core ideas explored by institutional analysts drawing on differing disciplinary perspectives, as well as different institutional perspectives, some of which have found broad

1

INTRODUCTION

17

coverage in extant IG research, whereas others have found little. As will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of this book, these ideas are also prominently showcased in Institutional Grammar research conducted to date, and we demonstrate throughout this book that this exploration is further supported by conceptual and methodological refinements presented under the label Institutional Grammar 2.0, or IG 2.0. Recounting these core ideas here. First, institutions are understood to be exogenously and endogenously generated. Exogenous institutions, are typically generated by a government authority, and are often represented in written form, such as in constitutions, laws, and regulations. Endogenous institutions are generated through practice and experience, reflecting individuals’ patterned behaviors, including behavior in response to social queues and constraints. The formation of endogenous institutions is based on processes of experiential or social learning, paired with informal enforcement that operates based on the ongoing socialization and internalization of the observed and experienced behavior. Endogenous institutions typically present in the form of cultural habits and social conventions, and social norms more specifically. Exogenous institutions tend to be implemented, monitored, and enforced by the governing authority that generated them. Endogenous institutions are usually socially monitored and enforced. A second core idea commonly represented in extant social science research on institutions (and in part implied by the first one), is that exogenously and endogenously generated institutions are subject to change. Institutions of either sort are understood to evolve over time, in more or less incremental ways in response to changes in aspects of the social systems in which they embed. A third core idea represented in social science research on institutions, augments the first and second relating to the generation and evolution of institutions, respectively, by highlighting the contextualized nature of both. Essentially, institutional scholars recognize that institutions situate within contexts with particular social, political, economic, environmental, and other characteristics, and context has implications for the specific design of institutions and how they change over time. A fourth, somewhat related, idea explored in extant institutional scholarship is that institutions shape decisionmaking, behavior, and concomitant outcomes, alongside various personal (i.e., cognitive), social, and contextual factors (Siddiki, 2014). Finally, institutions have varying functional and structural properties.

18

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

In the following section, we provide an overview of one institutional analysis framework, that explicitly incorporates the core ideas expressed above, and related disciplinary insights, called the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. The relevance of this framework within the context of this book is that it is the analytical framework in which the Institutional Grammar is grounded.

1.2

Institutional Analysis with the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework

The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, or IAD framework, is one of the leading analytical approaches for studying institutional design, development, and outcomes (Ostrom, 2005). Linking to the preceding discussion, one of the appeals of the framework is its interdisciplinary foundations. Concept, theory, and methods linked to the IAD framework are grounded in research from the fields of public administration, political science, economics, psychology, and others. Borrowing insights from these various fields, the framework accommodates exploration of micro-, meso-, and macro-level institutional phenomena under one analytical lens. In more specific terms, leveraging insights from various disciplines, the framework articulates a model of individual decision-making (micro level), factors hindering and enabling collective action (meso level), and systemic factors shaping individual and collective decision-making and behavior. Furthermore, the framework guides investigation of how micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors configure to shape outcomes within systems with social and environmental features. The IAD framework conceives of social systems as comprised of one or more “action situations” that vary in their degree of interdependence. An action situation is defined as a setting in which two or more actors “are faced with a set of potential actions that jointly produce outcomes” (Ostrom, 2005, p. 32). What occurs within action situations reflects the institutions that are opportuning or constraining actors’ actions and interactions. An institution itself is made up of one or more institutional statements (described further in the following discussion) that independently or configurally influence aspects of one or more action situations (Siddiki et al., 2019). To guide the institutional analyst’s understanding of institutions that shape what happens within action situations, the IAD framework posits a “rule typology” (Ostrom, 2005). Included within this rule typology

1

INTRODUCTION

19

are seven types of rules that accord with institutional functions pertaining to actors and actor interactions within the context of action situations (i) Position rules specify positions that actors can occupy within an action situation; (ii) Boundary rules specify eligibility criteria for occupying these positions; (iii) Choice rules specify operational actions linked to actors occupying certain positions; (iv) Scope rules specify intended goals or situational outcomes; (v) Information rules specify channels of information flow; (vi) Aggregation rules specify guidance on collective decision-making; and (vii) Payoff rules specify incentives tied to particular actions. These rules may operate configurally to guide individual and collective behavior within action situations. Importantly, this rule typology, that captures specific functions that different types of rules serve within action situations, also eludes to meta-institutional functions that different rules serve within action situations. As reflected in the definitions of the different rule types, some rules play a constituting, or parameterizing, role in the context of action situations. For example, position rules constitute positions that actors can hold. Some rules regulate the behavior of actors within action situation. For example, choice rules specify specific actions assigned to actors. This observation suggests the value in considering the wider functions that rules play in relation to action situations—whether they define the features of action situations that actors act upon or in relation to, or whether they define actions in the first place. Because action situations are a focal unit of analysis under the IAD framework, and what happens within action situations is presumed to be largely shaped by institutions, the IAD framework offers multiple conceptual and methodological approaches for analyzing institutional design that variably relate to the rule typology described above. One of these approaches is the Institutional Grammar, which is described in more detail in the following section.

1.3

Primer on the Institutional Grammar

As basis for the discussion of a revised specification of the Institutional Grammar in this book, we provide an overview of the approach as originally conceived. Understanding of the original conception of the Institutional Grammar is important as the IG 2.0 as introduced in this book invites for broader disciplinary adoption based on a shared perspective

20

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

on institutions, amounting to a new paradigm for conducting institutional analysis using the IG. Specifically, it extends the original conception toward improving its ontological consistency, ability to comprehensively capture heterogeneous statement structures, and computational tractability. Despite urging a paradigmatic shift with the referenced refinements, the IG 2.0 should be seen as a complement rather than a substitute to the original IG. Hence, an understanding of the original conception is critical. It is also important for grounding the discussion of existing research offered in Chapter 2 of this book, as extant research is almost entirely based on the original conception. Yet further, this background is crucial for contextualizing the refinements to the original IG presented here. As noted earlier in this introductory chapter, one of the primary motivations of the Institutional Grammar was to lend clarity on the definition of institutions through reference to institutional features, and relatedly provide a systematic way of differentiating among different types of institutions commonly analyzed by institutional analysts. Underlying Crawford and Ostrom’s approach for defining institutions was an assumption that institutions are comprised of abstractable and generalizable constituent parts, and thus ancillary to the definition of institutions is identification of these constituent parts. Crawford and Ostrom harkened the analogy of genetic structure, referencing the value of understanding the genetic code of institutions as basis for understanding their design and influence on human decision-making and behavior. As institutions are, or can be, captured in written language, a logical conceptualization of the abstractable and generalizable parts of institutions was as syntactic components that convey institutionally relevant meaning and configure within an “institutional grammar.” This is in the same way that parts of speech mapping to syntactic labels combine within, for example, the English grammar. Within English grammar, parts of speech configure to form statements, and according to grammar rules, there is a minimum set of parts of speech needed to form a complete statement. In an analogous way, in the Institutional Grammar, the focal unit of analysis is the “institutional statement,” that is comprised of some configuration of syntactic components, some of which must necessarily be present. In this way, these syntactic components are “necessary components of institutional statements,” while others are deemed “sufficient components.” Crawford and Ostrom defined an institutional statement made up of these various syntactic components in the following way: “[An] institutional statement

1

INTRODUCTION

21

refers to a shared linguistic constraint or opportunity that prescribes, permits, or advises actions or outcomes for actors (both individual and corporate). Institutional statements are spoken, written, or tacitly understood in a form intelligible to actors in an empirical setting” (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995, p. 583). The original presentation of the Institutional Grammar identified five syntactic components of institutional statements: (i) Attributes: the actor (individual or corporate) to whom an institutional statement applies. The actor characterized in the Attributes component performs the action, or set of actions, indicated in the statement; (ii) Aim: the action(s) that the Attribute is linked to; (iii) Deontic: a prescriptive operator (e.g., must, may, must not) that indicates whether the action identified in the statement is required, allowed, or forbidden; (iv) Condition: a temporal, spatial, procedural, or other, condition that qualifies the action of the statement; and (v) Or else: a payoff associated with performing, or failing to perform, the action of the statement. These, and additional components which have since been added to the Grammar, are often referenced with their acronyms: Attributes (A), Aim (I), Deontic (D), Conditions (C), and Or else (O). Referring again to the notion of necessary and sufficient components of institutional statements, an institutional statement must at least contain an Attributes, Aim, and Conditions component to qualify as such. Thus, Deontic and Or else components are considered sufficient components. Drawing terminologically and theoretically on game theory, institutional statements containing the necessary components of Attributes, Aim, and Conditions are characterized as shared strategies. Statements containing these necessary components and also a Deontic are characterized as norms. Statements containing all five of the referenced syntactic components are referred to as rules. Two notable refinements to this list of syntactic components have been published in the last ten years. Both of these refinements seem to have been accepted by the Institutional Grammar user community, as indicated by their incorporation into published research. The first of these refinements was the introduction of the Object syntactic component by Siddiki et al. (2011), referenced with the acronym B. The second refinement was a reconceptualization of the Or else component by Frantz et al. (2013). Each is discussed in turn. The Object component was introduced by Siddiki et al. with the related aims of improving the ontological consistency of the Institutional Grammar syntax, while, at the same time, extending the extent to which institutional information can be captured,

22

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

as well as enabling more reliable institutional classification. In the absence of a syntactic field to capture institutional statement clauses capturing receivers of actions indicated in statements, these clauses were erroneously captured within the Aim (i.e., statement action) or Conditions (i.e., qualifier of statement action) fields.4 Siddiki et al. developed this syntactic extension based on a study of public policies. In so doing, they built on the work of Basurto et al. (2010) who offered specific operational guidelines for applying the Institutional Grammar to study the design of public policies. Rather than proposing a syntactic extension like Siddiki et al., Frantz et al. (2013) introduced a syntactic modification in their presentation of the Nested ADICO, or nADICO, concept. nADICO urges reconceptualization of the Or else component of the Institutional Grammar syntax to accommodate both conceptual and empirical observations. In doing so, the nADICO conceptualization accommodates more detailed description of institutions, while at the same time supporting analysis of complex forms of institutional statements. Among the core features of the nADICO concept, reflected in its labeling, is to treat institutional clauses according with the Or else component under the original Institutional Grammar as nested statements . This suggestion derives from empirical observation. In many statements in which an Or else clause is present, that clause is typically structurally and semantically akin to a complete institutional statement. However, because the clause is closely tied (or directly follows) from clauses according with ABDIC5 components in the statement in which it is found, the notion is to capture this linkage through a nesting conception. In this nesting conception, the statement in which the Or else clause is initially encountered is treated as the monitored statement and the Or else clause, which is subsequently represented as a complete statement is referred to as a consequential statement . For illustration of the nADICO concept, consider the following example statement, which would be treated as one complete institutional statement under the original Institutional Grammar: “Organic farmers must accommodate review of records of farming practices during inspections, or else certifiers may suspend 4 To distinguish conditions from action qualifications, in computational studies qualifiers have been represented as properties of activities, rather than being conflated with conditions (Frantz et al., 2015b). 5 The ABDIC acronym reflects the conceptual inclusion of the Object component by Siddiki et al. (2011).

1

INTRODUCTION

23

organic farming certification.” This statement would be parsed as follows along Institutional Grammar syntactic components: Attributes = organic farmers Deontic = must Aim = accommodate Object = review of records of farming practices Condition = during inspections Or else = or else certifiers may suspend organic farming certification

This example clearly elucidates the noted observation that clauses linked to the Or else component often take the form of complete institutional statements. nADICO thus urges the delineation of this one statement into two, with the monitoring statement, “Organic farmers must accommodate review of records of farming practices during inspections” and nested consequential statement, “Certifiers may suspend organic farming certification.” The reconceptualization of the Or else component under the nADICO also bears conceptual implications, particularly as related to the strategies, norms, rules distinction posited under the original Institutional Grammar. As previously described, strategies, norms, and rules as variant forms of institutional statements are defined in terms of the presence or absence of syntactic components, or rather clauses associating therewith. Norms and Rules are differentiated by the presence of Or else clauses in the latter. This differentiation is irrelevant under the nADICO conception, since the Or else is in effect not treated as a syntactic component at all therein, while explicitly admitting the notion of sanctioning provisions for norms.6 The nADICO conception is central to the IG 2.0, and is revisited and described in further detail later in this book (Chapter 4). Before concluding this brief overview of the IG, elements of which will be expounded upon in much more detail in the remainder of this book, it is worth mentioning what it means to have an institutional syntax. Generally, syntax is a representation of structure. In a linguistic, as well as institutional, sense, syntax is an arrangement of syntactic components. Given the reference to syntactic components that liken to parts of speech, and institutional statements that liken to sentences, it may 6 This is an extension of Schlüter and Theesfeld (2010)’s interpretation of the normsrules distinction, and is further discussed in Sect. 4.2.3.

24

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

seem that the IG simply offers another linguistic syntax according to which one can understand the language of written and spoken institutions. But this characterization would be incorrect. There are distinctive differences between the institutional syntax offered through the IG and traditional linguistic syntax, which enable the institutional analyst to more comprehensively and usefully capture institutional structure and meaning, all toward understanding what institutions are and their functional role within social systems. For clarification, Institutional Structure refers to arrangements of units of language that individually and configurally convey institutional meaning—Institutional Semantics —and which can be analyzed at different levels. Within the IG, generally the focal unit of analysis is the institutional statement.7 As this issue is addressed in great detail in later chapters of this book, we highlight here only one of the key differences between an institutional syntax that embeds in the IG and a linguistic syntax. Whereas the parts of speech that accord with particular syntactic components in linguistic syntaxes are reflecting a somewhat agnostic mapping of sentence information to linguistic components, the syntactic components within an institutional syntax are specifically meant to pick up on generalizable types of information conveyed within institutional statements presumed to have important institutional function—i.e., bearing on how institutions will function or perform within a particular domain. The presentation here of the Institutional Grammar as an institutional syntax, as differentiated from a linguistic syntax, is not offered as a technical point. Rather, it is to highlight the richness of the information that is captured from an application of the IG for the institutional analyst. The syntax specifically captures information that is critical to understanding how institutions shape behavior and interactions within social systems. And, while presenting a relevant classification schema to enable robust and reliable representations of institutions along select features, the IG offers no prescription on specific kinds of questions or phenomena the institutional analyst can explore leveraging IG coded information. Further, while grounded in institutional theory and affiliated with the IAD framework, the IG offers no prescription about which specific theories or analytical frameworks analysts should apply as part of the assessment of IG coded data. It is these various features that make 7 This characterization is refined in Sect. 4.2.2 based on the introduction of atomic institutional statements.

1

INTRODUCTION

25

the IG of broad appeal to institutional analysts with various research questions, methodological approaches, and disciplinary backgrounds. Independent of background and interest, the institutional analyst can thus fundamentally treat the IG 2.0, in particular, as an analytical paradigm—a way of approaching conceptualization, design, and application of analysis, where the latter is also informed by epistemological and disciplinary orientations. The Grammar offers a conceptual and representational basis for viewing institutions, accommodates diverse analytical applications across disciplines and domains, and supports diverse institutional theories and types of data as well as associated methodological approaches and analytical techniques. Basically, even though the IG is offering shared bases for representing institutions, the analyst can apply different concepts and theories for guiding which aspects of institutions are represented, as well as how to interpret institutional information; can use different methodological approaches for collecting institutional information, and; can use different analytical techniques for processing, manipulating, and evaluating institutional information as linked to conceptual and theoretical foci. The remainder of this text provides a detailed overview of how the IG generally, and the IG 2.0 specifically, enable the kind of integration and diverse application referenced in this section. The following section outlines the structure of the book. In navigating the contents of this book, it may be useful to make note of the intended usage of this book. First, this book is intended to provide a comprehensive exposition of the IG 2.0. Several chapters are dedicated to describing in detail the “conceptual foundations” of the IG 2.0. Conceptual foundations are organized by the three levels of expressiveness on which the IG 2.0 orients that vary in depth and focus of analysis. The book is also intended to serve as a reference guide. Given that a central aim of the IG 2.0 is to support diverse utilization of different features of it, and relatedly to accommodate varying analytical aims, institutional analysts may find it practically helpful to reference sections of the book that are suited to his/her analytical objectives following a complete reading of the text. Supporting the referential quality of the book, it contains two chapters dedicated to “applications”, which too are organized around levels of expressiveness to support selective references. The first of these application chapters focuses on providing guidance on coding institutional statements according to different levels of expressiveness. The second of the applications chapters is focused on showcasing different ways that institutional information

26

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

collected through an application of the IG can be analyzed. Importantly, it should also be noted that this book is intended to serve as the conceptual complement to a comprehensive operational codebook developed by the authors of this text. The codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020) provides detailed guidance on the coding of institutional data according to the IG 2.0, and includes numerous examples of coded statements for reference, beyond the illustrative examples provided here.

1.4

Overview of Chapter Contents

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides an overview of extant IG scholarship. This overview describes questions that motivate existing IG research, frameworks and theories used to guide it, concepts explored therein, and how institutional analysts collect and analyze institutional data. This chapter concludes with a presentation of key opportunities and challenges of the original IG as noted by scholars who have engaged it. Chapter 3 builds on the discussion in Chapter 2 by elaborating on central challenges that the IG 2.0 is designed to address. Chapter 3 further introduces the conceptual background on which features of the IG 2.0 build. Chapters 4–6 provide a comprehensive conceptual overview of features associated with each of the three levels of expressiveness: IG Core, IG Extended, and IG Logico. Chapter 7, complementing the conceptual discussion presented in Chapters 4–6, provides operational guidance on the IG coding process, offering example coding according to different levels of expressiveness. Chapter 8 offers guidance on how to analyze IG-coded data and thereby seeding stimuli for further analytical opportunities. Finally, Chapter 9 concludes the book, reflecting on the IG as an analytical paradigm and noting opportunities for research leveraging the Institutional Grammar.

References Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business. Aoki, M. (2007). Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/s17441374 06000531

1

INTRODUCTION

27

Athan, T., Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Paschke, A., & Wyner, A. (2015). LegalRuleML: Design principles and foundations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_6 Austin, J. (2011). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 Barzelay, M., & Gallego, R. (2006). From “new institutionalism” to “institutional processualism”: Advancing knowledge about public management policy change. Governance, 19(4), 531–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14680491.2006.00339.x Basurto, X., Kingsley, G., McQueen, K., Smith, M., & Weible, C. M. (2010). A systematic approach to institutional analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 523–537. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1065912909334430 Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative framework for normative system change. 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009), Budapest, Hungary, May 10– 15, 2009, Volume 1, 169–176. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computation and Mathematical Organizational Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79. Bourdieu, P. (1977). An outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press. Brady, U. (2020). Robust conservation anarchy: Comparing treaty institutional design for evidence of Ostrom’s design principles, fit, and polycentricity (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University. Tempe. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932 Cairney, P. (2012). Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. Palgrave Macmillan. Campbell, J. L. (2020). Institutional change and globalization. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/j.ctv131bw68 Ceci, M., Butler, T., O’Brien, L., & Al Khalil, F. (2018). Legal patterns for different constitutive rules. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10791. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_7 Ceci, M., Lesmo, L., Mazzei, A., Palmirani, M., & Radicioni, D. P. (2012). Semantic annotation of legal texts through a framenet-based approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7639. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64235731-2_17 Cole, D. H. (2017). Laws, norms, and the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Journal of Institutional Economics. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1744137417000030 Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.

28

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Cooter, R. D., & Ginsburg, T. (2005). Leximetrics: Why the same laws are longer in some countries than others. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.456520 Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 DeCaro, D. A. (2019). Humanistic rational choice understanding the fundamental motivations that drive self-organization and cooperation in commons dilemmas. In Hudson, B., Rosenbloom, J., & Cole, D. (eds.): Routledge handbook of the study of the commons. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131516 2782 DeCaro, D. A., Janssen, M. A., & Lee, A. (2015). Synergistic effects of voting and enforcement on internalized motivation to cooperate in a resource dilemma. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 511–537. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-determination theory. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4 Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. Norton. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Epstein, J. M. (2007). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press. Ferber, J. (1999). Multi-agent systems - An introduction to distributed artificial intelligence. Addison-Wesley. Frantz, C., Purvis, M. K., Nowostawski, M., & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. (2013). nADICO: A nested grammar of institutions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8291, 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3642-449277_31 Frantz, C. K., Keertipati, S., Purvis, M. K., & Purvis, M. (2015a). Subjective interpretation of directive terms: Methodology and preliminary results. Proceedings - 2015 International Conference on Culture and Computing, Culture and Computing 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/Culture.and.Com puting.2015.40 Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Nowostawski, M. (2015b). Modelling dynamic normative understanding in agent societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v16i4. 1128 Frantz, C. K., & Nowostawski, M. (2016). From institutions to code: Towards automated generation of smart contracts. Proceedings - IEEE 1st International

1

INTRODUCTION

29

Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self-Systems, FAS-W 2016, 210– 215. https://doi.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2016.53 Frantz, C. K., & Pigozzi, G. (2018). Modeling norm dynamics in multi-agent systems. IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 5(2), 491–563. Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2020). Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08937 Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. (2021). Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration, 99, 222-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12719 Frey, S., & Sumner, R. W. (2019). Emergence of integrated institutions in a large population of self-governing communities. PLoS ONE, 14(7). https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216335 Ghorbani, A., & Bravo, G. (2016). Managing the commons: A simple model of the emergence of institutions through collective action. International Journal of the Commons, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.606 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Polity Press. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge University Press. Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., & Dignum, F. (2006). Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena: Designing norm enforcement in E-institutions. In P. Noriega, J. VázquezSalceda, G. Boella, O. Boissier, V. Dignum, N. Fornara, & E. Matson (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems ii, 107–120. Springer. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms – An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press. Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2018). A semiautomated approach to analyzing polycentricity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(4). https://doi.org/ 10.1002/eet.1817 Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1537592704040472 Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879 Hodgson, G. M. (2019). Taxonomic definitions in social science, with firms, markets and institutions as case studies. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(2), 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137418000334 Howlett, M. (2003). Administrative styles and the limits of administrative reform: A neo-institutional analysis of administrative culture. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1754-7121.2003.tb01588.x Huhn, W. (2014). Five Types of Legal Arguments (3rd edition). Carolina Academic Press.

30

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 Katz, D. M., Dolin, R., & Bommarito, M. J. (Eds.). (2021). Legal informatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316529683 Katzenbach, C., & Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424 Lycan, W. G. (2018). Philosophy of language - A contemporary introduction (3rd edition). Routledge. May, P. J. (2004). Compliance motivations: Affirmative and negative bases. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.03801002.x Mettler, S., & Sorelle, M. (2018). Policy feedback theory. Theories of the Policy Process. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-4 Midgley, G. C. J. (1959). XIV—Linguistic Rules. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59(1), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/59.1.271 Milgrom, P. R., North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1990). The role of institutions in the revival of the trade: The law merchant, private judges, and the champagne fairs. Economics and Politics, 2(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-0343.1990.tb00020.x Noriega, P. (1997). Agent-mediated auctions: The fishmarket metaphor (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Barcelona. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97– 112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97 North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research, Russell Sage Foundation. Palmirani, M., Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Tabet, S., Boley, H., & Paschke, A. (2011). LegalRuleML: XML-based rules and norms. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7018 LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-24908-2_30 Palmirani, M., Sperberg, R., Vergottini, G., & Vitali, F. (2018). Akoma Ntoso version 1.0 Part 1: XML vocabulary, OASIS Standard. http://docs.oasis-

1

INTRODUCTION

31

open.org/legaldocml/akn-core/v1.0/os/part1-vocabulary/akn-core-v1.0os-part1vocabulary.html Rice, D., Siddiki, S., Frey, S., Kwon, J. H., & Sawyer, A. (2021). Machine coding of policy texts with the Institutional Grammar. Public Administration. 99, 248-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12711 Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2001). On the design and construction of agentmediated electronic institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Barcelona. Schlüter, A., & Theesfeld, I. (2010). The Grammar of Institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 445–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463110377299 Searle, J. (2018). Constitutive rules. Argumenta, 4(1), 51–54. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. Senge, K. (2013). The ‘new institutionalism’ in organization theory: Bringing society and culture back in. The American Sociologist, 44(1), 76–95. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12108-012-9170-5 Shepsle, K. A. (2009). Rational choice institutionalism. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460. 003.0002 Shoham, Y., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2014). Multiagent Systems: Algorithmic, game theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press. Siddiki, S. (2014). Assessing policy design and interpretation: An institutionsbased analysis in the context of aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States. Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 281–303. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ropr.12075 Siddiki, S., & Frantz, C. (2019). Understanding the effects of social value orientations in shaping regulatory outcomes through agent based modeling: An application to organic farming. Presented at the Workshop on the Workshop (WOW) 6 Conference. Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., Pacheco-Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A., & Bennett, A. (2019). Institutional analysis with the Institutional Grammar. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12361 Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the Institutional Grammar Tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.003 97.x Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852 Skocpol, T. (1995). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Belknap Press.

32

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L. R., & Huigen, M. (2008). Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO Sequence. Advances in Complex Systems, 2(11), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1142/S02195259 0800157X Szabo, N. (1997). Smart Contracts: Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, 2(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548 Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. polisci.2.1.369 Toonen, T. A. (1998). Networks, management and institutions: Public administration as ‘normal science’. Public Administration, 76(2), 229–252. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00099 Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1977). The emergence of norms. Clarendon Press. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of internal organization. Free Press. Zafirovski, M. (2004). Paradigms for analysis of social institutions: A case for sociological institutionalism, 14(3), 363–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/039 0670042000318250 Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, W., Chen, X., Weng, J., & Imran, M. (2020). An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms. Future Generation Computer Systems, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future. 2019

CHAPTER 2

Review of Institutional Grammar Research: Overview, Opportunities, Challenges

2.1

Guiding Research Questions

Application and development of the IG was initially delayed but has recently burgeoned. The IG received little attention in the years immediately following its introduction by Crawford and Ostrom, as indicated by a paucity of scholarship engaging it. In recent years, however, there has been a notable surge in the number of journal publications featuring the IG. Between 1995, when Crawford and Ostrom initially introduced the IG, and 2015, only 14 journal articles addressing it in some way were published. As of 2021, the number of publications (including journal articles and book chapters) had increased to more than 70. These publications are authored by scholars affiliated with universities in different parts of the world, including the United States, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan. They explore institutional dynamics in various contexts—e.g., privacy and knowledge commons (Geary et al., 2019; Sanfilippo et al., 2021), natural resource management (Clement et al., 2015; Pacheco-Vega, 2020; Watkins et al., 2015), governance of nonprofit organizations (Siddiki & Lupton, 2016), regulation of food systems (Carter et al., 2015), transportation regulation (Basurto et al., 2010), tobacco use regulation (Roditis et al., 2015), municipal governance (Feiock et al., 2016), the management of natural hazards (e.g., flood mitigation) (Witting, 2017), among others. However,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_2

33

34

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

the majority of studies to date focus on some aspect of environmental governance. A review of existing scholarship demonstrates the conceptual and methodological versatility of the IG (Dunlop et al., 2019; Siddiki et al., 2019). The IG has been used to operationalize various concepts of enduring interest to institutional analysts, as described in more detail later in this chapter. Further, the IG has been paired with a diverse array of methodological approaches to investigate these concepts. However, despite the noted diversity in conceptual and methodological approaches employed in existing studies, there is considerable overlap in the specific research questions that motivate them. Among the questions commonly explored in IG research are: How are institutions structured? At whom are institutions targeted? How do institutions afford decision-making and behavioral discretion to institutional targets? When and how do institutions emerge and evolve? How do institutions-in-form relate to institutions-in-use? Is the syntactic specification, and related conceptualization, of the IG ontologically and logically sound? These questions, that have drawn the attention of scholars using the IG, are akin to those that motivate the broader study of institutional theory and analysis, but the specific features of the IG make it an especially appropriate tool for investigating them. For example, the syntactic components that form the basis of the original IG specifically capture actor and actor constraints. Relatedly, through explicit identification of institutional statements as focal institutional units of analysis, and identification of the abstractable components (i.e., syntactic components) of the statements, the IG enables comparison of common kinds of institutional information across statements. This makes it especially well suited for investigating institutional change. Essentially, these features of the IG offer the institutional analyst a systematic approach upon which to assess what about institutions specifically is changing over time. Under the broad research questions noted above that have motivated existing IG research to date, IG scholars have explored the following specific questions. • Institutional structure: How are institutional statements configured in institutional design (Carter et al., 2015)? What are theoretical and practical implications of institutional statement configurations observed in institutional design (Schlager et al., 2020)?

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

35

• Decision-making and behavioral discretion: How is decision-making and/or behavioral discretion afforded or restricted through institutional design (Dörrenbächer & Mastenbroek, 2019)? • Institutional targets: How do institutions assign rights and responsibilities to different actors (Siddiki et al., 2011)? • Institutional emergence and evolution: How can the IG be used to rigorously and reliably measure institutional change (Weible & Carter, 2015)? What types of institutions emerge endogenously in decision scenarios of different kind (Frantz et al., 2015; Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016)? To what extent can the IG be used as a cognitive representation of institutions? How are different institution types of the IG conceptually linked through institutional formation processes (Frantz et al., 2015)? • Link between institutions-in-form and institutions-in-use: To what extent do institutions-in-form and institutions-in-use overlap? How do actors perceive and interpret institutions-in-form (Kamran & Shivakoti, 2013)? What informs actors’ conformance with institutions-in-form (Siddiki, 2014; Siddiki et al., 2012)? What factors facilitate or hinder implementation of institutions-in-form (Carter et al., 2015)? • Ontological and logical consistency of the IG: Are norms and rules syntactically and operationally distinguishable (Schlüter & Theesfeld, 2010)? To what extent is the IG able to represent institutions comprehensively (reconciling the diverse granularity of syntactic components), and capture the diverse forms of enforcement regimes for formal and informal institutions (e.g., variation in multiplicity, frequency, and diversity of enforcement signals) (Frantz, 2015)? Reflected within these questions are the analytical interests of scholars engaging the IG. As well, the kinds of questions entertained by scholars using the IG also reflect responses to observed conceptual and operational challenges. For example, questions oriented on syntactic integrity are specifically responding to perceived challenges of the IG syntax. The remainder of this chapter offers a detailed discussion of the specific kinds of analytical approaches scholars have used to address these questions.

36

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

2.2 Analytical Approaches Used in Institutional Grammar Research 2.2.1

Frameworks, Theories, and Concept Measurement

The majority of IG studies published to date explore concepts, phenomena, and theories associated with the IAD framework. IAD concepts and phenomena of central interest to IG scholars are institutional design and institutional development, where the latter is typically operationalized in terms of institutional origination and evolution. Regarding the former, scholars are using the IG to study the design of both formal and informal institutions (overlapping with the concepts of institutions-in-form and institutions-in-use, with an explicit differentiation discussed in Section 4.2.3.3), though the majority of studies published to date focus on formal institutions. Many IG studies have used the IAD framework related Common Pool Resource Theory (CPR) to guide their analysis (Ostrom, 1990). While the IAD framework offers a generalized conception of the role of institutions in governing collective action, CPR theory offers a more specific set of assumptions about how institutions are developed and engaged in collective action relating to common-pool resource management. CPR theory highlights how certain qualities, or design features, of institutions, can enable or hinder successful common pool resource management. IG scholars have used CPR theory as a basis for characterizing and/or modeling institutions engaged in managing the commons. IG scholars also engage conceptual typologies associated with the IAD framework as a basis for characterizing individual institutional statements, or groupings of institutional statements, to account for their functional properties or role in action situations more broadly. Most frequently engaged is the “rule typology,” (Ostrom, 2005) which identifies and organizes the seven types of rules that configure in action situations by their functional characteristics: position, boundary, aggregation, information, choice, scope, and payoff . In most studies in which institutional analysts engage the IG and rule typology in concert, institutional statements are mapped to rule types. This kind of mapping urges some level of initial parsing of an institution (e.g., public policy) into institutional statements, which then can be interpreted to understand what role an institutional statement plays with respect to an action situation (e.g.,

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

37

establish a position, regulate a specific behavior), and then classified by rule type. In some cases, institutional statement information corresponding to syntactic components is used to support the rule type classification (Garcia et al., 2019). Leveraging the Aim in particular in the classification of rule type was explicitly directed by Crawford and Ostrom (2005), who suggest that actions embedded within institutional statements (i.e., Aims) signal the functional properties of statements more generally. IG studies that couple IG and rule type coding enable a rich understanding of institutional design as this approach offers one valuable way to contextualize the role and meaning of institutional statements with respect to instances of action situations. Finally, recent IG scholarship also relies on the IAD related, Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework (Novo & Garrido, 2014). Novo and Garrido link data collected through interviews with IG-coded statements along SES variables. For example, they interpret interview responses that relate to different SES factors with reference to coded statements. Coded statements offer information that help the authors contextualize their interview findings. Institutional analysts have also drawn on non-IAD affiliated frameworks and theories to guide their IG studies. For example, Carter et al. (2015) draw on Sabatier and Mazmanian’s Policy Implementation Framework to guide their examination of the design of laws and corresponding regulations governing the U.S. organic farming industry. Schlager et al. (2020) rely on local public sector contracting theory to evaluate diversity in the designs of formal institutions governing watersheds in New York state. Prior (2016) draws on Schwartz’s Value Framework (Schwartz, 2012) in assessing motivations for compliance with norms and rules. Beyond the application of particular frameworks and theories not formally affiliated with the IAD framework, institutional analysts have used the IG to study various concepts; for example, policy compliance (Siddiki et al., 2012), policy authority (Clement et al., 2015; Feiock et al., 2016), policy coerciveness (Siddiki, 2014), policy divergence (Carter et al., 2015) and polycentricity (Heikkila & Weible, 2018). In studies evaluating these concepts, IG data are often employed in the measurement, or operationalization of concepts. For example, in Siddiki et al.’s study of the design of policies governing the aquaculture industry in American states, the stringency of institutional statements was measured based on the presence/absence of a Deontic within an institutional statement, as well as the type of Deontic (e.g., must, may, must not) present.

38

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The kind of concept operationalization described here is based on a syntax level coding of institutions; that is, concepts are measured using institutional information corresponding to specific syntactic components. There are also cases where the concept operationalization is based on a statement-level coding. Again referencing a study that couples the IG with IAD’s rule typology, Schlager et al. (2020) measure behavioral discretion through a count of institutional statements of particular rule types. Schlager et al. also dissect institutional statements by syntactic component. 2.2.2

Collecting and Analyzing Institutional Grammar Data

In the exploration and/or application of the research questions, concepts, and theories described above, scholars rely on a common set of methods for collecting IG data. Most IG studies rely on institutional data that are coded at the statement and syntax level; i.e., institutions which have been parsed into institutional statements, and then further parsed into syntactic components. However, in these studies, scholars sometimes engage in selective parsing at the syntax level, meaning that they may choose to only decompose statements along select components. Heikkila and Weible (2018), for example, only parse statements along Attributes, Aims, Deontics, and Objects, in accordance with their particular analytical objectives. The vast majority of IG studies published to date are based on the assessment of formal institutions taking the form of public policy; meaning that most studies are relying on IG coding of public policies of some kind. Further, nearly every IG study of public policy published to date relies on the manual extraction of institutional information from public policies; that is, the manual coding of policy texts in accordance with the IG. As noted previously, the line of IG research that focuses on the evaluation of policy text was initiated by Basurto et al. (2010) and shortly after furthered by Siddiki et al. (2011). Many others have contributed to extending this line of research, but notable about these earlier studies is that they specify guidelines that institutional analysts should follow when engaging in IG-based coding of the policy text. These guidelines specify a general workflow for engaging in IG coding of policy text, as well as offer guidance on pre-processing policy texts to make them amenable to coding. These initial guidelines have largely been adopted as convention in IG coding practice, as indicated by their codification in the first publicly accessible IG Codebook (Brady et al., 2018), though

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

39

the IG 2.0 offers substantive modifications to these in accommodation of syntactic refinements and associated analytical opportunities (Frantz & Siddiki, 2021). The articulation of operational guidelines for using the IG to code policy text was in itself an important methodological innovation, insofar as the original presentation of the IG by Crawford and Ostrom was largely conceptual; outlining the basic IG syntax and theoretical motivations thereof, but not offering specific practical guidance on applying it, beyond a game-theoretical illustration. Another, more recent, methodological innovation pertaining to the collection of IG data from public policies has been the engagement of computational approaches to support automated coding of policy text (Rice et al., 2021). Rice et al. have developed an open-source tool for automated classification of policy text according to the IG syntax leveraging computational text analysis and natural language processing. Their approach is trained on IG-coded food system regulations (Siddiki et al., 2015). Rice et al.’s automated IG coding approach offers significant promise for future IG research. Further discussion on the opportunities and limitations associated with this approach is offered later in this chapter. Yet another notable methodological innovation that emerged from the application of the IG to study policy text was the augmentation of the IG by an additional syntactic component, called the Object . Formally introduced by Siddiki et al. (2011), the Object was introduced primarily to enhance reliability in institutional statement coding – in essence, by clarifying the meaning and coding of the Aim, and accommodating the classification of commonly observed but previously non-distinguished institutional statement information with an additional syntactic component. Previous to Siddiki et al. (2011)’s study, the focal action of an institutional statement (i.e., the Aim) was not formally differentiated from the receiver of the action. For example, for the statement “Farmer must submit organic systems plan annually,” the entire clause “submit organic systems plan” would be characterized as the Aim of the statement. The inclusion of the Object within the IG urged the coder to effectively reflect the syntactic difference between a word/phrase representing the action of a statement from that which is functionally dependent on the action (i.e., the Object ). An analogous difference is found in the distinction between sentence verbs and sentence objects in the English language. The identification of the Object has been common in IG coding practice following the publication of Siddiki et al. (2011)’s study. Importantly, while Siddiki

40

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

et al. officially proposed the inclusion of the Object into the IG syntax, others, as described in more detail below, had previously signaled the analytical value associated with this differentiation (Smajgl et al., 2008). To date, few scholars have used the IG to study informal institutions in real-world settings; that is, to identify and code into the IG syntax institutional statements reflected in social practices or conventions, and which are tacitly understood or orally communicated rather than already codified in written form (Watkins & Westphal, 2016). Watkins and Westphal (2016)’s study showcases one application of the IG toward the study of informal institutions. For their study, Watkins and Westphal use interviews and participant observation of institutional actors of interest to identify the shared strategies, norms, and rules they engage in the practice of ecological restoration decision-making. These orally communicated strategies, norms, and rules are initially documented in written form, annotated according to the IG syntax, and then interpreted for patterns of interest to the authors. The challenge with this IG annotation—in both the statement and syntactic classification—is that informal institutions are not typically conveyed through speech in complete institutional statements. Rather, as Watkins and Westphal state, participants in their study tended to convey how things get done non-linearly with anecdotes and personal assessments. The authors took descriptions of activities recounted as such, translated them into institutional statements, which could be subsequently parsed along IG syntactic components. The approaches to collecting IG data described above have largely been used in empirical studies of institutional design and phenomena. The collection of institutional information for simulation-based IG studies [e.g., those engaging agent-based modeling (ABM) (Epstein, 2007)] may entail different approaches. Agent-based Modeling and Simulation (Epstein, 2007; Gilbert & Troitzsch, 2005) reflects an analytical method in which institutional arrangements (or any other social formations for that matter) are reconstructed in the form of computational representations of humans, called agents, and placed in a setting that resembles relevant features of the analyzed social system in an artificial society. The latter is subsequently instantiated in a simulation in which agents can exhibit the modeled behaviors and, by interaction, produce emergent outcomes in the form of social phenomena or altered systemic states evaluated by the modeler or experimenter. The experimenter can variably adjust the parameterization to test different hypotheses, social structure,

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

41

environmental features, etc.1 In the context of ABM studies, the institutions of interest to a modeler, from which institutional information is extracted, may be existing formal and informal institutions that s/he relies on for the upfront parameterization of a model; that is, for the specification of actors, actor activities, and actor constraints that will be reflected in the modeling exercise. Alternatively, the modeler may be interested in collecting institutional information from the institutions that are generated, or emerge, as a result of the simulated execution of the modeled artificial society. In ABM, the patterned behaviors that emerge among agents which have been assigned particular attributes and choice sets are characterized as institutions, which can subsequently be classified along IG syntactic components. Features of these designs are then typically evaluated in reference to systemic outcomes of interest to the modeler. For example, Ghorbani and Bravo (2016) use the IG in both the up-front parameterization of an ABM, as well as to characterize emergent institutions in a common pool resource setting. Ghorbani and Bravo (2016) start their exercise with a set of institutional statements that follow the IG syntactic structure—delineating what an actor is required, allowed, or forbidden to do within a particular constraint. For example, “Actor must appropriate n resource units at the time a condition is met.” Their study evaluates how these statements are adapted over time by actors endowed with particular characteristics and decision-making constraints. Thus, the initial and resulting institutional statements can be coded in terms of the IG. Evident from this description, as well as specifically mentioned in extant research that uses IG data as input, is that formal institutions are most amenable to an IG coding, which may in part explain the relative abundance of studies focusing on formal versus informal institutions. Formal institutions usually contain directives following the typical “X must do Y in context C” regulative structure, which is conducive to being coded according to the A-D-I-C-O syntax. As noted above, coding informal institutions into the IG syntax can be challenging as it may require the analyst to engage, as Watkins and Westphal (2016) did, to reconstruct institutional information into the typical regulative statement structure referenced above. In a similar vein, those using the IG in the context of simulations encode emergent patterns of behavior according to the

1 The principles and practical application is motivated in greater detail in Sect. 8.2.2.

42

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

IG syntax. In order to facilitate this, the modeler will need to consider how modeling parameters map to syntactic components (e.g., agents to Attributes, agent choices to Aims, etc.) as part of the model design process. For the upfront parameterization of models, institutional analysts may be relying on IG coding of formal or informal institutions. Having reviewed conventions of data collection in existing IG research, the following discussion addresses common practices in the analysis of IG data. The majority of IG studies published to date engage in descriptive analyses of institutional information or institutional data that has been coded according to the IG. Descriptive accounting of IG-coded data is typically done at the statement and component level. At the statement level, scholars typically identify the number of institutional statements comprising their institution(s) of interest and summarize statements by shared strategies, norms, and rules. Similarly, in descriptive accounting at the component level, scholars typically report the frequency of information by syntactic component; for example, indicating the Attributes, Aims, and Deontics that occur most frequently within an institution of interest (Siddiki et al., 2011). This type of analysis is useful insofar as it signals qualities of institutions as indicated by the presence or absence of particular types of information that correspond to different syntactic components. At the same time, it does not support assessments of the fundamentally configurable nature of institutional information; that is, how institutional information relating to particular syntactic components or statements combines to convey institutional meaning. Recent studies that use network analysis in the assessment of IG coded data help to address this gap, insofar as they are explicitly designed to capture relations among institutional information. In these studies, scholars are interested in connecting information that corresponds to one or more syntactic components, within and across statements (Olivier, 2019). For example, using network analysis, one can assess which institutional actors are connected by way of Aims or Conditions. Alternatively, one can assess how a particular actor is connected to different Objects or Aims found in an institution. Network analysis can be engaged to aid in the visualization of institutional information linkages, and also to identify qualities of “institutional networks.” Olivier (2019) uses network analysis to determine “networks of prescribed actions” among actors as indicated in formal rules governing the provision of high-quality drinking water in two American cities, New York and Boston. As part of his analysis, Olivier

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

43

identified institutional statements in which the Attributes component of the statement was linked to an actor captured in the Object field, by way of the statement action (e.g., “Actor A must provide Actor B with a progress report of activities undertaken.” ). In this statement, coded in accordance with the original IG syntax, Actor A (the Attribute) is connected with Actor B (the Object ) through the Aim provide. Olivier then constructed Attribute-Object dyads represented in institutional statements, aggregated these to form a Network of Prescribed Interactions, visualized them in the form of network graphs, and calculated network statistics (e.g., density, centrality) as related to concepts of interest. Another kind of analysis found in extant IG research is the comparison of formal and informal institutions. In these studies, scholars are typically interested in assessing conformance among de jure and de facto institutions (Siddiki, 2014; Siddiki et al., 2012). This fundamentally requires that formal and informal institutions be captured in similar ways, so as to facilitate a comparative assessment. To support this type of analysis, Siddiki et al. (2012) and Siddiki (2014) first coded regulations of analytical interest using the IG, and then asked interviewees in the corresponding regulatory domain to assess how their behaviors in practice conform to prescribed or allowed behaviors specified within regulations using a Q-Sort exercise (McKeown & Thomas, 2000). Analysis of institutional information within the context of ABM focuses on discerning characteristics of emergent institutions and then evaluating systemic outcomes that result from the generated institutions exhibiting particular features. For Smajgl et al. (2008), the IG offers a basis for characterizing the types of institutions (actions/strategies or rules) that agents are subject to in simulated environments, and a basis for modeling institutional change. In their model, Smajgl et al. (2008) allow agents the possibility of selecting among different actions and thereby establishing new sets of institutions within the simulations. A comparative assessment of initial with emergent institutions, each of which is characterized according IG components, allows the authors to finely detect aspects of institutions that evolve through the simulation. One syntactic revision embedded in Smajgl et al. (2008) study, which was later formally introduced by Siddiki et al. (2011), was the separation of the action of an institutional statement (i.e., Aim) from the receiver of the action, which they like Siddiki et al. (2011) refer to as the Object. Smajgl et al., (2008)’s decision to separate the Aim and Object of modeled institutional statements was analytically motivated—meant to aid in the detection of emergent

44

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

institutions—and was not accompanied by a suggestion to modify the IG syntax. Nonetheless, by highlighting the pragmatic appeal of further distinguishing syntactic components, they were calling out the need for improved ontological consistency in the Grammar. Frantz et al. (2015) use the IG to represent different forms of institutions governing trade. They model historical trading scenarios that reflect differing formal and informal institutional arrangements and associated interaction patterns among agents associated with different cultural groups. They use this as a foundation to test “historical hypotheticals” drawing on the postulated interaction of those groups based on different enforcement principles. The use of the IG in this work is twofold. It includes the conceptualization of an endogenous institution formation process that links the different institution types expressed in the IG (strategies, norms, rules) in a refined form of the IG, capturing higher-level complexity of institutional arrangements based on systemic interdependencies of institutional statements. This provides the basis to establish an explanatory account of the institutional formation process (why and how an arrangement came about) (Frantz, 2020), as well as the opportunity to analyze the endogenously generated institutional statements across different levels of social organization (individual, group, society). Importantly, as part of this work, they present the Nested ADICO concept, which reconceptualizes the Or else component in terms of a statement in its own right specifying consequences for actors for acting or failing to act, as prescribed in other statements – providing the basis for the representation of complex interlinkages of institutional statements. Through their modeling exercises, both Smajgl et al. (2008) and Frantz et al. (2015) highlight the need for syntactic specificity but also malleability when engaging the IG in computational applications, a point that is described in more detail in the following section. The discussion to this point highlights the questions that have motivated IG research, and describes the analytical approaches featured therein. Looking forward, the following discussion highlights the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of the IG to conduct institutional analysis.

2.3

Research Opportunities and Challenges

Development and application of the IG has occurred over a relatively short period of time, but nonetheless, extant IG scholarship has clearly

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

45

and consistently conveyed the benefits and opportunities it affords for institutional analysts. Existing IG research validates the utility of the approach toward the systematic and rich characterization of institutional design, particularly the design of formal institutions, toward an understanding of institutional emergence and change, and toward the understanding of institutional configurations (i.e., understanding of how institutional statements link together to convey institutionally relevant meaning). Applications of the IG in a variety of domains affirm that the base IG syntax is generalizable; that is, that the IG can be applied to study the design of institutions with different topical foci and analytical approaches. This affirmation is crucial as it lends confidence that the IG syntax is not overfitted to capture language within a particular institutional domain, or setting. Additionally, the use of the syntax, and specific syntactic components, toward the operationalization of a diverse array of concepts that link to various extents with specific theories and frameworks, highlights the analytical versatility of the IG. Moreover, reflecting the analytical versatility of the IG is that institutional analysts have used it to study both formal and informal institutions, and have demonstrated the value of using IG coding, or coded data, within the context of a variety of analytical techniques (e.g., social network analysis, agent-based modeling). The last decade of research also makes clear some of the central challenges of the IG. Some of these challenges have been explicitly called out by institutional analysts, while others can be inferred by reviewing the kinds of conceptual and practical adaptations scholars have made to enable its usage in their research. A first challenge highlighted in existing IG research are ontological inconsistencies in the IG syntax; that is, ambiguities in the definitions of syntactic components. Siddiki et al. (2011) and Smajgl et al. (2008) point out a syntactic hole in the original Grammar prompting them to parse institutional statements along an additional syntactic component, which they commonly refer to as the Object. In their studies, both separate institutional data along an “Object” component in addition to other IG components. For Siddiki et al. (2011), the additional coding field encouraged reliability in institutional coding. For Smajgl et al. (2008), the separation of actions from receivers of action made it easier for the authors to detect the phenomena they were interested in investigating in the context of agent-based simulation (i.e., institutional emergence). In this light, both research teams introduced the additional component out of pragmatism, though this adjustment to

46

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

accommodate practical application of the IG also led Siddiki et al. (2011) to make a case for formally incorporating the Object into the syntax. More broadly, however, the syntactic adjustment suggests ontological inconsistency in aspects of the original IG. It signals that fundamentally different kinds of information were captured under one syntactic component (the Aim), which became readily apparent when institutional analysts went to code and analyze institutional data in accordance with the IG. At the same time, coding practice also reveals lower coding reliability among Objects and Conditions, relative to the other syntactic components, suggesting that while the introduction of the Object offered some improvement to the ontological consistency of the original IG, further refinement of the definitions of Objects and Conditions is warranted. The IG 2.0 suggests specific syntactic refinements to both components in light of observed deficiencies. Another ontological inconsistency presented in extant IG research concerns the Or else component. As part of their computational modeling exercise, Frantz et al. (2013) and Frantz (2015) challenge the idea that the Or else is in fact a syntactic component at all. Instead, they suggest that the institutional information that is coded into the Or else component field, which conveys a payoff associated with a referenced action, typically takes the form of complete institutional statement. For example, in the statement “Farmer must submit organic system plan by December 31st, or else inspector must immediately suspend organic farming certification,” “or else inspector must immediately suspend organic farming certification” is the information that would typically be coded as the Or else as it indicates the payoff (e.g., sanction) associated with failure to submit an organic systems plan on time. However, this information also obviously comprises a complete institutional statement in its own right, containing an Attribute (inspector), Deontic (must), Aim (suspend), Object (organic farming certification), and Conditions (immediately). For Frantz et al. (2013), capturing this information as a separate institutional statement is advantageous within an institutional modeling setting, insofar as the non-Or else and Or else parts of the statement (under a conventional coding) capture distinctive, albeit linked, activities performed by different actors. Thus, they suggest that the Or else be reconceived as an institutional statement of consequential kind that nests on another statement of monitored kind, where the latter describes action required, permitted, or forbidden by a particular actor and the former describes the consequence for non-conformance with pre-/pro-scribed action. It is worth

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

47

highlighting that key ontological inconsistencies noted to date have been presented by those engaging the IG within computational applications. Broadly, this research suggests that the use of the IG within computational approaches necessitates syntactic and semantic clarity, as modeling requires precision in parameter specification. Another limitation of the IG noted by scholars is the time-consuming and laborious nature of coding institutions by word or phrase to support the classification of institutions at the statement and syntax level (Siddiki et al., 2019). They have also noted the practical and scientific constraints that stem from this. Practically, the resource-intensive nature of IG coding limits the amount of institutional information that an analyst can reasonably collect for a single research study. Likely related, many IG studies report on an analysis of a single institutional case. The associated scientific limitation of this is that it precludes the institutional analyst’s ability to produce generalizable insights. The recent work by Rice et al. (2021) on the development of an automated IG coding tool can significantly aid in addressing this challenge. Their approach effectively classifies institutional statement information according to the IG components. Here too, however, classification is likely to improve with enhanced ontological consistency relating to syntactic components. In linking syntactic refinements with computational specific considerations, the research and discussion presented above is essentially making a case for improved computational tractability of the IG. This improved computational tractability stems from the unambiguous definition of syntactic components as this specificity enables modeling precision. Relatedly, implicit within extant research is that, in addition to stemming from clarity in the definitions of syntactic components, computational tractability may be enhanced with coding schemas that enable more parsimonious classification of institutional information; in other words, more finely parsed institutional information within and across syntactic components. This is essentially what Smajgl et al. (2008) were trying to achieve in their separation of actions and receivers of actions, though this practical adaptation also signaled a conceptual ambiguity in the Aim component. Relating to other computational efforts, namely machine coding, parsimonious encoding of institutional data can also support greater accuracy in automated classification. Essentially, if the machine coding approach is trained on more finely parsed institutional information across a number of clearly distinguishable syntactic components, this may in fact support

48

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

classification accuracy in application, while increasing the versatility of the encoded data manifold. An additional limitation of the existing IG referenced in extant scholarship pertains to its applicability to institutional statements that don’t match a regulative form. Weible and Carter (2015) note that some statements, rather than following a regulative form (“X must do Y in context Z”), follow a constitutive syntax (“X is Y in context Z”). They note, “Regulatory statements generally refer to an identifiable action, while constitutive statements generally have no action, and instead define, label, or describe a position or part of the physical world.” (Weible & Carter, 2015, p. 226). The distinction is an important one, and Weible and Carter offer some guidance on how to deal with these types of statements. Nevertheless, challenges remain in operationally characterizing constitutive statements given that they fundamentally convey different types of information. Further, existing coding guidelines under-emphasize the inclusion of constitutive statements in institutional statement coding— recommending, for example, discarding of definitional information at the beginning of public policy documents—which may then yield incomplete capturing of institutional information. Constitutive statements, including their definition and operational treatment, are addressed extensively in the characterization of the IG presented in this work. Recounting these opportunities and limitations of the IG based on extant research, the following chapter motivates their integration as part of a refined New Institutional Grammar.

References Basurto, X., Kingsley, G., McQueen, K., Smith, M., & Weible, C. M. (2010). A systematic approach to institutional analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 523–537. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1065912909334430 Brady, U., Basurto, X., Bennett, A., Carter, D. P., Hanlon, J., Heikkila, T., Lien, A., Chonaiew, S. M., Olivier, T., Schlager, E., Siddiki, S., & Weible, C. (2018). Institutional analysis of rules-in-form coding guidelines (tech. rep.). Center for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment. https://complexit yasu.edu/sites/default/files/papers/cbie_wp_2018-006_0.pdf Carter, D. P., Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N., Brett, J., & Chonaiew, S. M. (2015). Assessing policy divergence: How to investigate the differences between a law and a corresponding regulation. Public Administration, 93(1), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12120

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

49

Clement, S., Moore, S. A., & Lockwood, M. (2015). Authority, responsibility and process in Australian biodiversity policy. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 32(2), 93–114. Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2082975 Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (2005). A Grammar of institutions. In Ostrom, E. (ed.) Understanding institutional diversity, 137–174. Princeton University Press. Dörrenbächer, N., & Mastenbroek, E. (2019). Passing the buck? Analyzing the delegation of discretion after transposition of European Union law. Regulation and Governance, 13(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12153 Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J. C., & Radaelli, C. M. (2019). A sleeping giant awakes? The rise of the Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT) in policy research. Journal of Chinese Governance, 4(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23812346.2019.1575502 Epstein, J. M. (2007). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press. Feiock, R. C., Weible, C. M., Carter, D. P., Curley, C., Deslatte, A., & Heikkila, T. (2016). Capturing structural and functional diversity through institutional analysis: The mayor position in city charters. Urban Affairs Review, 52(1): 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414555999 Frantz, C., Purvis, M. K., Nowostawski, M., & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. (2013). nADICO: A nested grammar of institutions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8291 LNAI , 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-449277_31 Frantz, C. K. (2020). Unleashing the agents: From a descriptive to an explanatory perspective in agent-based modelling. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34127-5_16 Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Nowostawski, M. (2015). Modelling dynamic normative understanding in agent societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v16i4.1128 Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2021). IG 2.0 Resources. https://github.com/ InstitutionalGrammar/IG-2.0-Resources Frantz, C. K. (2015). Agent-Based institutional modelling: Novel techniques for deriving structure from behaviour (Doctoral dissertation). University of Otago. Dunedin, New Zealand. http://hdl.handle.net/10523/5906 Garcia, M., Koebele, E., Deslatte, A., Ernst, K., Manago, K. F., & Treuer, G. (2019). Towards urban water sustainability: Analyzing management transitions in Miami, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Global Environmental Change, 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101967

50

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Geary, J., Reay, T., & Bubela, T. (2019). The impact of heterogeneity in a global knowledge commons: Implications for governance of the DNA barcode commons. International Journal of the Commons, 13(2), 909–930. https:// doi.org/10.5334/ijc.861 Ghorbani, A., & Bravo, G. (2016). Managing the commons: A simple model of the emergence of institutions through collective action. International Journal of the Commons, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.606 Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press. Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2018). A semi-automated approach to analyzing polycentricity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(4): 308– 318. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1817 Kamran, M. A., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2013). Comparative institutional analysis of customary rights and colonial law in spate irrigation systems of Pakistani Punjab. Water International, 38(5), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02508060.2013.828584 McKeown, B. F., & Thomas, D. B. (2000). Q Methodology in assessment and research. Summer Methodology Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences series. Novo, P., & Garrido, A. (2014). From policy design to implementation: An institutional analysis of the new Nicaraguan Water Law. Water Policy, 16(6), 1009–1030. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2014.188 Olivier, T. (2019). How do institutions address collective-action problems? Bridging and bonding in institutional design. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918784199 Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Pacheco-Vega, R. (2020). Governing urban water conflict through watershed councils: A public policy analysis approach and critique. Water (Switzerland), 12(7), 1849. https://doi.org/10.3390/W12071849 Prior, J. (2016). The norms, rules and motivational values driving sustainable remediation of contaminated environments: A study of implementation. Science of the Total Environment, 544, 824–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2015.11.045 Rice, D., Siddiki, S., Frey, S., Kwon, J. H., & Sawyer, A. (2021). Machine coding of policy texts with the Institutional Grammar. Public Administration, 99, 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12711 Roditis, M. L., Wang, D., Glantz, S. A., & Fallin, A. (2015). Evaluating California campus tobacco policies using the American college health association

2

REVIEW OF INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR RESEARCH …

51

guidelines and the Institutional Grammar Tool. Journal of American College Health, 63(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2014.963108 Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A Framework of Analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01266.x Sanfilippo, M., Strandburg, K. J., & Frischmann, B. M. (2021). Privacy as knowledge commons governance. Governing privacy in knowledge commons. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108749978.012 Schlager, E. C., Bakkensen, L. A., Olivier, T., & Hanlon, J. (2020). Institutional design for a complex commons: Variations in the design of credible commitments and the provision of public goods. Public Administration, 99, 263–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12715 Schlüter, A., & Theesfeld, I. (2010). The Grammar of institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 445–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463110377299 Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/ 2307-0919.1116 Siddiki, S. (2014). Assessing policy design and interpretation: An institutionsbased analysis in the context of aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States. Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 281–303. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ropr.12075 Siddiki, S., Basurto, X., & Weible, C. M. (2012). Using the Institutional Grammar Tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture. Regulation and Governance, 6(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01132.x Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M., Pacheco-Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A., & Bennett, A. (2019). Institutional analysis with the Institutional Grammar. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12361 Siddiki, S., & Lupton, S. (2016). Assessing nonprofit rule interpretation and compliance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016643608 Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the Institutional Grammar Tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.003 97.x Siddiki, S. N., Carboni, J. L., Koski, C., & Sadiq, A. A. (2015). How policy rules shape the structure and performance of collaborative governance arrangements. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 536–547. https://doi.org/10. 1111/puar.12352

52

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L. R., & Huigen, M. (2008). Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO Sequence. Advances in Complex Systems, 2(11), 199–215. Watkins, C., & Westphal, L. M. (2016). People don’t talk in institutional statements: A methodological case study of the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 44, 98–122. https://doi.org/10. 1111/psj.12139 Watkins, C., Westphal, L. M., Gobster, P. H., Vining, J., Wali, A., & Tudor, M. (2015). Shared principles of restoration practice in the Chicago wilderness region. Human Ecology Review, 21(1), 155–177. https://doi.org/10. 22459/HER.21.01.2015.07 Weible, C. M., & Carter, D. P. (2015). The composition of policy change: Comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans. Policy Sciences, 48(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9217-x Witting, A. (2017). Ruling out learning and change? Lessons from urban flood mitigation. Policy and Society, 36(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14494035.2017.1322772

CHAPTER 3

Motivation for a New Institutional Grammar

The version of the Institutional Grammar that will be presented throughout this text is a revised version of the original developed and presented by Crawford and Ostrom in 1995. The revised version—which we refer to as Institutional Grammar 2.0 (IG 2.0), or New Institutional Grammar—is modified by the book authors based on limitations of the IG noted in extant scholarship, but is consequently contextualized with the IG, leaving the reader with a comprehensive overview of both the original IG and the introduced modification and extensions. This chapter will offer a detailed account of the motivations informing the revised IG specification and details theoretical and analytical implications thereof. The three core motivations of the revised specification that will be described in this chapter, are (i) improved ontological consistency of the syntax undergirding the IG; (ii) comprehensiveness of coverage of institutional statements, paired with the intent to increase reliability in coding; and (iii) increased computational tractability of the IG responding to calls to engage computational approaches in IG-based coding and analysis, which includes the need for an alternative structural specification of IG coded information to make its rich feature set analytically accessible. As such, the revised specification inherently introduces elaborations to the IG that support the disciplinary orientations and requirements of the IG user community, which is increasingly multi-disciplinary. The

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_3

53

54

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

three aforestated motivations, and the issues to which they are linked, are addressed through the revised IG specification—the IG 2.0.

3.1

Ontological Consistency

As relayed in earlier chapters of this book, the IG as developed by Crawford and Ostrom (1995) offers a fundamental characterization of components that in combination comprise institutional statements. These components of an institutional statement include the Attributes (or simply Attribute) (actor), Deontic (expectation about performed behaviors expressed as either obligation, prohibition, or permission), Aim (action or outcome that is regulated), Conditions (circumstance under which a regulated activity or outcome applies), and Or else (consequence of noncompliance with the regulated statement). While previous work has highlighted various challenges related to the IG, including limitations in capturing institutional content sufficiently, either based on absent components [Object component (Siddiki et al., 2011)], insufficient differentiation between statement types (e.g., Schlüter & Theesfeld, 2010), and the inability to capture complexity expressed in statements [e.g., Frantz et al. (2013) and Frantz et al. (2015)], a notable concern not recognized in the extant literature is the varying levels of granularity at which the Grammar components operate – some being more general, and others more specific in kind –, and the specificity with which they are defined. Shedding light on this incongruence is of relevance, since it affects the institutional analyst’s ability to apply the IG to unambiguously characterize components of an institutional statement, and making those available for a systematic analysis of institutional design. More essentially, this can be interpreted as a challenge to the validity of the IG to reliably capture features of institutional design in the first place, where such features, variably referred to as Institutional Features, are institutional concepts, their relationships, and interaction within the institutional setting that may be identified on component (e.g., actors, actions referenced in components), statement (e.g., function/effects of statements) or system level (e.g., function of interlinked statements). Addressing this concern, this section discusses selected characteristics of the IG that challenge its ontological consistency and prompts for refinements proposed as part of this book. To establish a terminological basis, ontological consistency is defined as the clear, logically consistent and

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

55

coherent characterization of syntactic components, where conceptual characterizations, their relationships and (inter)dependencies are explicit and unambiguous so as to avoid variable interpretation of encoded information, or worse, potential contradictions independent of underlying analytical objectives.1 Developing clarity on the conceptual level offers two essential benefits for the long-term adoption and analytical value of the IG. First, establishing an unambiguous conceptual understanding of the structure institutional statements capture, alongside corresponding methodological guidelines for the encoding of institutional content, the IG can be applied more reliably across various domains with reduced attachment to projectspecific accommodations. This leverages broader usability of encoded information for methodological developments, including the production of a rich integrated data basis for the development of mechanisms for partially or completely automated encoding of institutional statements – which in turn reduces productivity hurdles associated with the prevalent manual encoding of statements. The second benefit lies in the development of the IG as an analytical tool. The flexible semantic characterization of content (i.e., characterization of institutional meaning), based on project-specific encoding conventions in the best case, and based on coder-specific preference in the worst case, does not allow for generalizations across a specific study. This thereby limits the development of advanced analytical approaches that go beyond the statistical treatment of component distributions, and rather operate on deeper structural aspects of institutional statements; for example, those that focus on interlinkage of institutional statements to derive a richer understanding of policy (as later discussed in Sect. 8.2.1.4). Drawing theoretical linkage to the understanding of ontological consistency put forth, entertained here is the understanding that the ability to describe and infer relationships between components hinges on the accuracy of characterization of components based on shared intrinsic properties [or “substantive kinds” (Ellis, 2007)] – properties that describe what components “are” – or shared relational properties [“property kinds” (Ellis, 2007)] – properties describing how components “relate”. Ontological consistency in the IG context means that the core syntactic components/operators of the IG – Attributes, Object, Deontic, Aim, Conditions, and Or else – are each defined with sufficient clarity and

1 See also Agazzi (2011) and Ellis (2007).

56

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

uniformity, so that where those components occur in concert, there is no ambiguity about the distinctiveness of semantic information that each component conveys. This extends to the characterization of functional relationships that components hold (e.g., how Aim and Object relate, etc.). An implied – albeit challenging – objective is that syntactic components are defined at a comparable level of granularity (i.e., some syntactic components should not be more coarsely or finely defined than others), where possible.2 The following discussion explicitly highlights concerns around ontological consistency by drawing attention to three components of the IG, namely Conditions, Object and finally, the Or else component. Recalling its specific function as per Crawford and Ostrom, the Conditions component defines “when, where, how, and to what extent an [action] is permitted, obligatory, or forbidden” (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995, p. 584). At first glance this characterization appears noncontentious, since this component captures any form of context characterization as relevant for the analyzed institutional statement. However, upon closer inspection, this component characterization conflates an important distinction between conditions, or context in the form of preconditions that lead to the activation of the institutional statement, captured in an intuitive interpretation of the “when” and “where” of the original definition, and a second form of context that characterizes, or qualifies, the action specified in the institutional statement [e.g., “how a statement is to be followed” (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995, p. 585)]. Drawing on Ellis (2007)’s characterization of ontology, conditions as applied in the IG reflect different kinds, both in terms of their substantive characterization (i.e., what they “are”) as well as their relationships to other components or the statement as a whole (i.e., how they “relate”). Figure 3.1 highlights the qualitatively different relationship between the “Conditions of the first kind” that capture the preconditions leading to the activation of a statement in the first place, and—from the perspective of the statement—are exogenous variables that act upon the statement as a whole. “Conditions of the second kind” are qualifications of the Aim captured in the first place. This is best motivated using a trivial example: Upon

2 Nevertheless, assuming complete parity remains a challenge.

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

57

Fig. 3.1 Combined Institutional Grammar patterns example

completion of the financial year, corporations must provide tax return within three months, exemplary coded in the following: Attributes: corporations Deontic: must Aim: provide Object tax return Conditions: Upon completion of the financial year; within three months

While this example explicitly identifies actor (corporations ), Deontic (must ), action (provide), and Object (tax return) unambiguously, we can observe multiple Conditions. While the existence of multiple conditions is not problematic per se, the specific instances in this example reflect the duality in characterization motivated above: Upon completion of the financial year highlights a condition under which a statement comprised of the other components applies, whereas within three months qualifies, or constrains, the obligation to provide a tax return, thus affects the statement only when enacted. While seemingly concentrated on the component itself, the ambiguous nature of the Conditions thereby indirectly and variably affects or constrains, the interpretability of other non-condition components, including Attributes, Deontic, Aim, and Object, whereas the second form of conditions, the one qualifying the Aim bears stronger relationships to the activity captured in the institutional statement. However, despite the relational ambiguity that the Conditions component exhibits, the substantive characterization of the kinds of context characterizations (e.g., spatial, temporal, procedural, etc.) applies to both conditions of the first and second kind—which we will subsequently label as activation conditions and execution constraints, respectively. Another component that introduces challenges to reliability on the basis of ambiguous interpretation is the Object component. While it essentially captures substantive institutional content, in the presence of

58

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

multiple objects in a statement (e.g., Inspector must send notification to the applicant without delay, with notification and applicant as relevant objects), prevailing coding practice (see Brady et al., 2018) shows a selective preference for specific objects either based on predefined criteria (e.g., animacy) or study-specific heuristics. While useful to respond to specific study objectives, it challenges reliable coding within, and more importantly, comparative approaches across data sets. This concern is interlinked with the observations related to the Conditions component, since any object not identified as such in the corresponding IG component (e.g., the applicant if notification is coded as Object and vice versa) is necessarily coded as part of the Conditions component. As a consequence, the selective coding of the Object enhances the ambiguity of the Conditions component, both in terms of its variable semantic relationship to other components (relational ambiguity) as well as substantive ambiguity of the latter component as it absorbs any parts of statements not captured elsewhere, rendering it the function of a “fallback,” or “catch all” component. The following exemplary coding illustrates this observation: Attributes: Inspector Deontic: must Aim: send Object: notification Conditions: to the applicant; without delay

The final component that drives an inconsistent treatment of institutional content is the Or else component. In contrast to ontological inconsistencies identified for Conditions and Object components, the Or else component highlights a consistency challenge related to granularity. Borrowing the following example, Corporations listed in the Stock Exchange must follow annual reporting provisions, or else may face sanctioning by the Financial Oversight Commission, we arrive at the following prototypical encoding: Attributes: Corporations listed in the Stock Exchange Deontic: must Aim: follow Object: annual reporting provisions Or else: or else may face sanctioning by the Financial Oversight Commission.

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

59

The leading components (Attributes, Object, Deontic, Aim, Conditions ) capture distinctive features necessary to reconstruct institutional meaning in the first place, i.e., omitting any of those components leads to a modification of institutional meaning (imagine the change of Conditions ), or loss of meaning entirely (imagine the omission of Attributes ). Reviewing the Or else component, we first identify a semantic detachment from the other components, in that it does not directly affect the meaning of the leading components. A modification may well change behavior of subjected entities when enacted (e.g., a Stock Exchange-listed company would behave differently if it was not subject to consequences for non-compliance), but it would not change the prescriptive content of the leading statement (i.e., corporations still need to follow the provisions). A more immediate point, however, is the structural incongruence between the Or else component and the remaining components. Whereas the leading components are necessary to construct a statement in the first place, and while not always explicit, the Or else component itself reflects the structure of an institutional statement in its own right. Drawing on the example above, the Or else component can be expanded into a self-contained statement as illustrated below: Attributes: Corporations listed in the Stock Exchange Deontic: must Aim: follow Object: annual reporting provisions Or else: Attributes: Financial Oversight Commission Deontic: may Aim: sanction Object: corporation

It is important to note that this characterization requires the interpretation of the “sanction” expressed in the original statement from an institutional perspective, i.e., extracting the institutional meaning while foregoing the linguistic expression. To this end, actor and subject to sanctioning (Object ) need to be inferred, and thereby relying on the coder’s ability to reflect on the institutional meaning of actions, involved roles,

60

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

etc., in order to reconstruct statements that express institutional information following the uniform and unambiguously characterized syntactic form of institutional statements. While seemingly offering a source for reliability issues, only the reconstruction of institutional acts (here, the sanctioning) in unified structural form (here, in the form of the institutional statement components) allows the explication of its essential features, and would otherwise pair the carefully parsed institutional information captured in the leading components (i.e., corporations’ obligations) with a linguistic clause that at best signals the presence of a sanction or incentive, but allows no further interpretation in terms of involved actors, administered actions, as well as richer contextual characterizations. The essential insight conveyed at this stage is that the Or else component displays structural incongruence in that it is a) more coarse-granular than all other components, and b) limits the extraction of analytically valuable institutional meaning equivalent to the leading components. While prominent in the Or else component, the structural embedding of institutional statements can similarly apply for Conditions components, albeit for selected instances, an aspect we explore at greater depth in Chapter 5. Table 3.1 highlights the different forms of ontological inconsistencies as applicable for the IG components as discussed in this section. While seemingly focusing on limitations of the original IG in terms of structural aspects and implications of its application, establishing consistency by resolving the challenges outlined above provides the basis for a distinctive characterization of the IG in contrast to linguistic expression (an aspect we explore in the upcoming Sect. 3.3) and further marks the consequent shift to a perspective that emphasizes the institutional semantics when engaging in the encoding of institutional statements. In doing so, the resolution of issues related to ontological consistency enables a set of novel analytical opportunities toward the development of Table 3.1 Ontological inconsistencies in the Institutional Grammar IG component

Type of ontological inconsistency

Conditions Object Or else

Substantive & relational inconsistency, structural incongruencea Relational inconsistency Structural incongruence

a To variable extent

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

61

a systemic analysis of institutional design. Operationally, this includes the resolution of semantic linkages of institutional statements established by the Or else and the Conditions components as a basis to establish linkages between institutional statements, either in the form of statement-level or component-level interdependence and linkages, an aspect discussed in Sect. 8.2.1.4. More immediately, however, is the resolution of ontological inconsistencies, such as the ones outlined and motivated above. Later discussion in the book specifically draws on these observations as a motivation to introduce corresponding accommodations as part of the IG 2.0 outlined in Chapter 4. Moving closer to the introduction of a refined characterization of the IG, the following discussion picks up on the pivotal shift in perspective referenced throughout this section; the emphasis on meaning over syntactic orientation of the IG.

3.2 Toward a Comprehensive Representation of Institutional Meaning The focus on the consistent conceptual characterization of components discussed above invites for a reflection on what institutional statements are, which features of an institutional system they capture, and the essential functions they exhibit. However, inasmuch as the discussion about conceptual refinements motivates the consistent representation of institutional content, this revision is further linked to methodological aspects as relevant for the validity of coded institutional statements. The following discussion addresses the analytical implications associated with the syntactic focus of the original IG (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995). A practical consequence associated with the syntactic orientation is the reliance on syntactic features alone when characterizing institutional statements as different types; the IG suggests the identification of institution types – strategies, norms, or rules – based on the presence or absence of selected syntactic components of an institutional statement. While such clear-cut characterization has theoretical appeal, in practice, the specification of regulative statements does not follow the clear antecedentconsequent (i.e., “do X, or else Y”) structure that constitutes rules in the original IG. In other words, the activity and related consequences may not always be captured in the same statement. Instead, we often

62

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

encounter examples where prescribed and punitive activities are separated into separate statements. Consider the following example from the context of organic farming: Statement 1: “Certified organic farmers must comply with organic farming provisions.” Statement 2: “Program Manager may initiate organic license suspension or revocation proceedings against a certified organic farmer that has violated or is not in compliance with organic farming regulations.”

The first statement signals the compliance expectation attached to a particular role, whereas the specification of potential sanctions in the case of noncompliance are captured in an entirely separate statement (Statement 2). Given the absence of an explicit syntactic Or else component for each institutional statement, this separation leads to the mischaracterization as two normative statements, as opposed to a rule, even though the semantic interlinkage of both statements is unquestioned. Reflecting on conventions of legal document structure more generally, writers may separate the specification of instructions and potential sanctions in separate sections entirely, e.g., to aggregate compound sanctions or to address different readership (enforcers vs. operational subjects of regulation). In addition to the organizational features, the relationships among statements oftentimes do not reflect a linear 1:1 relationship, best illustrated with “blanket statements” that describe consequences of violating or the invalidity of a collection of (or, in the extreme case, any) other statements (e.g., salvatory clauses). An associated phenomenon can be referred to as unidirectional referencing , in which only one statement – generally the statement describing an obligation to monitor behavior or a consequence of noncompliance – makes reference to the activity it acts upon or governs (i.e., the statement prescribing behavior to observed actors). Absent relevant contextual knowledge, instances of statements that contain the behavioral expectation for the observed actor itself, however, may simply not contain any explicit reference to the sanction. Consequently, such statement would be misconstrued as a “Norm” following Crawford and Ostrom’s original syntactic classification. An example of such is referenced by Siddiki (2014) who encountered in her coding of regulation governing the practice of aquaculture a set of statements that indicate that violation of any of the directives embodied

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

63

in the statements constituting the regulation will be subject to penalties. As Siddiki notes, in the interpretation of Deontics, this means that all statements contain an implied “must,” though the actual statements may contain different Deontics. In addition, all those statements have an implied sanction for non-compliance. In practice, mere syntactic deviations or variations, such as the one referenced above, lead to the dominant characterization of regulative statements in policy documents as normative (in the Crawford and Ostrom sense), simply because of the syntactic dissociation (and thus presumed absence) of sanctions; for the purpose of encoding, the presence of an explicit Or else as expressed in the original IG specification is then an exception, rather than the rule. These observations highlight that the general reliance on syntactic features for both coding and classification of statements creates challenges to validity, as the exclusive focus on sentential structure is not able to resolve the semantic linkages obscured by stylistic or structural divergence. Where the differentiation by institution type is deemed relevant, the characterization of statements based on their contextualization in the wider statement context, capturing their institutional meaning, is thus essential. With specific focus on encoding and analysis, this underpins the need for a paradigmatic shift in institutional statement coding from a component-centric syntactic perspective to a semantic perspective. More specifically, this implies a shift from a perspective that emphasizes the retention of structural integrity of statements as expressed in policy by adherence to syntactic features, construction of language, and embedded stylistic nuances to one that emphasizes an accurate representation of the institutional meaning of the statement – the function of the statement in the wider institutional setting. An Institutional Setting is an institutionally governed domain. The objective to capture the meaning of a wider institutional setting highlights a further concern that relates to the characterization of institutional statements more generally. Inasfar as statements under the original Grammar capture behavioral expectations, the comprehensive characterization of institutional settings requires the consideration of constitutive statements that provide conceptual foundation on which regulative statements draw to describe behavioral constraints. Exemplifying this, using the statements below, we build on the example introduced before, where the first statement describes a behavioral expectation in the form of an obligation. The second statement complements the initial regulative one

64

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

by defining the underlying concept “certified organic farmer” in the context of the policy. Statement 1: “Certified organic farmers must comply with organic farming provisions.” Statement 2: “Certified organic farmers are farmers that have undergone a certification procedure according to United States Department of Agriculture National Organic Program Provisions.”

Statements of the latter kind, constitutive statements – without further elaboration at this stage3 – essentially “set the stage” for the specification of regulative statements in the first place. Seen from an institutional perspective, constitutive statements describe, declare and (ideally) relate all concepts (e.g., actors, actions, objects or mental constructs) of relevance in an institutional setting, and potentially the institutional setting itself (e.g., venue, infrastructure). Attempting to attain an understanding of the wider institutional setting thus relies on the existence, and ideally antecedent specification (Searle, 1969), of conceptual specifications in the form of constitutive statements that regulative characterizations can draw from. The concerns raised in this section, both the limitations of focusing on a syntactic interpretation of institutional statements to infer their function in the wider institutional context, as well as the absence of constitutive statements that afford a comprehensive representation of the institutional arrangements, including actors, actions and other concepts, motivate the aforementioned paradigmatic shift toward a semantic perspective on institutional statements. Such shift enables the departure from analyzing formal institutions as collections of institutional statements and provides the basis for a systemic analysis of institutional arrangements, in which the functional linkages expressed in individual institutional statements support the extraction, and, in consequence, reconstruction, of the institutional system in a “language” that enables the analyst to “interrogate” the institutional arrangement from a wide range of perspectives and using a diverse range of techniques. Drawing on the observations made throughout this section, and the motivations for an “institutional language” expressed alongside, as a final

3 The concept of constitutive rules is discussed from Chapter 4 onward.

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

65

discussion point, in the upcoming section we attempt to distill the objectives and features associated with linguistic grammars and contrast those with the objectives associated with the Institutional Grammar.

3.3

Grammars in the Linguistic and Institutional Sense

As noted in Chapter 1, when referencing an institutional “grammar,” or an institutional “syntax,” the reader may be inclined to draw linkages to a grammar in the linguistic sense. In fact, to appreciate the analytical opportunities leveraged by an “institutional grammar,” it is important to realize the distinctive differences between a linguistic grammar, and the Institutional Grammar, an aspect that Crawford and Ostrom’s seminal work and the prevailing coding practice address only to a limited extent. Providing a basis for a qualitative discussion, the central purpose of a linguistic grammar is to capture word structure (morphology), sentence structure (syntax), meaning (semantics), and finally practices around the context-dependent use of language (pragmatics), with linguistic analysis further considering its spoken production (phonology) as an elementary aspect of language (Winograd, 1983). However, inasmuch as linguistics agree on the distinctive features, the way in which humans generate or extract meaning from those classes has been approached from different perspectives. The currently dominating linguistic perspective suggests the existence of an innate universal set of syntactic primitives common to all humans that is combined based on fixed grammatical rules, and, in this process, generates meaning accessible to both producer and receiver, a grammar characterization referred to as Generative Grammar, and commonly associated with the work of Noam Chomsky (Chomsky, 1965; Jackendoff & Pinker, 2005). Essential to this interpretation is that the syntax itself carries and produces the meaning of the content based on the systematic combination, while, at the same time, allowing for the isolated analysis of language based on different levels of linguistic analysis (e.g., syntax, semantics). A contrasting view on the production and interpretation of language is the notion of the Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 2008), often referenced in conjunction with Construction Grammars (Hoffmann & Trousdale, 2013), which puts the emphasis on a language-independent interpretation by avoiding the isolated and sequential interpretation of a text based on distinctive levels of language (i.e., syntax, semantics,

66

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

morphology), but posits that the understanding of language operates across those levels based on general processes linked to neural activity patterns. These processes are shared among individuals on a biological basis, and relate to the establishment of psychological connections (association), automated production of language based on entrenched structures (automatization), the generalization of observed structures (schematization), and the corresponding application of existing understanding to categorize new expressions (categorization) (Broccias, 2013). All these processes are integrated based on a contextual frame that guides the production and corresponding interpretation. This focal emphasis on processes and associated patterns motivates the dissociation from language specifics (let alone specific languages or language families), but instead suggests the mapping of expressions based on the abovementioned schematic structures. Returning to the Institutional Grammar perspective, we recognize two aspects that are closely related to the interpretation of institutional settings and construction and regulation of activity therein. Firstly, the institutional meaning of a statement, i.e., its effect within an institutional setting, requires a shared frame of reference. This is not grounded in any specific domain, but in a shared conceptual framing, which, in the case of the IG, is the action situation. The action situation, as introduced in Chapter 1, provides the boundaries and typology of entities involved, including actors and actions, and the bio-physical as well as institutional context the action situation is embedded in. The construction of meaning within this shared frame of reference is based on shared schematics, or patterns, which, in the case of the IG, are institutional statements. This conception is inherently compatible with the institution characterization offered by Campbell (2020) who interprets institutions as cognitive schemata that organize individuals’ understanding of the real world and provide guidance for their behavior (see Chapter 1), a perspective that is compatible with interpretations offered by Scott (2013) and Castelfranchi (2014). Institutional statements themselves, generally referenced based on their syntax only, then carry not only the structural but also semantic integrity needed for their consistent interpretation (i.e., any component has a distinctive function and explicit semantic relationship to all other components of the statement, such as the Attributes to the Aim). Observed from this perspective, an Institutional Grammar is inherently agnostic of

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

67

language per se, but merely requires the extraction of institutionally relevant information (however it is represented there) and its positioning in the structural frame or schema that an institutional statement represents. We see the latter, the essential detachment from specific forms of natural language grammar (despite potential incidental overlaps), as a specific feature that makes the Institutional Grammar a lingua franca for the articulation of institutional arrangements. Its ability to do so comprehensively and without ambiguity is then subject to structural and semantic integrity of the institutional statement components themselves, an aspect that has been motivated above and will addressed in the upcoming chapters. This fixed structural frame naturally limits the expression of noninstitutionally relevant information (e.g., speaker/writer characteristics, style, open-ended sentence construction) and invariably focuses on structural units that capture essential institutional information. While linguistic analysis following the generative tradition operates on word/token, clause and sentence level, the Institutional Grammar recognizes component and statement as corresponding elementary and compound units of analysis. A practical consequence is that IG components do not necessarily only correspond to specific words or tokens, but may furthermore map to clauses. Using a running example to motivate this approach based on the high-level characterization of the IG in the previous chapter, we can suggest that. Organic farmers must fulfill their reporting duties before the end of the year.

While the identification of the actor (Organic farmer), activity (fulfill ) and object (reporting duties ) provide a close match, the contextual characterization (before the end of the year) is expressed in an extended clause. The observant reader may be inclined to infer patterns that map expressions provided in natural language onto components of the Institutional Grammar. While generally observable for simple statements (e.g., the correspondence of the S-V-O structure on Attributes, Aim, and Objects ), this mapping becomes unreliable with increasing statement complexity. Relying, for example, on the assumption that a subject in the linguistic sense always reflects the responsible actor of an institutional statement, may oversee that an action (e.g., “received”) may signal an inverted directionality that in fact characterizes the entity as the receiver of action in the

68

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

institutional sense. Similarly, drawing on prepositional clauses alone for characterization of context is challenging due to the polysemous nature, various forms, and senses that those represent (Srikumar & Roth, 2013).4 Inasfar as morphology is concerned, and motivated more explicitly in Chapter 5, a specific linguistic feature that is either applied selectively (e.g., as a concession to style) or systematically (e.g., based on usage conventions) is the notion of conceptual reification, a pattern linked to the mental representation of language argued in the context of the Cognitive Grammar referenced above. Conceptual reification, is the expression of actions, mental constructs (e.g., beliefs) and other nonphysical concepts in nominalized, or “thingified” form (Langacker, 2008). Any reference to abstract concepts can of course invite for discourse,5 but in this context we reference (and subsequently discuss) commonplace expressions found in policy text, such as Upon observation of a violation, the inspector may revoke the license … The Institutional Grammar seeks the explication of the essential institutional content, which can involve the reconstruction of clauses to simplify expression, formulate activities in active tense, but, most importantly, the inference of implied components (e.g., actors, actions, context). For example, to attain the idiomatic structure of an institutional statement as far as introduced to this stage (i.e., identifying responsible actor, action, etc.) without compromising semantic integrity, the leading conditional clause of the abovementioned expression can be reconstructed as When the inspector observes a violation, …, thus calling out the actor (inspector) explicitly, while reconstructing the conceptually reified “observation” in terms of an activity. The detection and resolution of such reification necessarily requires an understanding of the institutional setting (actors, activities, etc.) in order to make underlying institutional configurations overt.

4 Foregoing further exploration at this stage, we will continue this discussion following the introduction of the complete Institutional Grammar from Chapter 4 onward. 5 An analytical challenge at the core of sociological study (and in extension institutionalism) is the separation of social facts from tangible ones (Durkheim, 1964), and potentially leading to the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” (Whitehead, 1925, p. 52) by suggesting unjustified characterization of concepts (e.g., “the State”) as a cohesive and consistent unit.

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

69

In natural language, the structure and choice of expression in a sentence can be used to express nuance, develop coherent narratives, and often makes concessions to pragmatics associated with specific domains and the contextual use of language. This flexibility is desirable in the context of human language, e.g., to carry narratives in novels, alignment of phonetic and semantic patterns in poems, and specificity in legal expression. However, unlike natural language, the objective of the Institutional Grammar is clearly delineated: the reconstruction of institutional configurations expressed in terms of potentially interlinked institutional statements. In doing so, the Institutional Grammar seeks structural consistency that organizes the semantics of a statement alongside specific languageindependent syntactic patterns that carry distinctive institutional meaning, framed by the institutional setting as shared conceptual reference. Instead of imposing limitations on the analytical opportunities and extent to which institutional information can be extracted based on the fixed structural unit of institutional statements, in its revised form presented throughout this book, the Institutional Grammar establishes intermediate patterns of statement linkage that allow the analyst to detect and, if needed, reconstruct language systematically to accommodate the uniform structure, but without compromising semantic integrity in the process (from an institutional perspective). The basic patterns of the Institutional Grammar referenced throughout this section build on the characterization of institutional statements as parameterizing (i.e., constituting) and/or regulating in kind. Broadly conceived, parameterizing statements define an institutional setting, including the actors, actions, status and artifacts embedded therein. Regulating statements capture expectations associated with individual actors’ behaviors in the form of obligations, prohibitions, or permissions. The mapping of language into schematic institutional statements is best illustrated in examples. Reflecting on the example shown in Fig. 3.2, we can observe the dual function the statement has with respect to behavior regulation, on the one hand, namely the specification of duty, and the parameterizing function on the other – here the specification of reporting duties in the context of this institutional setting. Assuming both regulating and parameterizing function, the sentence shown here thus comprises of patterns reflecting two linked institutional statements. Highlighting the dissociation of linguistic and Institutional Grammar, these statements can be rewritten in the following form (see

70

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 3.2 Combined Institutional Grammar patterns example

Fig. 3.3) without sacrificing semantic integrity from an institutional perspective, while certainly affecting style and syntactic construction from a linguistic perspective. Table 3.2 highlights the essential differences between a grammar understood in the linguistic and the institutional sense, and specifically the varying levels of abstraction on which either grammar operates.

Fig. 3.3 Separated Institutional Grammar patterns example

Table 3.2 Comparison of key characteristics between linguistic and Institutional Grammar Characteristic

Linguistic Grammar

Institutional Grammar

Unit of analysis Objective

Sentence Expression of nuance in content

Facilitation

Structural diversity based on flexible syntax

Contextual anchor Conceptual primitives

Purpose and narrative of text Tokens/Words, Clauses, Sentences

Institutional Statement Capturing institutional meaning structure and style in detail Structural homogeneity based on uniform structure & linkage patterns Institutional Setting Components, Institutional Statements

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

71

With the distinctive objective of the Institutional Grammar to capture human coordination mechanisms generically, and the associated abstraction from the linguistic perspective, it holds the promise to operate across languages, language families and various forms of context. While introduced in the context of the English language (and hence applicable to other Germanic languages), the original operationalization of the IG in generic game-theoretical terms (e.g., actors, strategies) (see Crawford & Ostrom, 1995), as well as the subsequent application across other language families [Romance (Pacheco-Vega, 2020), Slavic (Dunajevas & Skuˇciene, 2016)] support the claim that the IG is a lingua franca for institutional analysis. This proposed conceptual generality, however, should not overshadow the customization based on methodological considerations regarding (a) disciplinary traditions (irrespective of linguistic context), and (b) potential language-specific conventions that influence the construction – an aspect explicitly discussed as part of the applied encoding of institutional content in Chapter 7. Reflecting on the discussion to this stage, Chapter 1 provided the motivational backdrop that highlights the contributions and applications of the existing IG, alongside subsequent adaptations to the Grammar over time that set the stage for this book. An overview of relevant research fields and the distinctive contributions that the Grammar has offered is introduced in Chapter 2. Building on these, this chapter has offered a synthesis of various considerations, including challenges related to conceptual validity (ontological inconsistencies), and an explicit characterization and consequent distinction between grammars in the institutional and the linguistic sense. This is augmented with an overarching call for richer and consistent methodological considerations that respond to different forms of data collection and analytical techniques, and motivate the shift from a component-centric syntactic to a statement-centered semantic perspective. With this narrative in mind, in the upcoming Chapters 4–6, the discussion will move toward the comprehensive conceptual introduction of the IG that responds to aforementioned challenges, before attending to methodological and analytical aspects and opportunities in Chapters 7 and 8, respectively.

72

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

References Agazzi, E. (2011). Consistency, truth and ontology. Studia Logica, 97 , 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9295-x Brady, U., Basurto, X., Bennett, A., Carter, D. P., Hanlon, J., Heikkila, T., Lien, A., Chonaiew, S. M., Olivier, T., Schlager, E., Siddiki, S., & Weible, C. (2018). Institutional analysis of rules-in-form coding guidelines (tech. rep.). Center for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment. https://complexity. asu.edu/sites/default/files/papers/cbie_wp_2018–006_0.pdf Broccias, C. (2013). Cognitive Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 1–14). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013. 0011 Campbell, J. L. (2020). Institutional change and globalization. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/j.ctv131bw68 Castelfranchi, C. (2014). Minds as social institutions. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(1): 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-0139324-0 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press (MA). Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 Dunajevas, E., & Skuˇciene, D. (2016). Mandatory pension system and redistribution: The comparative analysis of institutions in baltic states. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0025 Durkheim, E. (1964). The rules of sociological method. Free Press. Ellis, B. (2007). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge University Press. Frantz, C., Purvis, M. K., Nowostawski, M., & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. (2013). nADICO: A Nested Grammar of Institutions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8291 LNAI , 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-449277_31 Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Nowostawski, M. (2015). Modelling dynamic normative understanding in agent societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v16i4.1128 Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar: Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK). Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97 (2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognit ion.2005.04.006 Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001

3

MOTIVATION FOR A NEW INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR

73

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2020). Governing urban water conflict through water shed councils: A public policy analysis approach and critique. Water (Switzerland), 12(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/W12071849 Schlüter, A., & Theesfeld, I. (2010). The Grammar of Institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 445–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463110377299 Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. 4th edition, SAGE Publications Inc. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press (UK). Siddiki, S. (2014). Assessing policy design and interpretation: An institutionsbased analysis in the context of aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States. Review of Policy Research, 31(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr. 12075 Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the Institutional Grammar Tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.003 97.x Srikumar, V., & Roth, D. (2013). Modeling Semantic Relations Expressed by Prepositions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00223 Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. Free Press (Simon; Schuster). Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a cognitive process: Volume 1 - Syntax. Addison-Wesley.

CHAPTER 4

Institutional Grammar 2.0: Conceptual Foundations and General Syntax

4.1

Conceptual Foundations

Building on the motivation set out in previous chapters, this chapter focuses on the introduction of the Institutional Grammar concept, and highlights its essential features. Most notably, it will draw on the latest conceptualization of the Institutional Grammar, IG 2.0, that addresses many of the observations raised in Chapter 3, leveraging a richer institutional representation that moves beyond the mirroring of the linguistic grammatical structure by capturing variable levels of structural and semantic detail mediated via features stratified across a range of levels of expressiveness. A term that finds use throughout the remainder of the book is the institutional configuration. An Institutional Configuration is a set of institutional statements that are directly, or indirectly linked (e.g., based on implied reference) within or across action situations, and can be analyzed at different scales (e.g., component, statement, set of statements). In this form, the Institutional Grammar addresses a set of essential objectives, including: • preempting ontological inconsistencies by offering refined syntactic components that capture the content of statements consistently and unambiguously,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_4

75

76

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

• capturing institutional settings comprehensively based on both a regulative syntax that expresses behavioral expectations, as well as a constitutive syntax that reflects the parameterization of the system by defining entities (such as actors, behavior, roles, venues, etc.) in the first place, and finally • affording accessibility for diverse use cases based on the computational tractability of institutional statements. The Institutional Grammar aims at being an interface that allows for diverse analytical use cases, spanning from the assessment of statistical distributions of components, via the deeper structural assessment of institutional design toward logical representations of institutions that introduce analytical opportunities not accessible with the original Institutional Grammar, and thereby broadening the use cases for it along and beyond the research strands outlined in Chapter 2. More specifically, making the Institutional Grammar amenable to diverse analytical techniques (e.g., computational modeling, reasoning), the richer characterization of the Grammar opens up to entirely novel applications of it, such as the representation of “institutions in use” that complement the traditionally primary concentration on “institutions in form,” as well as novel structural analyses that draw on compositional details exposed by institutional statements—aspects discussed at greater depth in Chapter 8. 4.1.1

Levels of Expressiveness

Realizing the diverse affordances of different disciplines and associated techniques, the Institutional Grammar 2.0 recognizes three distinct Levels of Expressiveness that vary in conceptual richness and focus that respond to the levels of representational detail and complexity linked to various analytical objectives. These levels, namely IG Core, IG Extended (introduced in Chapter 5), and IG Logico (introduced in Chapter 6), are progressively capturing more detail about an institutional setting, and, consequentially, extract richer structural information embedded in institutional statements. The different levels further reflect a progression from a focus on structural features of individual statements and collections thereof toward a perspective that focuses on systemic features of institutional configurations, specifically capturing the meaning and interrelationships tacitly

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

77

expressed in institutional text. The levels are intended to be backwardcompatible, i.e., information encoded at higher levels of expressiveness is also accessible to analysis at lower levels of expressiveness. The IG 2.0 explicitly recognizes the potential dissociation between a methodological perspective that primarily emphasizes the coding itself, and an analytical perspective that orients the feature selection and other methodological choices on the analytical objectives of a given study. Whereas the latter reflects the scientific intuition of initiating any research with research questions, and organizing the methodology as a reaction, datasets may conceivably be encoded without a particular perspective in mind and may be encoded in more general form that is intentionally indifferent about the practical uses (e.g., large-scale data set creation).1 Emphasizing the analytical perspective, the analyst is tasked to identify the level of expressiveness that aligns with her analytical objectives, where the first two levels primarily focus on capturing institutional content, with IG Core establishing a coding that focuses on capturing institutional information in broad syntactic categories ensuring a consistent characterization of individual components. In contrast to the high-level parsing applied in the context of IG Core, IG Extended focuses on a deep structural parsing that refines IG Core coding by revisiting individual syntactic components to extract structures nested therein, building up to the exploitation of the structural information to afford systemic analyses (see Sect. 8.2.1). IG Logico features a semantic overlay that operates across all syntactic components parsed either on IG Core or Extended level, building the basis for advanced analysis that afford the ontological linkage with discipline- or domain-specific concepts (see Sect. 8.3). While offering distinctive analytical opportunities, the levels do not exist in isolation. Instead, movement between different levels reflects an incremental extension of the feature set offered on preceding levels, an aspect captured in the schematic representation in Fig. 4.1 that associates the coder and analyst perspectives with the corresponding levels. This, as a consequence, offers the flexibility to navigate various objectives associated with the individual levels: institutional content captured at greater structural detail (e.g., in IG Extended) can always be reduced to a more coarse-grained form (e.g., IG Core), thereby essentially promising “backward compatibility” across levels – and the opportunity to leverage wider and broader use of coded datasets. Conversely, this implies “upward

1 Implications deriving from either perspective are discussed in Chapter 7.

78

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.1 Levels of expressiveness in the Institutional Grammar 2.0

compatibility” and affords synergies when attempting to draw on features captured in higher levels of expressiveness: instead of recoding all statements entirely, recoding merely involves revisiting the existing coding in order to offer an incremental expansion of coding detail. To realize this objective, the “Grammar” relies on an inclusive and broadly captive base structure, rooted in the syntactic structure established as part of IG Core that builds on the original IG by Crawford and Ostrom. However, inasmuch as IG 2.0 aims at providing a coherent and consistent structure by resolving ontological inconsistencies discussed in Chapter 3, it further aims at capturing institutional configurations comprehensively. In this way, one can conceive of the institutional analysis occurring at the IG Core level as being of a more basic sort, while the institutional analysis occurring at the IG Extended and IG Logico levels as being of a more comprehensive sort with variable emphasis on structure versus semantics.

4

4.1.2

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

79

Constitutive and Regulative Statements

The IG 2.0 recognizes institutional statements of both regulative and constitutive kind, and thus defines institutional statements generally as a statement that describes actions for actors within particular contexts or parameterizes features of an institutional system within particular contexts. As referenced throughout the preceding chapters of the book, regulative statements describe actions for actors within particular contexts. They may further indicate prescription and consequences related to the referenced action. Constitutive statements, in contrast, build on the constitutive rule conception (Cherry, 1973; Searle, 1969) and define institutional (f)acts, either based on brute (f)acts or based on existing institutional (f)acts (Cherry, 1973), defining behavior in the first place. More broadly, in the context of IG 2.0 constitutive statements parameterize features of the institutional system within particular contexts. Whereas signing a lease contract, for instance, builds on the physical (brute) act of signing a piece of paper, institutionally, it has distinctive effects that transpire into the real world: it reflects the commitment and establishes rights and liabilities associated with entering a lease, thereby creating institutional facts that modify the status of the interacting participants (e.g., making the signatory a “lease holder”). Without further discussion at this stage,2 constitutive statements do not express behavioral expectations in terms of duties and permissions as applicable to individual actors or sets thereof, but emphasize the institutional setting in a wider sense – effectively setting the stage of the “institutional play.” This includes the specification of involved actors, behavior, and role conceptions, but also the definition of objects or artifacts, among further features of relevance in an action situation. In addition to the substantive characterization of entities, constitutive statements can further define relationships among any of such entities, including the embedding in organizational (e.g., hierarchical) settings, and importantly, the specification of status that the entity holds or attains in this institutional setting (e.g., rights, powers, liabilities, etc.). Further, constitutive statements can variably introduce (e.g., through definition) or modify (e.g., through redefinition, or introduction of novel conceptual relationships) entities antecedently, or do so dynamically, i.e., in an instantiated institutional setting. 2 Discussions around the distinctive features and contrast to regulative statements are provided in Chapter 7.

80

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.2 Interaction of constitutive and regulative statements

In the idealized form, regulative statements coordinate behavior by drawing on the entities defined in the institutional setting. More generally, constitutive statements define and introduce entities in the institutional action space, i.e., the actors and acts that carry institutional meaning and effect, as well as the associated affordances, i.e., what any institutional act can possibly act upon, whereas regulative statements draw the coordinative links between those entities based on an actor-centric operationalization and the consideration of environmental constraints. In essence, constitutive statements provide the fixtures on which regulative statements anchor. In this function, the performance of action based on behavioral prescription can produce feedback effects that affect the wider institutional setting, let alone potential external effects outside the institutional system. Figure 4.2 abstractly highlights the complementary operation of constitutive and regulative statements: artifacts are defined or modified by constitutive statements, by drawing on brute (f)acts or, in self-referential form, on already established institutional (f)acts. Regulative statements, in contrast, exclusively draw on explicit or implicit institutional (f)acts3 to capture behavioral guidance. Recognizing the complementary role of both statement types, the understanding developed at this stage provides a basis for introducing

3 This chapter returns to the discussion and accommodation of empirically-observed interlinked constitutive and regulative statement structures in Sect. 5.2.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

81

the comprehensive capturing of institutional arrangements based on institutional statements. In response to the systemic view and complementary function of constitutive and regulative statements introduced in IG 2.0, we deviate from Crawford and Ostrom’s original characterization that focuses on behavioral regulation only, and define an institutional statement as follows: An institutional statement describes expected actions for actors within particular contexts, or parameterizes features of an institutional system. Against this backdrop, the Institutional Grammar provides the necessary “grammar” that affords a comprehensive representation that is inclusive of both types of institutional statements, alongside potential mixed forms (see Sect. 5.2), while capturing structural and semantic detail. Where all levels share the basic component characterization as defined at the lowest level of expressiveness, IG Core, the subsequent levels introduce additional features that refine individual components or require characterization of the statement as a whole. In addition to offering an interface for different analytical objectives, the encoding on various levels invariably operates in a trade-off between human readability on the one hand and cognitive load on the other hand. The transition from the lowest level IG Core to IG Extended, for example, implies a considerable increase in cognitive effort during the encoding process due to the endemic structural complexity IG Extended captures. The transition from IG Extended to IG Logico, in contrast, likewise carries an increase in cognitive load, primarily sponsored by the shift from a structural to a semantic assessment of individual statements and arrangements thereof, as well as selected concessions to machine readability that challenge the accessibility of encoded text. The intuitions underlying these trade-offs, in preparation for the systematic selection of feature guidance as part of the analytical use (discussed in Chapter 7) are best supported by introducing the individual levels of expressiveness, alongside the associated feature set.

4.2

IG Core

Providing the basis for the Institutional Grammar, IG Core builds on the original syntactic characterization of the Institutional Grammar offered by Crawford and Ostrom (1995), in addition to the consideration of the Object component (Siddiki et al., 2011), as well as the principles of Nested

82

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Institutional Statements (Frantz et al., 2013). The objectives on this level are the establishment of a comprehensive coarse-grained encoding by taking into account statements of both constitutive and regulative kind, resolution of ontological inconsistencies discussed in Chapter 3, most notably the undifferentiated use of the Object and Conditions components, as well as a conceptual revision of the Or else component. At the same time, however, IG Core seeks to maintain general compatibility with established coding practice (see Chapter 2). Initiating the introduction of the basic syntactic components on which the IG rests, we initially introduce all components relevant to construct regulative statements, before continuing with the discussion of components composing constitutive statements, and concluding with the discussion of hybrid forms at the end of this chapter. 4.2.1

Regulative Syntax

In the IG, regulative statements that operate with the primary purpose of specifying behavioral expectations consist of the following components: Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Object, Context, and Or else. To motivate the individual components and their composition into institutional statements, we will selectively draw on the following stylized examples of policy statements: • Drivers must follow traffic regulations whenever driving on public roads, or else they face a fine. • All corporations, including the ones publicly listed in stock exchanges, as well as private ones, must submit annual reports to the Tax Revenue Service in a timely manner following the closing of the tax year, or else the Tax Revenue Service may impose sanctions. • Registered voters may cast their vote every four years. 4.2.1.1 Attributes The Attributes describes the actor, whose behavior is regulated in an institutional statement. The actor can be an individual or corporate (e.g., juridical person), who either carries out, or who is expected (not) to carry out (as indicated by the Deontic component) a given action (specified in the Aim component). The characterization of the actor can be explicit (e.g., identifying a specific entity by name), be based on specific

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

83

attributes that the actor (or group of actors) holds, or be in anthropomorphized form.4 The Attributes component subsumes both distinctive characterizations of the actor, e.g., based on role characterizations (e.g., Drivers, Citizens ), as well as descriptive or otherwise qualifying Properties associated with the actor (“Registered (voters)”, “(including) ones publicly listed in stock exchanges ”) that can be of diverse kind (e.g., demographic characteristics, physical, or relational properties). Such properties can further include qualifiers (e.g., older than 16 years), and be negated (e.g., not older than 16 years), or be quantitative in nature (e.g., some, all vs. no farmers). Independent of type and specificity, the number of such properties is open-ended. However, while recognizing the different characterizations of property information at this stage, on IG Core level,5 the identification and separation of properties from Attributes entity is sufficient. It is further important to note that in practice the Attributes component is oftentimes referred to in its singular form (Attribute), essentially rendering the use synonymous to the plural form, especially where the referenced actor is an unambiguously identified actor. The presence of an Attributes component is compulsory for regulative statements. However, the specification of the component may not be explicit but be contextually implied.6 4.2.1.2 Deontic The Deontic component explicitly defines whether an action of an institutional statement is compelled, restrained, or discretionary, and more specifically, captures an actor’s “duty” (or lack thereof) to perform a particular activity. The concept of the Deontic in the Institutional Grammar is closely associated with the principles of deontic logic (von Wright, 1951). Deontic logic (as formalized by von Wright) offers a formal characterization of the logical relationships among the permissible, obligatory, and conversely, the forbidden, based on their interdefinability, i.e., the ability to define any two deontic primitives based on the respective other one. We can motivate this point by relying on standard deontic 4 A statement may, for instance, prima facie regulate the behavior of cars, while in fact

regulating the driver’s behavior, e.g., “Cars must stop at zebra crossings.” 5 Further features including a typology of properties, as well as relational characteristics of properties are addressed in the context of IG Extended (Sect. 5.1) and IG Logico (Sect. 6.1). 6 See Chapter 7 for an extended discussion of inferring contextually implied components.

84

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

logic operators, with P signaling a permission, O an obligation, and F a prohibition. Relating these primitives, the negation (¬) of an obligation to perform or not to perform an action act (i.e., ¬O [act or ¬act ]) signals the discretionary nature of this activity (P act ). Intuitively, if taxpayers are neither obliged to file nor obliged not to file tax returns, it signals that this activity is discretionary. However, if one were only to express an obligation to not perform an act (O ¬act ), e.g., an obligation to not file tax returns, this would be equivalent to a prohibition to deliver tax returns, i.e., F ≡ O ¬act. Both the intuitive accessibility and logical foundation support the formal treatment of institutional statements. However, and despite the intuitive accessibility, it is not without challenges. On the one hand, deontic logic is met with a range of philosophical and logical challenges (Hansen et al., 2007), referred to as paradoxes, in which logical conclusions do not correspond to associated intuitions or produce contradictions. However, a practical challenge to the discretized tripartite structure of the Deontic is the observation that institutional statements invariably express nuances in “Deontic strength” – the extent to which a Deontic is discretionary or normative –, and thus inadvertently position expectations about regulated behavior along a Deontic continuum ranging from prohibition to obligation, where the center of this continuum reflects the optionality of such activity (as a further deontic modal in addition to the obligatory, impermissible (read “prohibited”), permissible, ought and omissible [McNamara, 2006]). While intuitively often conflated with permissiveness, the logical relationships between obligation, prohibition, and permission are incongruent: whereas an activity that is obliged can be assumed permitted, the same cannot be said about an activity that is prohibited; it is not permitted. Figure 4.3 schematically visualizes

Fig. 4.3 Continuous Deontic conception

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

85

this continuum, reflecting the discretized normative functions pro- and prescriptions assume linked via variable levels of discretion. Operationally, Deontic values associated with particular directives can variably be parameterized based on explicit domain-specific legal conventions (e.g., Bodansky, 2016), technical specifications (e.g., Bradner, 1997), or be based on empirical observations (see e.g., Frantz et al., 2015a). Beyond the immediate operationalization, the regulative effect of the Deontic can be moderated by contextual factors, an aspect we can exemplify using the following illustrative example: “Corporations must follow regulations regarding environmental pollution, especially if situated in sensitive socio-ecological settings.” In this statement, the qualifying clause “especially …” signals a differentiated interpretation of the Deontic must (generally signaling an obligation with limited discretion), implicitly elevating the level of prescriptiveness despite the in principle unchanged Deontic. This example highlights that the analysis of the Deontic – while conceptually intuitively accessible – cannot occur in isolation, but rests on the contextualization with the surrounding statement components. In the context of regulative statements, the presence of the Deontic component is optional. 4.2.1.3 Aim The Aim component reflects an activity, goal, or outcome regulated by the specific institutional statement, and is associated with a given actor specified in the Attribute component. Given the use of the Aim component as the regulated activity, where constraints and guidance are expressed in Context and Deontic components, a central prerequisite is that the performance of the action specified in the Aim must be physically possible; this implies the negation of actions since the Institutional Grammar describes behavioral regulation (and establishment thereof), not physical laws. Referencing the examples at the beginning of this section, the respective aims, or regulated activities, include follow (traffic regulation), submit (annual reports), and cast (vote), all of which can in principle be performed, or not performed (negated). Naturally, the presence of this component is necessary for any regulative statement.

86

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

4.2.1.4 Object In many instances, institutional statements not only constrain actor behavior, as expressed in the Attribute and Aim components but further involve objects that are directly or indirectly affected by the performance of the regulated activity. Objects, first introduced into the IG syntax by Siddiki et al. (2011) and Smajgl et al. (2008) as a response to observing the absent characterization of entities that are receiver by regulated activity, draw the analytical linkage between behavioral prescription in the form of Attribute and Aim, and entity affected by this behavior. Given challenges to reliability in statements where multiple objects exist (as highlighted in Chapter 3), in IG 2.0 Objects are recognized in two distinctive forms: Objects that are directly affected by the action execution, reflecting the direct receiver of the action, are Direct Objects . Where the application of a particular action to an object is targeted toward, indirectly affecting, or otherwise experienced by another object, the latter is identified as the Indirect Object . The principal relationships between action (Aim), Direct and Indirect Object are highlighted in Fig. 4.4. Illustrating the application using the above-mentioned examples, traffic regulations are referenced in the activity follow. Similarly, the activity submit is directed at annual reports. However, in this example, the statement includes the tax revenue service as an entity affected by the action-object application – the Indirect Object – as a receiver of the annual reports. As with the Attribute component, objects can have their own properties of diverse kind. Whereas IG Core focuses on the identification of such properties in the first place, richer characterizations are offered in the context of IG Extended. While seemingly a concession to linguistic structure, from an institutional perspective, the central purpose of the Object is to make the linkage between a responsible actor, regulated activity, and action receiver explicit, where the semantic of the linkage (i.e., how direct and indirect object are

Fig. 4.4 Direct and indirect objects in regulative institutional statements

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

87

related in a particular statement) is captured in the activity (Aim component). Naturally, institutional entities can thus find variable references as Attribute or Object components in different institutional statements. Where tax revenue service is the Indirect Object in the example statement, it may be an actor (and thus Attribute component value) in a different institutional statement. Objects can thus both be animate or inanimate in kind, and further, be physical entities, or be abstract, reflecting beliefs, observations, or other concepts such as procedures or institutional facts. In consequence, abstract objects can be complex constructs in their own right, and can further assume the structural form of institutional statements themselves, an aspect discussed in the context of IG Extended (see Sect. 5.1). The presence of the Object component is optional for regulative statements, since not every regulated activity in an institutional statement may refer to objects. 4.2.1.5 Context The Context component instantiates settings in which the focal action of a statement applies, or qualifies the action indicated in an institutional statement. Responding to the motivation set out in Chapter 3, the IG 2.0 resolves ontological inconsistencies embedded in the Conditions component and introduces the distinction between context characterizations that delineate the conditions under which the non-context part of the institutional statement applies – the conditions under which the statement activates, referred to as Activation Conditions , aligned with the precondition conception in Searle’s characterization of regulative statements, “If Y, then X” (Searle, 1969). Contrasting these Activation Conditions, Execution Constraints reference the qualification of activities during execution, thus imposing constraints on the enacted Aim.7 Referencing the earlier example “All corporations, …, must submit annual reports to the Tax Revenue Service in a timely manner following the closing of the tax year,” we can identify two context clauses, where one is the precondition for the submission of reports, namely “following the closing of the tax year.” The second context clause “in a timely manner”

7 The treatment of Execution Constraints with respect to constitutive statements is described in Sect. 4.2.5.

88

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.5 Activation Conditions vs. Execution Constraints

qualifies or constrains the activity regulated in the institutional statement, suggesting when the submission is to be performed. Figure 4.5 highlights the variable linkage of activation conditions and execution constraints to other institutional statement components, with Execution Constraints constraining or qualifying behavior in execution, and Activation Conditions highlighting the linkage to antecedents that signal the applicability of the statement in its entirety. The presence of this component is necessary for any regulative statement, but, absent any explicit specification, they can be implied: where absent, activation conditions imply their applicability “at all times ”; the statement applies, or activates, under any circumstance. Where execution constraints are absent, the regulated activity does not underlie further constraints, and is executed “without constraints.” The Context component, as an umbrella component capturing both conditions for execution as well as moderating it, signal Statement Context, as opposed to wider policy context as relevant for the domain more generally. This differentiated characterization reflects a conceptual deviation from Crawford and Ostrom’s Conditions component, but affords the distinction between the context a statement is functionally embedded in, on the one hand, and the contextual information a statement itself embeds. Beyond the ontological clarity sponsored by this distinction, it enables the reliable expression of conditional obligations/prohibitions (in an extension of pure obligations/prohibitions), thus offering the basis to establish a formal linkage between the Activation Condition and the Deontic, formally expressed in dyadic deontic logic.8 While dyadic deontic logic is not without its own challenges (see e.g., Prakken & Sergot, 1997),

8 We will not explore the operationalization in detail at this stage, but rather signal that the established ontological consistency enables such linkage in the first place.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

89

it provides the basis for the consistent operationalization of the Context component by uniquely identifying its respective functions within institutional statements and the logical linkages to other components, and further draws it to a level of granularity that is more closely comparable with the remaining IG components (recall the fine-granular Deontic and Aim components). However, despite the refined granularity offered by the distinction into Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints, Context of either type can be of variable kind, including temporal or spatial characterizations, qualification of methodical aspects, as well as general, potentially overlapping categorizations as events or states. Either Context type may further be of variable complexity, e.g., in the form of actions as preconditions for the activation of a statement, leading to a representation in the form of institutional statements. However, not in all instances will those representations be institutional statements, but rather reflect institutional states described in terms of the IG syntax. This specific aspect, alongside the general categorization of context types, is subject to extended discussion on the next level of expressiveness, IG Extended (Sect. 5.1.2). 4.2.1.6 Or Else The final component of the regulative form of the IG is the Or else, which captures any sanctioning or incentivizing provision associated with the violation of the behavior (Aim) indicated in the institutional statement regulated in pre- or proscriptive form (i.e., obligation or prohibition), and further contextualized by the Context component. Sanctions, or consequences, associated with the Or else vary in kind, and can include physical sanctions, institutional consequences (e.g., revocation of rights), be punitive or incentivizing, and can further emanate from diverse sets of actors. Deviating from the original interpretation of the Or else component that concentrates on the indication of the substantive sanction content (e.g., “…, or else receives fine.”), the refined characterization introduced in IG 2.0 recognizes the structural equivalence of the regulated activity and the corresponding sanctioning activity, both expressed in terms of the same syntactic components introduced to this stage, namely Attribute, Aim and Context components, alongside the selective use of Deontic and Object components, referred to as institutional statements (with a more refined characterization following the introduction of the components).

90

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

In the context of the Institutional Grammar characterization, this provides the prompt to introduce the concept of nested institutional statements based on Nested ADICO (nADICO) (Frantz, 2015; Frantz et al., 2013), previously referred to in Chapter 1. The notion of nested institutional statements recognizes the interdependency of statements, both within and between institutional statements. The explicit representation serves two interlinked objectives, namely resolving ambiguities observed in natural language expression of institutional statements, but also to reconstruct the different forms of embedded institutional complexity that those afford. The essential feature is the selective substitution of syntactic components with complete institutional statements. With a specific focus on the Or else component, we can review the following statement introduced at the beginning of this section: “Drivers must follow traffic regulations whenever driving on public roads, or else they face a fine.” Where the encoding of the initial part of the statement relies on the component introduced to this stage, i.e., Attribute (drivers ), Deontic (must ), Aim (follow), Direct Object (traffic regulations ), Activation Condition (whenever driving on public roads ), the latter part, the Or else (or else they face a fine) embeds complexity that – when made explicit – can be expressed using the same components. Representing a sanctioning behavior associated with the noncompliance with the prescription of the leading statement, semantically, it exhibits a similar capacity for guiding behavior, including the content of the sanction (fine), and, implicitly, the actor responsible for its execution. While implicit in this statement, imposing the same representation on the consequence forces the analyst to makes the responsible actor overt, fostering an explicit and analytically tractable representation. Where not clearly implied, the inference of the enforcement actor occurs from the context the statement is embedded in (e.g., surrounding statements, section the statement is embedded in, or action situation). Assuming a traffic setting, the Or else expression can thus be formulated as a complete institutional statement, resolving to enforcement official must impose fine, where the responsible actor and associated obligation are inferred. In an institutional statement for the statement thus reads “enforcement official (Attributes ) must (Deontic) impose (Aim) fine (Direct Object )”.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

91

Combining both statements, and schematically visualizing the statement linkage, the overall statement thus reads9

The interpretation of the Or else as an abstract component, or rather logical operator,10 that links institutional statements in the form of a material consequence thus serves the purpose of (a) making the structure of the sanction provision explicit, including content, responsible actor, as well as associated contextual conditions and constraints, and (b) drawing an explicit linkage between both statements, characterizing the former as a statement that is guarded or monitored by a separate complete institutional statement that captures the consequences associated with the violation of the preceding monitored statement. This form of statement interdependency, the interlinking of monitored statements – statements whose violation leads to the activation of consequence – and consequential statements – statements that describe the consequences of noncompliance with monitored statements – is referred to as vertical nesting . Naturally, the level of nesting is not limited to a single level but can capture the structural interdependencies of any depth. Returning to the previous example, the enforcement official itself can be subject to oversight by a superior, other official, or a combination thereof.

9 Note that in the following examples, prepositions and other linking language is associated with the receiving component (e.g., “with traffic regulation”). This is discussed in detail in Chapter 7. 10 This characterization is formalized in Sect. 6.1.1.

92

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Returning to the discussion of the Or else, in IG 2.0, the Or else component is abstract in that it requires the coder to encode consequences, such as sanctions or incentives, in terms of institutional statements, and thus acts as a logical connective between institutional statements rather than embedding the content of the consequences (as visualized in the previous figures). While this introduces the need to reconstruct the institutional statement with respect to its institutional meaning by inferring potentially implied actors, objects, and context, and thereby imposing a cognitive load on the coder or analyst, it likewise forces analysts to interpret arrangements in terms of consistent patterns that are semantically anchored in the action situation and, in extension, the institutional arrangements they are embedded in. While the preceding discussion put primary focus on the structural representation of consequences in institutional statements, Crawford and Ostrom explicitly allude to the institutional consequences emanating from some actor, such as another actor in an action situation. In the context of the new IG, this interpretation is wider, given both the flexibility to characterize consequences more richly in terms of institutional statements, but more importantly, empirical applications of the IG to analyze “institutions in use” suggest that sanctioning originating from non-human (e.g., natural) actors, such as sanctions from the natural environment, may be central to guide conformance behavior (Watkins et al., 2015). Relatedly, the observation of consequences for constitutive statements suggests that consequences can further be existential in kind, such as signaling the non-applicability of a statement itself, rather than imposing consequences on a given actor – an aspect we revisit more explicitly in the context of constitutive statements in Sect. 4.2.5. Or elses have been of limited relevance in many studies that apply IG coding (see Chapter 3 for an extended discussion). This can be attributed to the lack of presence of Or elses and formulation in terms of Activation Conditions (see Chapter 7 as well as Sect. 6.1.4). It may also be attributed to the commonly observed separation of regulated institutional content – expressed in terms of the previously introduced “Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Object, Context ” components – and the consequences for noncompliance in policy documents, as well as their reconstructions in the form of preconditions from the perspective of enforcing actors.11 These 11 This aspect is addressed in the context of statement transformations in Sect. 6.1.4 that showcase the logical interaction between preconditions and consequential statements.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

93

aspects motivate the call for a semantic interpretation of institutional content posed in Chapter 3. Where provisions in policy text can be mapped into the structural components introduced earlier (an aspect explored at greater depth in Chapter 7), their linkage to consequences often requires a broader understanding of the coded document, since provisions related to sanctioning may, in the best case, be captured in a different statement, or, more commonly, provided in an entirely separate part, sub-part or section of a given document dedicated to sanctions specifically. In addition, the scope of monitored statements and corresponding consequential statements may vary, with consequences expressed as “blanket statements” that apply across a range of behavior regulated throughout the policy (e.g., fines associated with any violation of statements captured in the regulation). In practice, a central challenge linked to the Or else is thus the identification of the linkage between statements, rather than components combined to reflect regulated behavior in the first place. Notwithstanding these specific concerns, many of which we will revisit throughout this book, the specification of consequences is not necessary for all institutional statements, making the Or else optional in the specification of institutional statements. The introduction of the Or else as abstract institutional statement component, or more accurately, as consequential logical connective linking institutional statements, brings us closer to completing the characterization of the structural makeup of (regulative) institutional statements more generally, and the kinds of institutions they represent. 4.2.1.7 Regulative Institutional Statement Structure The syntactic linkage of the components presented above provides us with the basis to construct institutional statements that capture regulated behavior, including the regulated actor as part of the Attributes component, the action regulated in the Aim, the Object addressed and/or affected by this action, the Deontic indicating whether the specified behavior is compelled or restrained, as well as contextual characterizations that signal the conditions under which a statement applies (Activation Condition), as well as further constraints that qualify the enacted action (Execution Constraint ). These components, in statement composition provide the elementary structure that allows the description of how behavioral conventions are described, restrained or compelled. Finally,

94

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.6 Regulative statement structure

linking a consequence via the Or else – expressed using the same structural primitives – captures potential consequences applicable in the case of noncompliance. The combination of those components (with optional applicability of Deontic, Object, and Or else) features the essential regulative structure of institutional statements, as schematically shown in Fig. 4.6, and listed in order of presentation and typical appearance in institutional data. However, before offering a differentiated characterization of regulative institutional that distinguishes between varying forms of institutional statements, the following section highlights analytical challenges associated with complex institutional statements commonly found in policy texts, and introduces conceptual approaches to address those challenges, while, at the same time, providing the conceptual foundations referenced throughout the remainder of this book. 4.2.2

Statement Combinations (Horizontal Nesting)

Inasmuch as the structure of institutional statements as introduced to this stage renders conceptual clarity and consistency, in reality “people don’t talk in institutional statements” (Watkins et al., 2015), and neither is a policy written in such form. However, instead of turning to stylistic and linguistic aspects related to the coding addressed in Sect. 5.1 and Chapter 7, a more immediate aspect is the way in which actors, objects, and circumstances relate to activities. In practice, and notably in form, actors can be involved in multiple regulated activities (or multiple actors in the same activity). A common sight in policy statements is the presence of component combinations, such as … inspect and facilitate … in the case of activities (i.e., Aim components), or certifiers, inspectors, and farmers for actors (Attributes ) or receivers of action (i.e., as Object components). While the stylistic conflation of those component-level combinations oftentimes appear unambiguous to the human reader, they reflect endemic complexity that makes it challenging to distinguish analytically between individual actors, activities, and associated compliance behavior. This is of particular relevance

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

95

when attempting the linkage or compliance assessment of actual “rules in use” observed in terms of behavioral instances (i.e., specific activities) as opposed to compound activity captured in component-level combinations. To this end, the IG seeks to dissect the interpretation of such combination by invoking a semantic perspective, challenging the coder to firstly identify whether the combined components offer distinctive institutional information, as opposed to merely reflecting prose that does not deserve further analytical attention. Exemplifying the latter, the expression perform regulation effectively signals the activity regulate, in which case the semantics are captured in a single component (here Aim), as opposed to being distributed across components corresponding to the linguistic category (i.e., perform as Aim, and regulation as Direct Object ). If both components are distinctive, but of the same component type (e.g., both are activities, objects, etc.), a second concern pertains to how those expressions are logically linked.12 The analyst may ask: Do the referenced activities represent alternative actions? More specifically, are the actions exclusive alternatives (i.e., only one is to be performed)? Or, is the actor required to perform both? Building on this, and showcasing empirically observable complexity of provisions, does the multiplicity of actors, actions, and objects in a single statement signal distinctive linkages between components? For example, the expression … inspect facility and report violations … conflates both activities and related objects, where the individual activities (inspect and report ) are linked to distinctive objects (facility and violations, respectively). Since the IG affords the comprehensive representation of characteristics of institutional relevance (as motivated in Chapter 3, and further explored below), it provides the necessary mechanisms that capture such semantic detail unambiguously. The Institutional Grammar resolves this challenge by affording the representation of logical combinations of institutional statements using the following logical operators:

12 While the following examples focus on the Aim component, the principles equally apply to any other component.

96

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

• AND (to signal conjunctions), • OR (colloquially “AND/ORs”, to reflect inclusive disjunctions), and • XOR (colloquially “EITHER ORs”, reflecting exclusive disjunctions). Complementing these dyadic operators – operators that link two institutional statements – with negation (NOT ) as a central unary operator that negates a specific statement, the IG inherits not only the ability to assess compliance with specific provisions (e.g., a specific set of possible choices or preconditions), but furthermore establishes a basis for the logical transformation of statements based on the interdefinability features that sentential, or propositional logic (Klement, 2004), offers – similar to the interdefinability offered by deontic logic as discussed in the context of the Deontic.13 We return to the discussion of richer use cases in the context of IG Extended and IG Logico. As far as the interpretation of statements is concerned, the analyst relies on a set of guiding questions that afford the mapping of ambiguous linguistic expressions to the precise logical characterizations provided above: • Do multiple distinctive components apply in conjunction (e.g., divide and conquer)? • Does either of those apply optionally (e.g., monitor and sanction)? • Do they reflect exclusive alternatives (e.g., accept or reject )? The examples highlight how the interpretation can vary contextually based on coder skills and background, but also knowledge of the coded policy, including the ambiguous use (and interpretation) of and and or in natural language (see e.g., Robbins, 201814 ), an aspect that is specifically pronounced in enumerations of items due to the larger number of implied linkages (e.g., “farmer may at any time apply for accreditation, seek reaccreditation, or withdraw from the accreditation process” ), exacerbating the reliance on contextual interpretation. 13 The transformation of logical statements is discussed in Sect. 6.1.4. 14 Robbins further explores the long-standing discourse on the use of AND/OR in the

context of contract drafting and legal writing.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

97

Resolving the linkage of expressions that combine various components, such as the example above (… inspect facility and report violations …), the interpretation (i.e., whether “ands”, and “ors” convey semantic signals that should be captured, or are merely stylistic – and reflect independent institutional statements) can be unambiguously expressed as schematically visualized below. Here the combined expressions are separated, or decomposed, into distinctive statements featuring all necessary and relevant optional components, and linked by a conjunction (AND) indicating an interpretation that assumes their conjoined applicability (i.e., making overt that the “and” is not just stylistic in nature, but carries institutional meaning).

While applicable for the decomposition of individual prescriptions, it equally applies to more complex characterizations that link multiple alternative or complementary activities. Specifically notable, however, is the combined use with the characterization of consequences, introduced as vertical nesting in Sect. 4.2.1.6, e.g., to represent graduated sanctioning. Amending the previous example for illustration (and approximating the complexity of statements found in practice), we introduce a compliance obligation for certified organic farmers, and augment the inspecting officer with the discretion to apply variable sanctions depending on the severity of potential noncompliance as indicated by the following statement:

98

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Upon certification, certified organic farmers must comply with organic farming regulations. In the case of minor violations, inspectors may allow for immediate correction, or, in the case of major violations, file a report according to the relevant organic farming provisions.

Recognizing the exemplary separation of monitored and consequential statements into separate sentences (as motivated in the context of the Or else), we can visualize the institutional interpretation in the following schematic form that links the decomposed statements (here using Or else to signal the linkage of monitored and consequential statements, and the OR signaling discretionary action15 ) in a form that makes the respective institutionally relevant consequential linkage and associated action choices explicit16 :

15 Here the choice of OR, i.e., AND/OR, is intentional to signal the potential cooccurrence of both cases, i.e., minor immediately corrected violations, and major reported ones, explicit. 16 The coding provided here is illustrative. Coding conventions, such as the handling of linking terms, and principles to guide the separation of entities and properties are discussed in Chapter 7.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

99

Generalizing the introduced combinatorial forms for institutional statements, we can retrace that such nesting is unconstrained with respect to the depth of nesting – the linkage between monitored and consequential statements (vertical nesting) – on the one hand, as well as with respect to the breadth of statements linked by conjunctions and disjunctions (horizontal nesting) on the other. These nesting faculties facilitate the consideration of diverse sets of actors, activities, conditions, etc. – thus providing the basis for capturing institutional arrangements of varying complexity, while at the same time capturing distinctive information comprehensively, conceptually reflected in institutional tree structures (see Chapter 8). Figure 4.7 summarizes these principles schematically,

100

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.7 Nesting principles

including the shifting foci of analysis expressed in statement relationship pairs, where the first-order consequential statement may at the same time be a monitored statement for potential second-order consequential statement, which itself may be subject to higher-order oversight. In addition to affording the mechanisms to capture institutional complexity at detail,17 the combined use of both forms of nesting thus affords a theoretically unlimited representation of what can be referred to as structural institutional regress (Frantz, 2015), drawing linkages between different levels and scopes of governance, relevant both for the analysis of “institutions in form,” as well as “use.” While this discussion put the focus on selective components for the purpose of illustration (e.g., Or else), the described forms of nesting apply to various other components (e.g., Context ), an aspect we draw on later in this section, and specifically, in the context of IG Extended, the level of expressiveness that aims at extracting fine-grained structure from institutional statements using the nesting principles introduced at this stage.18 Given the complex linkages of institutional statements that the nesting concepts introduce, it is important to introduce a refined terminological distinction between different forms of institutional statements. Institutional statements, and more specifically, regulative institutional statements, require the presence of a set of necessary components, namely Attributes, Aim, and Context components, alongside further optional

17 We return to this discussion in the context of analytical applications of the Institutional Grammar in Chapter 8. 18 The analytical benefits of nested statements will further be discussed in Chapter 8.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

101

components. They can furthermore include nested structures of any kind, where components are either combined, linked or entirely substituted by institutional statements, such as the case for the Or else. An atomic institutional statement is an institutional statement that only contains one of each necessary and (where applicable) optional components, where none of these components is further decomposed into, or substituted by, nested institutional statements. This implies that an atomic institutional statement cannot contain an Or else component (since it consists of a nested institutional statement itself), and neither any other component that is decomposed into (and hence substituted by) full institutional statements (such as a Context component containing the syntactic structure of an institutional statement). The latter nesting variation is yet to be introduced in the context of IG Extended, and subject to further discussion in Sect. 5.1. Under the broader conceptual umbrella of institutional statement, atomic institutional statements are complemented by composite institutional statements, i.e., institutional statements that consist of multiple atomic and/or combined statements, i.e., display any form of the introduced nesting facilities. 4.2.3

Regulative Institution Types

4.2.3.1 Three Branches of Institutional Analysis The introduction of institutional statements as a focal unit of analysis reflects the grammatical correspondence to sentences in natural language. However, as with the diverse forms and functions that natural language expressions play in different speech acts (Searle, 1969) (and thereby different communicative functions), the IG recognizes distinctive coordinative functions associated with different forms of institutions expressed in terms of institutional statements. In their seminal article, Crawford and Ostrom characterize three types of institutions grounded in different analytical traditions. These three types of institutions – shared strategies, norms, and rules – are reviewed in this section with reference to institutional analysis perspectives (i.e., rational choice institutionalism and sociological institutionalism) and contemporary approaches for engaging in IG research (i.e., application of the IG to study public policy). Crawford and Ostrom reference the “institutions as equilibria” perspective, reflecting approaches to institutional analysis closely associated with “Rational Choice Institutionalism” (Shepsle, 2009). Primarily drawing on theoretical foundations of Austrian Economics (e.g., Menger,

102

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

1963; von Hayek, 1945), a central theme is the interpretation of institutions as equilibria that emerge through the interaction of players primarily focused on utility maximization, with payoffs reflecting the performance of various institutional outcomes. This analytical perspective is commonly associated with rational choice theory, which, as an analytical technique, relies on game theory (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947). At its essence, essential subjects of study are the incentives that lead to motivational alignment of players to produce stable interaction patterns (of potentially varying efficiency) based on converging “shared strategies”. Notable contributions in this field include Schotter (1981) and Calvert (1995), as well as Greif (2006)’s work on medieval trading cooperatives. A common critique associated with a mere motivational focus on institutional arrangements is the lacking recognition of path dependency effects that challenge the efficiency that equilibrium-based approaches presume (see e.g., Greif & Kingston, 2011), despite selected approaches to alleviate this concern (see e.g., Greif & Laitin, 2004). They also reference “institutions as norms.” In contrast to the equilibria view that focuses on individually motivated (and generally static) preferences, the subject of study of normative systems are the social mechanisms that produce and sustain behavioral alignment, i.e., enforcement mechanisms not administered by a recognized or appointed authority. In this perspective on (social) institutions, the focus lies on the assessment of normative conduct based on enforcement (in terms of incentives or sanctions) that emanates from the social environment of actors (Coleman, 1990), giving rise to the study of intersubjectivity of normative belief (Tuomela, 1995), effective social sanctioning mechanisms (Axelrod, 1986),19 the effects across varying actor networks (Nee, 1998), alongside the scalability of decentralized enforcement. Notable foundational works in this area include Lewis (1969),20 Ullmann-Margalit (1977), Coleman (1988), and more recently, Cialdini et al. (1991) and Bicchieri (2006). While equilibria-based institutional analysis primarily has its roots in economics, being associated with the study of sociology, the study of norms applies across a wide range of social sciences, including economics (Akerlof, 1976; Young, 1998), social psychology (Cialdini et al., 1991), 19 While seminal, a noteworthy challenge to Axelrod’s work has been made by Galan and Izquierdo (2005). 20 A noteworthy critical account of Lewis’ game-theoretical operationalization is offered by Gilbert (1989).

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

103

international relations (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998), and for the study of norm dynamics and life cycles (Frantz & Pigozzi, 2018). In this branch of studies, an overarching assumption is the recognition of norms as drivers for coordination, and their underlying dynamic nature, in contrast to earlier characterizations of norms as relatively static.21 Social norms have further been subject to legal studies, especially with respect to their complementary role in motivating compliance behavior (Posner, 2000). Specifically, the facilitative role of norms for rule implementation motivates the contrasting characterization of (social) norms as “informal rules”, as opposed to the “formal rules” referenced in the third view on institutions. As described in the early parts of this book (see Chapter 2), most applications of the IG to date have been targeted toward the study of public policy. This legalistic perspective on institutions has been descriptively tagged as “institutions as rules” by Crawford and Ostrom (1995). In this branch of institutional analysis, subjects of study include the regulations, or formal rules, such as legal provisions devised in a legislative or collective action process, that define and constrain actor behavior. Building on the traditions of New Institutional Economics (North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990; Williamson, 1975), the “rules” perspective roots in legal theory (Hohfeld, 1913) and “Old Institutional Economics” commonly associated with Commons (1968), building on the fundamental premise that formal rules assume the primary responsibility for structuring social coordination. Following the establishing for formal rules, adaptive behavior in terms of the “rules in use,” and corresponding accommodations based on compliance mechanisms (e.g., regulatory compliance) are essential topics of interest in corresponding legal and policy studies, a vast amount of which is referenced in the earlier Chapter 2 of this book. While characterized as distinctive branches of analysis as part of this overview, it is important to note that the stylized “types” reflect the primary foci of analyses, alongside the theoretical and methodological toolbox associated with analysis of either type, recognizing the benefits and associated trade-offs associated with either approach. Public policy scholars, for instance, recognize the importance of “rules in use,” but interpret legal rules as primary subjects of analysis that offer explicit prescriptions for the moderation of social behavior. Consequently,

21 “[Norms] … are a part of the heritage that we call culture” (North, 1990, p. 3).

104

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Table 4.1 Institution type characteristics Institution type

Subject of study

Institution interpretation Primary driver of coordination

Equilibria

Individual motivations & cooperation behavior

Norms

Norm emergence, dynamics & normative conduct

Rules

Rule structure, compliance & rule change

Coordination outcomes as equilibrium strategies of individual actors (at any aggregate level) Institutions as emergent outcome of decentralized enforcement based on internalization and socialization Institutions established in authoritative process by legitimate actors

Rational behavior

Social environment

Regulatory/legal environment

scholars primarily interested in “rules in form” may hence apply content analysis techniques to extract policy information, whereas researchers who focus on the adoption “in the wild” will be drawn to appropriate empirical methods to extract the “rules in use,” such as ethnographic studies, structured interviews, etc. Table 4.1 summarizes the distinguishing features for all referenced branches, including underlying presumptions, and the institutional understanding put forth in the analysis. 4.2.3.2 Mapping Institutions to Statements This stratification of institutions into the aforementioned types, and specifically, the conceptual integration in a shared syntactic representation, provides the conceptual basis to understand the function the IG assumes when responding to a diverse set of analytical perspectives. At the same time, it provides the backdrop for the characterization of institution types in terms of institutional statements, affording the conceptual mapping that constitutes the IG as a Grammar of Institutions. The starting point for the characterization of distinctive institution types is the recognition of institutional statements as basic units of analysis, while, at the same time, recognizing that they can vary in complexity, and specifically, with respect to the components used to compose institutional statements.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

105

As indicated earlier, the components necessary to form any institutional statement include the Attributes, Aim, and Context components, constituting a Strategy.22 The Object component is optionally applicable for all institution types. Offering a basic illustrative example, strategies can capture a descriptive account of social behavior (Lewis, 1969), such as citizens’ general compliance behavior: Attributes: citizens Aim: comply Direct Object: with the law Activation Condition: at all times Execution Constraint: N/A

Reviewing this example, it is noteworthy to reiterate the special nature of the Context component (see Sect. 4.2.1.5), which is comprised of activation conditions and execution constraints. Where activation conditions default to a characterization that suggests the applicability of the statement at all times (as made explicit in this example), for execution constraints the absence suggests that no constraints whatsoever are imposed on the activity during execution (here indicated as N/A). Essentially, strategies express, or describe, conventional behavior, i.e., the fact that citizens adhere to the law, without making assumptions about associated prescriptions, let alone the source of the underlying motivation. As such, strategies can be of diverse nature and varying scope, providing the basis for the most general operationalization of institutions afforded by the IG. The qualification of injunctive behavior is the role of the Deontic. If augmented with a Deontic, e.g., to signal prescriptiveness or permission, institutional statements reflect the structure of what Crawford and

22 Crawford and Ostrom originally characterized those as “shared strategies” to signal the general adoption. It is noteworthy to state, however, that strategies may not in all instances be shared amongst all participants in a social setting, but potentially only adopted by subsets of variable nature (see e.g., Ghorbani et al., 2013).

106

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Ostrom devised as a Norm. Extending the previous example, the corresponding normative form (and assuming a prescription in this instance) suggests:

Signaling an obligation in this instance, the Deontic (as introduced in Sect. 4.2.1.2) has the central role of establishing the regulative nature of institutional statements based on the endowed capacity to guide and direct behavior, either in the form of pre- or proscriptions (i.e., obligations and prohibitions) or as permissions, but also the nuanced expression of the extent of prescription, let alone the regulatory weight based on domain-specific conventions.23 However, while behavioral expectations are made explicit, the associated enforcement in the form of sanctions or incentives is not specified. While IG 2.0 deviates from this interpretation, Crawford and Ostrom’s interpretation is based on the absence of a set of distinctive qualifications that constitute sanctions, aspects we discuss in the context of the rule characterization. The third form of institutional statements in the institutional strata is the Rule, and constituted by the introduction of the Or else as the final syntactic component, which explicitly expresses the consequences associated with noncompliance of the leading part of the institutional statement. Where Crawford and Ostrom’s specification interprets the Or else as a distinctive component carrying the sanctioning information, in the context of the IG 2.0 the Or else component is special in its function as a logical operator that links prescribed behavior with corresponding consequences, where those consequences can be expressed in the same structural form as the prescriptions they guard, i.e., as monitored and consequential institutional statements, respectively.24 Extending the previous example, the rule form is thus:

23 For a detailed discussion, see Sect. 4.2.1.2. 24 Recall Sect. 4.2.1.6 for an extended discussion.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

107

As discussed in the context of Sect. 4.2.2, both the monitored and consequential statements can be of varying complexity based on combinations of atomic statements, e.g., to reflect the multitude of activities, or to express graduated sanctioning provisions. Returning to Crawford and Ostrom’s qualification for the existence of an Or else not expressed syntactically, the specification of consequences requires the backing by other institutional statements (an aspect the nesting capability makes explicit), establishment of a range of punishment and assigning authority and procedures for imposing the Or else, and further assumes the existence of institutional statements that affect the constraints and opportunities of the actors who monitor conformance (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995, p. 586). 4.2.3.3 Revisiting the Norm/Rule Distinction While the stratification based on the incremental introduction of syntactic components offers conceptual simplicity and maintains structural distinctiveness, it invites for a set of clarifications, both linked to the syntactic focus and the requirements underlying a specification of consequences. Reflections on the first aspect, the syntactic characterization, follow from the discussion in Chapter 3 and empirical observations. When engaging in the extraction of institutional statements from institutional information, it is important to note that the characterization and linkage of consequences (the consequential statement) may, in many instances, not be understood based on syntactic grounds. When analyzing policy

108

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

text, for instance, the reader cannot necessarily expect that a consequence for noncompliance immediately follows the specification of regulated behavior. Instead, as discussed in Chapter 3, consequences (e.g., in the form of sanctions) may be held in separate statements, sections, appendices, or documents entirely – or may simply not exist. This is in contrast to the remaining components, which are generally co-located so as to signal the institutional content (actors, actions, conditions, and constraints) in the first place; content relevant for the Or else is in practice rarely immediately linked to the monitored statement, but organized in sections or parts dedicated to the specification of consequences (e.g., sanctions) – if present at all, i.e., formal rules do not necessarily carry consequences (let alone explicit ones) (see e.g., de Moor, 2015). Relatedly, and reviewing the structural characteristics of institutional statements more immediately, consequences, e.g., in the form of sanctioning provisions, are commonly constructed from the perspective of the enforcer, with the noncompliance as an antecedent for any intervention. In such instances, the consequential relationship is syntactically captured wholly within a single institutional statement (with the conditional violation expressed in the (nested) Activation Condition) without any need for the Or else component whatsoever.25 The following example illustrates such case: Attributes: enforcers Attributes Properties: responsible Deontic: may Aim: impose Direct Object: sanctions Activation Condition: if organic farmers operate non-compliantly Execution Constraint: as permitted by law

Beyond the structural considerations related to a purely syntactic interpretation, we can observe conceptual challenges to the validity of the IG for the representation of selected institution types. The exclusive association of consequences with the Rule conception highlights the focal orientation on formal institutions (where formal pertains less to the form (e.g., written) in which institutions are represented (institutions-in-form), but primarily references the process by 25 The structural parsing of preconditions, or Activation Conditions, of institutional statements will be discussed in Sect. 5.1.1.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

109

which and forums in which those come about – as discussed in detail later). However, the complementary dimension relevant for institutional analysis are the informal institutions that, combined with formal institutions embodied by actors "in the wild", reflect the institutionsin-use. The interaction between institutions-in-form (e.g., institutional designs expressed in policy) and -in-use is a recurring feature of analyses commonly associated with the “institutions as rules” perspective, such as North (1991) and Williamson (1975). Seen, for example, through the lens of regulatory compliance, which primarily focuses on the assessment of, and the mechanisms that facilitate, behavioral alignment with policy objectives, the effectiveness of such mechanisms is in fact moderated by perceptions about the enforcement (Siddiki et al., 2018). Further aspects referenced by analysts primarily committed to policy studies include challenges to conformance based on the assumed appropriateness of rules to govern particular domains (Young, 2016), as well as the capacity to recognize and react to enforcement signals on the individual level in the first place (Winter & May, 2001). Highlighting the analytical value further, the interaction between laws and norms has further found attention by scholars from the equilibrium camp (e.g., Acemoglu & Jackson, 2017). Given the central role of social enforcement in the “norms” perspective on institutional analysis referenced previously, a general Grammar of Institutions thus calls for the necessity to represent enforcement mechanisms not only for rules, thereby reflecting the legalistic view, but also for the more commonly decentralized mechanisms applicable to norms – as a proxy for the socio-institutional perspective. Foregoing the analysis of consequences associated with norm violations (e.g., social consequences) limits the ability to capture such institutions, and consequently challenges the validity of the IG for the representation of institutional phenomena at large. This call to reflect the presence of sanctions when analyzing informal institutions using the IG has further been established in qualitative studies in the field (Watkins et al., 2015), as well as studies of norm emergence in artificial societies (Frantz et al., 2015b), both of which reference the necessity as essential to understand existing institutions or their emergence in the first place. Seeking a general and comprehensive representation of institutions, the refined IG 2.0 responds to these observations and additional calls in literature (Frantz et al., 2013; Schlüter & Theesfeld, 2010) in two ways.

110

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

This includes the explicit admission of the syntactic Or else as an optional component both for norms and rules, and, in line with the motivation in Chapter 3, calls for a distinction of both types on semantic (as opposed to syntactic) grounds, as explored in the following. Complementing Crawford and Ostrom’s qualification for formal rules, and where consequences are present in the first place, the IG 2.0 relies on a systematic differentiation of norms and rules based on an explicit characterization of the monitoring party, as proposed by Schlüter and Theesfeld (2010), where rules, for instance, presume a formally appointed monitor (e.g., appointed in a legitimated legal forum), whereas informal (e.g., social) appointment is sufficient for norms. While providing an important distinguishing feature, the focus on the monitor as a differentiating feature alone can nevertheless lead to the undifferentiated, or in worst case wrongful, characterization of an institution, especially where the monitor and enforcing entity are distinct – a common and often intended characteristic of formal institutional arrangements. To this end, the IG 2.0 further considers the conceptual separation of monitoring and enforcing entity, originally proposed by Frantz et al. (2013) and Frantz (2015), as a distinguishing feature between norms and rules. Here conceptual separation implies the explicit recognition of both roles as distinctive in the enforcement process; it does not imply that monitoring and enforcing entity are necessarily different actors (or actor groups), but rather aims at their characterization in an institution, an aspect that differs for norms and rules. The benefits of this revision are valuable from both a representational as well as an analytical perspective. Representationally, the distinction rests on the observation that actors’ relationships in complex institutional arrangements may be non-dyadic, and rather linked indirectly, with potential monitors detecting and signaling potential transgressions that are subsequently addressed by a responsible enforcer. In contrast to the perpetually acting monitor, the enforcer may only become active whenever a noncompliance or violation actually occurs. Drawing on financial audits as an illustrative example, an auditor may act as a monitor of a corporation’s compliance and report potential violations. Only upon violation of financial reporting, the financial authority may then become active in its enforcing capacity. In institutional statement parlance, this conception translates into the following variably linked statements:

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

111

Monitor

As seen through this characterization, the first statement reflects the linkage of the regulated entity and enforcer, whereas the second statement describes the monitoring activities that lead to the enforcement in the first place. In this representation, the linkage between violating actor and the monitor is indirect, and expressed in separate institutional statements, while the linkage between the regulated actor and the enforcing entity is reflected by an Or else linkage as an institutionally mandated consequence.26 In addition to the differentiated representation of the underlying institutional semantics, the separated treatment is motivated from an analytical standpoint, since it provides the basis to represent the conceptual separation of powers, an aspect of central concern in legal studies [e.g., constitutional (Michaels, 2015) and criminal law (Barkow, 2006)] as well as public administration (Rosenbloom, 1983) – thereby leveraging extended analytical opportunities not only for the distinction of norms and rules but

26 We will revisit this scenario for further conceptual nuance not introduced at this stage.

112

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

for extended analysis from a legalistic or normative perspective, respectively. In the context of rules, for example, it enables the assessment of the extent to which formal institutional power is distributed across appointed actors. From the perspective of norms, the call for the distinction of both functions is analytically useful, since both these roles are often conflated in the context of social enforcement, and, by the very nature of norms, fuzzily specified in terms of responsibility (if at all). In practice, specific concerns in a normative setting include the uncertainty as to who a monitor is in the first place, let alone the nature of the sanctions a violator may face. Drawing on the trivial example of jay-walking, enforcement of compliance may occur in varying ways, such as self-enforcement (e.g., avoiding jay-walking based on moral grounds, or in the presence of children), social enforcement (e.g., reacting bystanders), or, of course, as legal enforcement (e.g., traffic officers). In addition to the different types of sanctioners, it may furthermore be unclear how bystanders would react, both in terms of multitude, as well as forms of sanctioning (see also Posner & Rasmusen, 1999). Assuming the observation of a transgression by a formally appointed authority (in contrast to the essentially selfappointed bystanders), legal consequences operate within explicitly specified bounds that impose limitations on the extent of discretion enforcers may employ, but also make those potentially calculable for potential violators. In addition to the formal appointment of monitors and enforcers for rules, a noteworthy difference lies in the characterization of the nature of enforcing actors, which may be anthropomorphic, be imaginary, or ascribed to the social environment directly as reported in empirical work by Watkins et al. (2015). Finally, the sanction, or consequences, themselves can vary in structure, with normative sanctions being of physical, potentially economic, and emotional nature,27 as well potentially affecting social status (and, of course, including any combination thereof). Formal sanctions can additionally carry explicit institutional effects (in addition to the effects of individual sanctioning), such as removal from appointed positions, removal of privileges, potentially modifying the wider institutional setting (e.g., collective consequences; modification of positions, rights, and responsibilities more generally).28

27 See also Crawford and Ostrom (1995). 28 Related accounts have been reported empirically, e.g., by Anderson et al. (1977),

Siddiki et al. (2012), and Wodahl et al. (2015).

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

113

Reflecting the duality of institutional perspectives as well as the variable complementary functions that monitors and enforcers play within informal (normative) and formal (rule) settings, the IG offers a conceptually integrated socio- and legal-institutional perspective that is able to conceptually capture the origin, content and function of both institutional concepts, as well as their interaction based on congruence, competition and conflict. Doing so establishes the basis for a systemic view on institutions that not only opens up novel analytical opportunities with focus on the interaction between the normative and legalistic perspective, but also invites for richer analyses within either strand of institutionalism. The New IG achieves this by affording norms and rules congruence in structure, while retaining distinction in semantics. Summarizing the preceding discussion, Table 4.2 collates the distinguishing characteristics of norms and rules, including the characterization of actors as well as features of consequences. Table 4.2 Semantic distinction between norms and rules in the Institutional Grammar 2.0 Characteristic

Norms

Rules

Specification of Monitor

Potentially unclear/fuzzy specification

Specification of Enforcer

Potentially unclear/fuzzy specification

Appointment of Monitor and Enforcera

Self- or informal appointment (ad hoc, informal forum/process)

Nature of Monitor and Enforcerb Relationship between Monitor and Enforcer

Physical, abstract or imaginary actor(s), natural environment Potentially unified or separate entities, not explicitly specified

Consequences

Potential uncertainty about frequency, nature (e.g., kind, intensity) and multitude

Clear specification (Potentially contextually implied) Clear specification (Potentially contextually implied) Formal appointment by private or public authority/legitimized forum Generally human or organizational actor(s) Unified or separate entities, clear specification Explicit specification, including potential discretion

a The differentiation of monitor types is an extension of the original characterization by Schlüter and

Theesfeld (2010) b The refined actor characterization draws on Watkins et al. (2015)’s observations

This table has been adapted from Frantz (2015)

114

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.8 Regulative statement type structures

Given the focal emphasis on the semantic distinction of institution types as expressed in institutional statements, the syntactic representation is visualized in Fig. 4.8. As motivated above, whereas norms and rules share the Deontic, as well as the representation of consequences (i.e., the abstract Or else linking consequences as separate statements) as common syntactic features, strategies follow the syntactic form of Attributes, Aim, as well as Context component decomposed into Activation Condition and Execution Constraint, alongside the optional presence of Object variants in either institution type. Semantic characteristics of strategies, discussed to a limited extent to this stage, will be revisited in the discussion of institution types for constitutive statements in Sect. 4.2.6. 4.2.4

Delta Parameters in the Institutional Grammar

One of the key features introduced by Crawford and Ostrom as part of the original IG is the concept of delta parameters as a mechanism to operationalize the Institutional Grammar by dissociating the representation of institutions, i.e., strategies, norms, or rules, from the incentives that lead individuals to comply, or conversely, to violate institutions. A particular reason for this dissociation was the observed limited accessibility of information about the commitment to institutions in field settings; reflecting the ability to describe empirically observed institutions at a reasonable level of accuracy, whereas incentives that drive compliance behavior were less overt, especially if no violation (and associated sanctioning) could be observed (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995).

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

115

Delta parameters can occur in various forms, and at various levels of granularity, as shown in the equations below and discussed in the following: δ o = δ oi + δ oe δ b = δ bi + δ be  = δo + δb At the highest level, delta parameters (deltas) reflect an aggregate that integrates the (signed) payoffs associated with compliance (δ o , i.e., obeying) and noncompliance (δ b , i.e., breaking) with an institutional statement, while further differentiating these payoffs into ones of internal origin (δ oi and δ bi ), and others of an external source (δ oe and δ be ). Internal sources, as understood in this context, are intrinsic motivations, emotions [“warm glow” (Andreoni, 1989)], as well as idealistic motives. External sources, in contrast, reflect extrinsic motivators, such as enforcement, economic or social utility (e.g., reputation enhancement, honor).29 Aggregated, the delta parameter () is the operationalized choice as to whether an individual conforms or abandons an institution it is subjected to. Where all delta values are set to zero, naturally, no (dis)inclination of conformance is signaled. Crawford and Ostrom specifically proposed this operationalization to support their game-theoretical exposition. While it has found limited adoption in extant IG research (in fact likely related to the challenge to observe motivations in the first place as indicated by Crawford and Ostrom), the concept is referenced as one potential approach to the operationalization of the IG in dynamic institutional analyses (see Sect. 8.2). To this stage, we have introduced the general syntactic components, and established basic forms of institutional statements, such as atomic institutional statements that express the elementary unit of behavioral prescription (or state description, as to be discussed in the context of IG Extended), and combinations thereof to capture complex constructs embedding multiple activities, e.g., actions performed at the same time, discretionary activity, associated with regulated behavior (horizontal 29 A wider range of factors underpinning internal or external deltas are discussed by Crawford and Ostrom (1995, p. 590).

116

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

nesting), or representing consequential relationships linking different actors and/or acts in regulatory settings (vertical nesting). Following the introduction of the basic structure of institutional statements, this section provided an overview of the different forms that institutional statements can take in terms of institution types, both with the purpose of capturing institutions comprehensively in an “Institutional Grammar”, alongside a review of the reflected institutional-analytical branches and traditions, followed by a conceptual revision of the different corresponding institution types to afford a more accurate semantic alignment and to provide the basis to extend the analytical depth of the IG. While this introduction focuses on the essential representation of behavior regulation, a second aspect of institutions increasingly moving into the spotlight of contemporary institutional analysis, the notion of constitutive statements, has not been captured in the original IG. The following introduction of a novel constitutive syntax thus moves beyond the original IG conception, and complements the regulative side with the purpose of establishing a comprehensive representation of institutions as observed in theory and practice. 4.2.5

Constitutive Syntax

As introduced in Sect. 4.1.2, regulative statements regulate activities of specified actors by specifying behavioral expectations or opportunities in terms of prescriptions, such as obligations and prohibitions, or permissions, as well as the conditions under which those apply, alongside the consideration of further constraints. Where explicit injunctions are absent, regulative statements descriptively account for behavioral conventions. Regulative statements thus offer a clear structural characterization centering around the actor-action specification. Constitutive statements, in contrast, focus on expressions pertaining to the parameterization of the institutional setting, and in theory have been discussed as “[defining] new forms of behavior” (Searle, 1969, p.33), with a distinctive focus on the separate specification of regulated activity and its definition in the first place, while others have noted the possible limitations of such idealized separation (e.g., Giddens, 1984; Hindriks, 2009), an aspect we return to when discussing Hybrid Institutional Statements (see Sect. 5.2).

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

117

What we can observe in practice, however, is that statements that have such parameterizing role invariably exist in policy documents, and are commonly associated with definitions that, in combination, capture essential properties of the wider institutional setting, which is subsequently referenced in scenarios that regulate that very behavior. Motivating the ideal structure of constitutive statements at this stage, we can observe various commonplace patterns as found in definitions or declarations: • “[An] Ingredient [is any]... substance used in the preparation of an agricultural product that is still present in the final commercial product as consumed.” • “The Committee shall consist of a President, Secretary, and Treasurer.” • “There is hereby established a public Food Security Advisory Board.” A central concept that accompanies us throughout the introduction of a constitutive syntactic form of the Institutional Grammar is the Entity, such as Ingredient, Committee, or Food Security Advisory Board. Complementing the regulative view, constitutive statements signal a perspective shift centered on an Entity in an abstract sense, that is either defined, modified, or otherwise affected as part of the institutional statement. Entities can be actors, actions, objects, roles, venues, infrastructure, as well as any other artifact of relevance, essentially reflecting the building blocks of an institutional setting. In contrast to regulative statements that directly link actor, activity, and context, such entities can be directly defined based on brute (f)acts, i.e., ascribing institutional meaning to real-world entities (e.g., “substance used in the preparation …”), be abstract in kind (e.g., status concepts such as institutional powers), or draw on established institutional (f)acts for their specification (e.g., a position as a compound entity linking roles, associated actions and venues, such as the Committee in the example above). Entities and associated statements can further be meta-constitutive in kind, such as parameterizing the policy itself (e.g., indicating life cycle characteristics, or linking novel to existing policy as an amendment). However, it is important to note that the constitutive nature of statements described here is independent of IAD concepts, and not to be confused with the constitutional and meta-constitutional levels of analysis in the IAD framework that govern the production of rules

118

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

applicable on the respective lower level. Constitutive and regulative statements can exist on any IAD level of analysis, and define, modify, and regulate entities of relevance on the corresponding level. Paralleling Searle’s original “X counts as Y in context Z” qualifications, the general structure that all constitutive statements share is the specification of an entity that is defined, modified, or otherwise affected by the institutional statement, the Constituted Entity. Where existent, Constituting Properties highlight the content of the parameterization of the constituted entity – the definiens of the constitutive statement (with the Constituted Entity as the corresponding definiendum). It is variable in kind, and can be concrete (i.e., physical) or abstract (e.g., status) and captures the feature or property linked to the Constituted Entity. The Constitutive Function, loosely corresponding to the “counts as” in Searle’s characterization, qualifies the linkage of a Constituted Entity with the institutional setting, or where existing, with Constituting Properties, i.e., it defines the entity (e.g., “… is …”), describes structural aspects (e.g., “… consists of …”), modifies (e.g., receiving additional properties) or affects in any other way (e.g., linking of status defined in Constituting Properties, such as “… is assigned …”). These distinctive components are complemented by the Context, which, similar to the same component in regulative statements, is stratified into conditions that signal the applicability of the statement (Activation Conditions ), as well as Execution Constraints that further qualify the Constitutive Functions (as the equivalent to the Aim in regulative statements). In addition, the constitutive syntax in the Institutional Grammar further recognizes the Modal to signal the required or optional nature of the constitution expressed in the constitutive statement. Finally, the Or else signals consequences for non-fulfillment of the institutional statement content. Unlike a distinctive sanction or incentive, as is the case for regulative statements, consequences can be of existential kind (e.g., an entity does not come about) and have a systemic impact (e.g., voiding the policy, or its applicability), potentially leading to a re-parameterization of the institutional setting. Combined, these components represent variable forms of statements that characterize features of an institutional setting, but differ with respect to the necessity or optionality of these features, as well as the consequences for not recognizing or enacting constitutive statements. Mirroring the structure of regulative statements, the individual components will be introduced, alongside an explicit elaboration of the general

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

119

functional principles and purpose, as well as underlying assumptions and scope of applicability. 4.2.5.1 Constituted Entity The Constituted Entity is a central concept of the constitutive syntax and identifies the entity, or subject, that is defined, modified (e.g., redefined based on addition or removal of properties, characteristics, relationships, as well as status), or otherwise affected by the institutional statement. The Constituted Entity can be any entity of relevance in an institutional setting, reflecting the most general concept of the IG. Entities can be of different metaphysical types (e.g., abstract vs. concrete, animate vs. inanimate), including: • • • • • • • • •

actors, both of animate or inanimate kind, actions/behavior, roles, objects, artifacts, venues, infrastructure (e.g., processes), status characterizations, as well as formal and informal institutions themselves.

Essentially, Constituted Entities provide principal entities relevant for a comprehensive specification of the institutional setting, including contextual characteristics, boundaries, positions, and actions, which are potentially referenced in regulative statements (e.g., actors, roles, and actions to be regulated), an aspect further discussed in Sect. 4.1.2. Inasmuch as constitutive statements define entities of such basic kind with reference to brute (f)acts and thereby introduce those in the institutional setting (as institutional (f)acts or concepts), they can further define or otherwise parameterize novel entities by referencing existing institutional concepts and thereby capture the intrinsic structural complexity of institutionally relevant concepts. A simple example is the concept of the Role that may reference a set of actions the one occupying the role can possibly exercise. Similarly, object definitions include affordances (Gibson, 2013), expressed in the characterization of actions an entity can be subjected to. A certification can, for example, be granted, reviewed, or

120

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

revoked. Another more complex example is the concept of a Position in an action situation, which captures the linkage of roles, relevant actions, as well as relevant venues a position relates to. Reflecting the parameterizing function of constitutive statements specifically, the policies themselves (or specific provisions, sections, etc. therein) can be Constituted Entities if the statement assumes meta-constitutive function (e.g., by linking specific provisions, or specifying the expiry of amendment of policies). Constituted Entities can further hold additional properties (e.g., public Food Advisory Board), similar to various components on the regulative side (and specifically discussed in the context of the Attributes component in Sect. 4.2.1.1). Conversely, Constituted Entities themselves can be properties of other objects, actors, roles, etc. (e.g., actions associated with an actor). The presence of the Constituted Entity is required for any constitutive institutional statement. 4.2.5.2 Modal The Modal is an optional component in the constitutive syntax that signals the extent to which the parameterization specified in the institutional statement is either required or optional. As such, the syntactic function of the Modal mirrors the role of the Deontic in the regulative syntax. However, unlike the regulative case, constitutive statements do not restrain or incentivize a specific actor, but instead signal the necessity of the parameterization (e.g., definition or modification of an entity) to take effect. Conceptually, the Modal does thus not directly assign responsibility to a particular actor or group of actors, but instead indicates that an entity exists (e.g., by definition), has to exist or may exist. Logically, the component makes reference to Modal Logic (Garson, 2021) more general, signaling the depersonalization of responsibility associated with attaining the specified institutional state (e.g., introducing actors, actions, venues, etc.). Unlike its deontic counterpart, which endows the responsible actor with the choice to perform a particular activity, modals do not oblige or constrain a particular actor, but describe objective necessities or optionalities in the context of the institutional setting, so as to “bring the institutional game about.” In consequence, the use of Modals can invite for a principled debate as to whether violations of constitutive statements are possible in the first place (an aspect the alethic logic, a specific branch of Modal Logic, rejects). Recalling the IG’s broader objective, capturing institutional arrangements

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

121

comprehensively, and recognizing their systemic nesting, assessing the impact of non-enacted institutional statements in terms of configurational effect is of central analytical value. Moreover, since consequences of non-fulfillment of constitutive statements generally permeate the wider institutional setting in the form of a potential re-parameterization, an expanded characterization of consequences is introduced in the context of constitutive statements, and further discussed in Sect 4.2.5.6. Noteworthy, however, is the potentially complementary nature of constitutive and regulative statements in this context, where the constitutive statement may specify that a particular entity is necessarily established, but leaves it to a complementary regulative provision to operationalize this constitution, e.g., by assigning specific responsibilities associated with the entity defined as part of the constitutive statement to actors – a central dialectic linked to the analysis of Hohfeld’s jural correlatives (Hohfeld, 1913). An example of such linkage is the abstract specification of a right ascribed to actors or roles, and a corresponding regulative statement specifying how this comes about. Building on the introduction of Hybrid Institutional Statements in Sect. 5.2, analytical opportunities will be discussed in Sect. 8.3. A specific concern in the context of the Modal is its variable use in linguistic expression. Its interpretation can vary from being merely stylistic to serving a well-defined function in legal practice or convention. Examples include the systematic use of directives in international treaties (e.g., Bodansky, 2016), or specific meanings in the context of standards (e.g., Björnsson & Shanklin, 2014; Bradner, 1997). This implies a deviating default interpretation of the Deontic from the Modal. Whereas the absence of Deontic values acts in a descriptive form associated with behavioral conventions and strategies in absence of explicitly codified external enforcement, in the context of constitutive statements, the absence of a Modal generally implies the requirement or necessity for the state specified in the institutional statement to come about. For example, the definition of an entity assumes that the entity has the associated ontological status in the context of the institutional setting, i.e., it “has to” exist as a concept. If a definition would be explicitly annotated with the indication that an entity may have a certain meaning, in constitutive statements this would need to be made explicit.

122

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

4.2.5.3 Constitutive Function An essential explicit component of any constitutive statement is the Constitutive Function. Unlike Searle’s “X is Y in Context Z” syntax, in which the functional descriptor expressed in the institutional statement is fixed and carries implied “is” or “counts as” semantics (see also Grossi et al., 2008), the Constitutive Function expresses the relationship between Constituted Entity and the institutional setting by capturing the effect of the linguistically associated expression on the institutional environment. Given the purpose of constitutive statements to capture the parameterization of an institutional setting, the explicit characterization of the function that establishes the linkage between the entity created (e.g., “is”), related (e.g., “is governed by”), or otherwise affected, and the institutional setting based on the effect that the expression signals. A central focus of the constitutive syntax in the IG is thus to capture distinctive characterizations of different functions to analyze their functional role with respect to the construction and/or (re-)configuration of an institutional setting. As indicated in the introductory paragraph and discussed here at brevity,30 common constitutive functions include the indication of: • Definitions (e.g., defining an actor, action, role, object, artifact, status, venue, etc. – see Sect. 4.2.5.1) in intensional (e.g., “… is …” ) or extensional forms (e.g., “… does …” ). • Relationships of entities (e.g., “… resides within …” ), such as embedding entities in an organizational context or defining entities based on composition relationships (e.g., specifying that a committee consists of a specific number of members). • (Dis)Establishment of entities by specifying the circumstances under which they come about, are suspended, or cease to exist (e.g., “… from 1st January onward, until 31st December” ) – effectively reflecting an entity’s lifecycle. • Modification of existing entities as part of a constitutive statement, such as associating novel properties with an entity of concern (e.g., amending an action specification or modifying actor characteristics).

30 Constitutive Functions find explicit treatment in the Constitutive Functions Taxonomy (Sect. 6.1.2.4) discussed in the context of IG Logico (Sect. 6.1).

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

123

• Conferral of status, such as assigning or conferring power (e.g., in the form of authority), rights, or other forms of status to roles or actors (e.g., Searle, 2005). While the perspective on the effects of constitutive statements is primarily linked to entities embedded in the institutional setting, constitutive statements can have policy-level (or meta-constitutive) functions in controlling life cycle aspects of the policy as a whole, i.e., defining when a policy itself comes into force (and thereby activating the entities defined therein), an aspect previously referenced in the context of the Constituted Entity. Common content and effects of C onstitutive F unctions are discussed in greater detail in the context of the Constitutive Functions Taxonomy in Sect. 6.1.2.4. 4.2.5.4 Constituting Properties Constituting Properties complement the relationship between Constituted Entity and Constitutive Function by capturing the characteristics functionally attached or otherwise related to the Constituted Entity, reflecting the linguistic function of a predicate that is grammatically linked to the subject it describes. Reiterating the stereotypical definitional structure of constitutive statements, the Constituted Entity reflects the definiendum, whereas Constituting Properties hold the corresponding definiens. Given the flexibility of constitutive statements to variably link brute (f)acts and institutional (f)acts as well as institutional (f)acts to other institutional (f)acts, the Constituting Properties of one statement may be the Constituted Entity in another. Whereas, for example, the signing of a paper titled “Lease Contract” as a brute act (Constituting Properties ) may be the basis to constitute the institutional concept of a lease (Constituted Entity), defining its cancelation as an institutional concept (Constituted Entity) relies on the existence of the institutional concept lease (then as Constituting Properties ) in the first place. In contrast to the Constituted Entity and Constitutive Function components, the presence of Constituting Properties in a constitutive statement is optional, since institutional concepts do not necessarily rely on a linkage to existing brute or institutional concepts to come about (something may just be declared as existing without any further qualification, e.g., “there

124

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

exists a Council”). As with Attributes, Object forms, and Constituted Entities, Constituting Properties can have nested or associated properties that qualify or characterize the component information further. Exemplifying the use of C onstituting P roperties in conjunction with the previously introduced components, we can now systematically classify the essential components of the statement “The Committee shall consist of a President, Secretary, and Treasurer,” as shown in the following. Constituted Entity: The Committee Modal: shall Constitutive Function: consist of Constituting Properties: President, Secretary, and Treasurer Activation Condition: at all times Execution Constraint: N/A.

In addition to the variable nature of the Constituting Properties component as referencing either brute or institutional (f)acts in the first place, in this example, the observer will notice multiple elements that in combination compose the Constituting Properties. As with other components, the explicit capturing of such component-level combinations is subject to encoding as discussed in Sect. 4.2.2 and, for the previous example, is functionally equivalent to the expansion shown below:

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

125

4.2.5.5 Context While the previous components for constitutive statements hold distinctive functions that deviate from the interpretation on the regulative side, both the Context component and the Or else are syntactically and structurally identical, but their embedding in the constitutive statement structure and functional relationship to other constitutive components naturally varies, alongside an expanded characterization of both components to accurately capture their use in the context of both regulative and constitutive statements. The Context component, as in the regulative case, is stratified into Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints , with Activation Conditions capturing the conditions under which the institutional statement applies.31 In constitutive statements, Execution Constraints are linked 31 More precisely, Activation Conditions indicate the conditions under which the nonactivation condition part of a statement applies.

126

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

with the Constitutive Function (as opposed to the Aim as is the case for regulative statements), both to qualify the constitutive process expressed therein, but also to capture potential effects on the institutional environment associated with the specific constitutive statement. While this characteristic equally applies to the use of Execution Constraints in the context of regulative statements, the latter aspect is specifically pronounced in constitutive statements due to the parameterizing function these statements assume with respect to the institutional setting they describe. In addition to the general qualification offered in IG Core, in the context of IG Extended we will discuss richer categorizations to draw out additional analytical value beyond the distinction into components that either reflect the preconditions or qualification of statements. The following example illustrates the stereotypical use of the Context components in constitutive statements: Constituted Entity: Council Modal: shall Constitutive Function: include Constituting Properties: organic farming representatives Activation Condition: From 1st January onward Execution Constraint: to review chemical allowances within organic food production standards

4.2.5.6 Or Else The final component on the constitutive side is the Or else. Similar to the regulative side, it is abstract in kind, and instead of capturing statement content, it in fact reflects the logical linkage between statements that prescribe monitored behavior, and statements that specify consequences for noncompliance. While consequences on the regulative side have been introduced as capturing enforcement activity originating from actors or the environment itself (see Sect. 4.2.1.6), consequences related to constitutive statements are of different quality. Recalling the principal objectives, constitutive statements parameterize the institutional setting by introducing or modifying entities, such as actions, objects, artifacts, and other features as discussed in Sect. 4.2.5.1. Any omitted or foregone parameterization consequently leads to a modification of the wider institutional setting, potentially rendering the parameterization invalid (or at least incongruent

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

127

with the institution in form), or, following Wittgenstein’s account (1983), making institutional arrangements meaningless by design. Reflecting this distinctive effect of non-fulfillment of constitutive statements, the Or else operator thus allows for the specification of consequences of existential quality, such as declaring the invalidity of the policy – the institutional game entirely –, or, activation of consequences in an institutional arrangement that embeds the invalidated institutional arrangement. The notion of consequences in the IG is inclusive of metaconfigurational effects that transcend individual action situations. As with regulative statements, and discussed in Chapter 3 as well as Sect. 4.2.3, the specification of consequences, let alone their effect may not necessarily be explicitly stated, nor be immediately evident. While higher-level policy, outside the analyzed one, may govern the treatment of nonfulfilled constitutive provisions more generally (as might be seen in legal systems that recognize hierarchies of laws, and elevate the interpretation correspondingly) without explicit reference, the interpretation may alternatively draw on dedicated sections in the policy document. This may further include “blanket,” or “umbrella” statements, such as salvatory clauses, guarding the policy, regulation, or contract in its entirety against invalidity of specific statements, alongside specific conventions for document drafting that respond to a domain, type of document, legal context, etc. Naturally (and indicated previously), the invalidity of selected aspects of a policy can have a configurational effect by effectively re-parameterizing the institutional setting alongside actors and activities governed therein. Integrating the kinds of consequences discussed in the context of regulative statements (Sect. 4.2.1.6) and expanded in Sect. 4.2.3, the IG essentially differentiates between existential and non-existential consequences. Beyond the meta-configurational function alluded to above, commonly occurring existential consequences are ones that afford the addition, removal or modification of a kind or type of entity (e.g., actors) to or from an institutional setting, and, based on the modification of the institutional design (as opposed to operational implementation and instantiation – the “runtime structure”), have the parameterizing effect that can potentially transcend action situations and encompass the wider institutional setting. A basic example that highlights the implicit existential nature of consequences is the following: Committee must consist of at least three members [, or else committee does not exist/come about].

128

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Reiterating the more general form of non-existential consequences implicitly referenced in Sect. 4.2.1.6, those are ones that affect individual instances of entities, such as actors, e.g., based on the administration of punitive measures originating from an enforcing actor, of human, corporate and anthropomorphized kind, that has a social effect (e.g., social rebuke), carry economic consequences (e.g., fines), or affects other forms of institutional status (e.g., demotion). Reflecting these general categories, the following (regulative) examples showcase typical use cases: Cars must not exceed speed limit, or else enforcement officer may impose fine. Students must not plagiarize, or else instructor will assign student failing grade. Certified organic farmers must follow organic farming provisions, or else certifier may revoke certification.

An important functional distinction of the effects of consequences relies on the nature of the monitored institutional statement. In the case of constitutive statements, the consequence can relate to the activation of the Constitutive Function in the first place, i.e., modify or void the functional relationship expressed in the leading institutional statement and thereby implicitly affecting the Constituted Entity (e.g., by not bringing it into existence). Alternatively, the consequence can target entities external to the statement (i.e., have parameterizing function transcending the specific statement). On the regulative side, in contrast, the consequence can relate to entities internal (e.g., actor, action, object) or external to the statement itself (and thereby implicitly link to the motivations that may drive compliance [see Sect. 4.2.4]), but not affect the regulative function the leading monitored statement reflects (i.e., the consequence does not modify the Aim and the associated directive, the Deontic, of a regulative statement). Inasmuch as the Or else specifies consequences, its activation is contingent on the noncompliance with (for regulative statements), or nonfulfillment or -satisfaction of (for constitutive statements), the leading monitored statement in the first place. Most notably, the role of the Modal is central to assess non-fulfillment. As indicated before – and contrasting the regulative side – the absence of an explicit Modal implies a necessity

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

129

to fulfill the provision contained in the monitored statement; it does not signal optionality as is the case for regulative statements. Widening the nature and forms of consequences for violation of constitutive or regulative statements, variably originating from an actor, the environment, or from the policy, or embedding the action situation itself, offers the basis for an integrated treatment of regulative and constitutive statements more generally, such as the specification of actor-centric (regulative) consequences for the non-fulfillment of a constitutive provision, or an existential consequence (e.g., non-applicability of specific provisions) associated with a violated regulative statement. We will discuss the associated concept of Hybrid Institutional Statements and relevant theoretical and conceptual implications in greater detail in Sect. 5.2. 4.2.5.7 Discussion Reflecting on the essential role of constitutive statements as a complementary concept to regulative statements, it is important to note the variable semantics expressed in the interactions of the statement components. As signaled at the beginning of this section, constitutive statements center around the Constituted Entity as a central concept, mediated by the Constitutive Function. As with regulative statements, Activation Conditions indicate the preconditions under which the statement applies. Where relevant, Constituting Properties provide the necessary descriptors in the form of predicates, existing entities or other forms of properties that serve as input to the Constitutive Function, where the Constitutive Function signals the specific institutional semantics of the functional linkage between Constituted Entity and Constituting Properties. Equivalent to regulative statements, the function may further be qualified by Execution Constraints, e.g., expressing how the function is performed, or signaling the purpose, outcome, or secondary effects of the statement, beyond the primary effect associated with the Constituted Entity. The Modal, finally, takes the role in signaling the compulsory or optional nature of the statement enactment. Figure 4.9 schematically highlights the conceptual relationships of the constitutive statement components, where dashed lines represent potential influences. Where applicable, components are further related to their Searlean correspondent. Recognizing the basic constitutive syntax and the underlying existential dimension begs the concern for a richer characterization of institution types, akin to the strategies, norms, and rules stratification as offered by Crawford and Ostrom, and refined in this work (see Sect. 4.2.3).

130

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 4.9 Constitutive statement component relationships

Statements primarily carrying constitutive weight have an inherently declarative role conveyed in the constitutive function, i.e., bringing about a change of affairs permeating the institutional setting. As stated in Sect. 4.2.3, constitutive statements provide the fixture on which regulative statements anchor, e.g., by referencing actors, actions, venues, and other contextual characterizations, the former establish and relate in the institutional arrangement. Naturally, this generic purpose is reflected in the divergence of functions constitutive statements can assume in operational settings, such as defining entities, assigning roles, or conferring status. Absent an explicit monitor responsible for enforcement (either by self-, social, or public enforcement as on the regulative side), the consequences associated with the violation of statements on the constitutive side inherently carry parameterizing weight, albeit with varying effect and thus impact on the institutional setting. 4.2.6

Constitutive Institution Types

Corresponding to the characterization on the regulative side, the distinction between different institution types is inherently grounded in the arena from which the rules emerge and to which they apply; as opposed to structural characteristics linked to individual components. The forums that lead to the definition and adoption of constitutive statements can vary by the degree of formality, allowing for the stratified characterization of norms and rules on the grounds introduced for regulative statements. The legitimation of normative provisions, for example, is inherently social;

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

131

the ontology for entities established in the social realm is socially established, outside of a formally legitimized decision-making forum. This forum is characterized by social influence that drives convergence toward shared conceptions (Abrams et al., 1990), emerging from or defining the shared social reality and thereby implicitly the identity of the underlying group (Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner, 1991). This involves, for example, socially enforced consensus on what “violation” constitutes in the specific socio-institutional context. Inadvertently – and not further discussed at this point – norms naturally bear the potential to lead to divergent understandings, if not driving polarization among groups (Isenberg, 1986) – a motivation for formal legitimation in the first place. Congruent with the rule conception on the regulative side, the basis of constitutive rules rests on their establishment in formally recognized forums (e.g., legislative, courts, tribunal) that define and impose conceptualizations that form the basis for the construction and regulation of institutional arrangements. A special role in the context of constitutive institution types is associated with strategies. On the regulative side, strategies reflect strategy choices shared among a set of players, where the designation of these strategies does not include any prescriptive component and the underlying motivations are inherently internal (or unknown), i.e., the nature of the behavior is akin to descriptive norms (Cialdini et al., 1991) that are conventionally adopted, but deviation from which does not carry any form of sanction. Relately, the extent to which those strategies are shared may vary. However, contrasting the strategy characterization on the regulative side, we recognize a different form of parameterizing statements on the constitutive side. Where regulative strategies generally describe the behavior of entities who are subject to the provision, constitutive statements offer similar behavior characterizations of the source or forum from which the statement originates or with which it associates, without necessarily being subject to the provision itself. While parameterizing, statements of this kind, include commitments, declarations of intent, or recognition of states of affairs by the involved parties to a cause, action, or aspiration linked to the policy of concern, or to establish a shared understanding or laying out assumptions that provide the backdrop for the interpretation of the broader institution. However, absent broader qualification, constitutive strategies do not carry legal weight prima facie, but may signal moral obligations.

132

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

An example of such constitutive strategy is “We, the city, recognize the availability of food as a matter of public concern.” In this statement, an actor – generally an entity intimately involved or affected by the policy of concern – signals the recognition of the state of affairs and concerns the associated policy aims to address, thereby supporting the interpretation of the policy from the perspective of the underlying intention, while, at the same time, avoiding legal exposure. Central to constitutive statements is their parameterizing function: they set the stage for the policy at large and contextualize the institutional statements within an institution according to a broader state, meta-state, or meta aspiration, providing the basis for their operational and potential judicial interpretation. Statements of this kind are commonly situated in preambles of legal text or associated commentary. Unlike norm and rule statements, constitutive strategies cannot be assessed with respect to “fulfilment” in a strict legal sense, and thus, similar to their regulative counterpart, do not carry explicit consequences. Summarizing the preceding discussion, the following heuristics support the operational identification of constitutive strategies: • Consequences for their violation are non-existential, i.e., their violation does not void the policy or parts thereof.32 • These statements are de facto discretionary in kind since no obligations or consequences are explicitly imposed on any referenced or implied actor. • They may capture an aspiration that statements in the policy aim at aligning with in spirit, providing the basis for their moral or legal interpretation. • The subject of the statement is generally involved with the policy design process (e.g., as a member of decision-making forums, authority, etc.). It is important to note that such statements contrast with statements of fact, i.e., statements stating the occurrence of actual factual circumstances – independent of associated intentions or objectives as is the case

32 The existential nature is here understood in the legal sense, and does not imply unintended consequences such as limited confidence in policies, e.g., due to poor implementation.

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

133

Table 4.3 Institution types of regulative and constitutive statements Institution type

Regulative variant

Constitutive variant

Strategies

behavioral conventions, descriptive norms; discretionary

Norms

injunctive norms and consequences; informal monitoring and enforcement

Rules

legal provisions and consequences; formal monitoring and enforcement

commitments, declarations of intent, recognition of affairs; discretionary informally established conceptualization and parameterization of institutional features/setting; socially binding formally established conceptualization and parameterization of institutional features/setting; formally binding

for strategies, or association with a particular actor. An example of such a statement is “The meeting was held in Seville on the 5th November 1973.” Completing the discussion on institution types, the preceding Table 4.3 summarizes the central features of both regulative and constitutive statements. The constitutive institution types as introduced here provide the functional complement to the regulative structures that govern behavior, with structures that define or otherwise parameterize entities (actors, actions, environment). Both types of institutional statements represent idealized forms, and while those can reflect the characterization of statements of definitional (“… entity is defined as …” ) and prescriptive kind (“… actor must perform …” ) in idiomatic form, in practice as well as theory do we recognize divergent perspectives on the relationship and distinction of those rule types (e.g., Giddens, 1984; Hindriks, 2009). To accommodate and potentially harmonize these debates, but more importantly, to accommodate empirical observations, we introduce the concept of Hybrid Institutional Statements , a feature discussed at greater depth in Sect. 5.2.

4.3

Summary of Chapter Content

This chapter introduced the conceptual umbrella of the Institutional Grammar 2.0 by providing an overview of general principles, such as the overarching objectives of ontological consistency, comprehensiveness of

134

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

parsing and representation, and advanced analytical uses based on computational tractability, as well as the levels of expressiveness that group specific features of the IG 2.0 to manage the trade-off of conceptual compatibility across those levels while accommodating specific analytical objectives. Figure 4.10 provides an integrated overview of the features associated with distinctive levels of expressiveness, which are highlighted in the following. Of these levels, this chapter introduced the lowest level IG Core as the basic level of expressiveness (highlighted in Fig. 4.10) of the New Institutional Grammar, and specifically highlights the syntactic components for both regulative and the novel constitutive syntactic forms, with the intent to resolve long-standing inconsistencies in representation (e.g., Conditions ), as well as to establish comprehensive encoding of statements. To further abstract from stylistic features for compound expressions, enumerations, etc., the IG 2.0 introduces the concept of nesting to reflect components (e.g., multiple aims) and groups of components (e.g., multiple actors and aims) in their elementary form (horizontal nesting), as well as to represent consequential relationships between different institutional statements (vertical nesting), substituting Crawford and Ostrom’s original Or else component with a logical linkage of distinct

Fig. 4.10 IG 2.0 Features by Level of Expressiveness

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

135

institutional statements. Reflecting on the diversity of application of the IG in extant work, alongside theoretical proposals, the IG 2.0 further includes a refined characterization of institution types that moves beyond a syntactic characterization of institution types, but establishes theoretical validity by drawing on the underlying processual and contextual features to distinguish between formal and informal institutions. At the same time, the range and nature of consequences present in institutional statements are extended in response to empirical observations as well as conceptual necessity to accommodate the novel constitutive syntactic form. However, despite the range of features introduced on this basic level of expressiveness, statements encoded to IG Core may still embed untapped structural complexity within or across components, either left untreated by the basic parsing, or obscured by style. At this stage, the IG further lacks mechanisms for the systematic categorization of Context as relevant for the semantic anchoring and linking of institutional statements in an action situation, or wider institutional setting. These aspects are subject to the representational conventions introduced under the label IG Extended, and introduced in the following chapter.

References Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309. 1990.tb00892.x Acemoglu, D., & Jackson, M. O. (2017). Social norms and the enforcement of laws. Journal of the European Economic Association, 15(2), 245–295. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvw006 Akerlof, G. (1976). The economics of caste and of the rat race and other woeful tales. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4), 599–617. https://doi.org/10. 2307/1885324 Anderson, L. S., Chiricos, T. G., & Waldo, G. P. (1977). Formal and informal sanctions: A comparison of deterrent effects. Social Problems, 25(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/800471 Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97 (6), 1447–1458. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833247 Axelrod, R. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095–1111. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960858 Barkow, R. E. (2006). Separation of powers and the criminal law. The Stanford Law Review, 58, 989–1054. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40040287

136

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press. Björnsson, G., & Shanklin, R. (2014). Must, ought and the structure of standards. In F. Cariani, D. Grossi, J. Meheus, & X. Parent (Eds.), Deontic logic and normative systems (pp. 33–48). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_4 Bodansky, D. (2016). The legal character of the Paris agreement. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12154 Bradner, S. (1997). Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119. txt Calvert, R. L. (1995). Rational actors, equilibrium, and social institutions. In J. Knight & I. Sened (Eds.), Explaining social institutions (pp. 57–93). University of Michigan Press. Cherry, C. (1973). Regulative rules and constitutive rules. Philosophical Quarterly, 23(93), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218059 Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24(100), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5 Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(1988), 95–120. Commons, J. R. (1968). Legal foundations of capitalism. University of Wisconsin Press. Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. https://doi.org/ 10.1162/002081898550789 Frantz, C., Purvis, M. K., Nowostawski, M., & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. (2013). nADICO: A nested grammar of institutions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8291 LNAI , 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-449 277_31 Frantz, C. K., Keertipati, S., Purvis, M. K., & Purvis, M. (2015a). Subjective interpretation of directive terms: Methodology and preliminary results. Proceedings – 2015 International Conference on Culture and Computing, Culture and Computing 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/Culture.and.Com puting.2015.40

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

137

Frantz, C. K., & Pigozzi, G. (2018). Modeling norm dynamics in multi-agent systems. IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 5(2), 491–563. Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Nowostawski, M. (2015b). Modelling dynamic normative understanding in agent societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v16i4. 1128 Frantz, C. K. (2015). Agent-based institutional modelling: Novel techniques for deriving structure from behaviour (Doctoral dissertation). University of Otago. Dunedin, New Zealand. https://hdl.handle.net/10523/5906 Galan, J. M., & Izquierdo, L. R. (2005). Appearances can be deceiving: Lessons learned re-implementing Axelrod’s evolutionary approach to norms. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(3), 2. Garson, J. (2021). Modal logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato. stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/logic-modal/ Ghorbani, A., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., & Noriega, P. (2013). Shared strategies in artificial agent societies. In H. Aldewereld & J. Sichman (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems viii (pp. 71–86). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37756-3_5 Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203767764 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Polity Press. Gilbert, M. P. (1989). On social facts. Routledge. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge University Press. Greif, A., & Kingston, C. (2011) Institutions: Rules or equilibria?. In N. Schofield & G. Caballero (Eds.), Political economy of institutions, democracy and voting. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19519-8_2 Greif, A., & Laitin, D. (2004). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0003055404041395 Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J. C., & Dignum, F. (2008). The many faces of counts-as: A formal analysis of constitutive-rules. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(2), 192–217. Hansen, J., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2007). Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic. In G. Boella, L. van der Torre, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems. Dagstuhl Seminar Proc. 07122. Hindriks, F. (2009). Constitutive rules, language, and ontology. Erkenntnis, 71(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9178-6 Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x

138

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10. 2307/785533 Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization. A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 Klement, K. C. (2004). Propositional logic. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/prop-log/ Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press. McNamara, P. (2006). Deontic logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, 7 , 197– 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80029-4 Menger, C. (1963). Problems in economics and sociology. University of Illinois Press. Michaels, J. D. (2015). An enduring, evolving separation of powers. Columbia Law Review, 115(3), 515–598. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43267874 de Moor, T. (2015). The dilemma of the commoners: Understanding the use of common-pool resources in long-term perspective. Cambridge University Press. Nee, V. (1998). Norms and networks in economic and organizational performance. American Economic Review, 88(2), 85–89. https://doi.org/10. 2307/116898 North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97– 112. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Posner, E. A. (2000). Law and social norms. Harvard University Press. Posner, R. A., & Rasmusen, E. B. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19(3), 369–382. Prakken, H., & Sergot, M. (1997). Dyadic Deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations. In D. Nute (Ed.), Defeasible Deontic logic, synthese library, vol. 263. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5_10 Robbins, I. (2018). ‘And/Or’ and the proper use of legal language. Maryland Law Review (Baltimore, Md.), 77 (2), 311–336. Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10. 2307/976330 Schlüter, A., & Theesfeld, I. (2010). The Grammar of Institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 445–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463110377299

4

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

139

Schotter, A. (1981). The economic theory of social institutions. Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1–22. Shepsle, K. A. (2009). Rational choice institutionalism. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460. 003.0002 Siddiki, S., Basurto, X., & Weible, C. M. (2012). Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture. Regulation and Governance, 6(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1748-5991.2012.01132.x Siddiki, S., Espinosa, S., & Heikkila, T. (2018). Contextualizing compliance in the public sector. Routledge. Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the Institutional Grammar Tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.003 97.x Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L. R., & Huigen, M. (2008). Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO sequence. Advances in Complex Systems, 2(11), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1142/S02195259080 0157X Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us: A philosophical study of basic social notions. Stanford University Press. Turner, J. (1991). Social influence. Open University Press. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1977). The emergence of norms. Clarendon Press. von Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press. von Wright, G. H. (1951). Deontic logic. Mind, 60(237), 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1093/mind/LX.237.1 Watkins, C., Westphal, L. M., Gobster, P. H., Vining, J., Wali, A., & Tudor, M. (2015). Shared principles of restoration practice in the Chicago wilderness region. Human Ecology Review, 21(1), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.22459/ HER.21.01.2015.07 Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of internal organization. Free Press. Winter, S. C., & May, P. J. (2001). Motivation for compliance with environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.1023

140

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Wittgenstein, L. (1983). Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees, & G. E. M. Anscombe, Eds.). MIT Press. Wodahl, E. J., Boman, J. H., & Garland, B. E. (2015). Responding to probation and parole violations: Are jail sanctions more effective than community-based graduated sanctions? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 242–250. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.010 Young, H. P. (1998). Social norms and economic welfare. European Economic Review, 42(3–5), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0014-2921(97)001 38-4 Young, O. R. (2016). On environmental governance: Sustainability, efficiency, and equity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315633176

CHAPTER 5

Institutional Grammar 2.0: Deep Structural Parsing and Hybrid Institutional Statements

5.1

IG Extended

Where IG Core focuses on an inclusive structural parsing capturing all relevant statement features, IG Extended focuses on deep parsing of institutional statements, drawing structural linkages obscured by statement structure and expressive style. As part of this, IG Extended initially focuses on select components to facilitate a perspective shift that extracts additional institutional information, before reintegrating those coherently into the institutional statement structure, fostering the basis for a systemic perspective on institutional arrangements expressed in institutional statements. The resulting statements are amenable to systematic statement transformations relying on institutional content alone. A central second aspect is the introduction of richer context characterizations based on the systematic use of a Context Taxonomy that provides the basis for the metaphysical linkage of components, where relevant. Analytically, this offers novel opportunities; inasmuch as IG Core emphasizes and supports a primarily descriptive analytical perspective, IG Extended puts a stronger emphasis on a constructionist perspective on institutional statements. 5.1.1

Component-Level Structure

IG Core emphasizes statements at large with a primarily descriptive focus. IG Extended puts individual components into focus in order to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_5

141

142

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

extract deep structures that capture the interdependencies of institutional statements, forming the basis for an analytical reconstruction of the institutional setting at large. Thus, what is meant by deep structural analysis, is a comprehensive investigation of structural features of components, rather than structural features of statements only, which fundamentally allows for a more nuanced understanding of component and statement linkages, and in consequence, the institutional setting. Motivating the fine-grained parsing of institutional statements on component level is the observation that the application of statements is variably anchored in context situated outside (e.g., temporal, spatial, or domanial characteristics) or within the analyzed action situation. Motivating such contextual anchoring, let us draw on the following stylized example: When organic farmers violate provisions of the organic farming regulation, certifiers may revoke violating farmers’ certifications following the procedures laid out in the regulation.

Following the IG Core coding, the referenced statement takes the following form: AƩributes: cerƟfiers DeonƟc: may Aim: revoke Direct Object: cerƟficaƟons Direct Object ProperƟes: violaƟng farmers’ AcƟvaƟon CondiƟon: When organic farmers violate organic farming provisions ExecuƟon Constraint: following the procedures laid out in the regulaƟon

The IG Core-based coding shown above explicitly identifies the responsible actor(s) (certifiers ), alongside activity (revoke) and the receiver of the activity, i.e., the direct object (certifications ), alongside the explicit characterization of associated properties (violating farmers’ ). In addition, the conditions under which this discretion applies are specified (When organic farmers violate organic farming provisions ), as well are qualifications for administering the activity in the form of execution constraints (following the procedures laid out in the regulation). While this statement captures the core components of the institutional activity explicitly, it does not make accessible the complex structure that conditions the applicability of the institutional statement, and leaves it to

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

143

the interpretation by the analyst, as opposed to the coder, to parse the specific conditions under which a statement applies. Turning to the activation condition (When organic farmers violate organic farming provisions ) specifically, it reflects an embedded structure that closely resembles the syntactic structure of regulative statements as reflected in the following coding1 : When ... AƩributes: organic farmers Aim: violate Direct Object: organic farming provisions AcƟvaƟon CondiƟon: N/A ExecuƟon Constraint: N/A

Recalling the institution types discussed in Sect. 4.2.3, the basic form of (regulative) institutional statements comprises of Attributes, Aim, and Context components, syntactically reflecting a Strategy expression. Reconstructing the comprehensive statement, the analyst can thus observe multilevel parsing of statements that applies to both the statement as a whole, and to components individually.2 5.1.2

Institutional Statements vs. Institutional States

While the syntactic pattern of the previous example makes the linkage of statements and structures nested therein explicit, it is important to recognize that structural information embedded in the activation condition does not necessarily follow such clear patterns, and may in fact not necessarily represent an institutional statement, such as a strategy, in the 1 Note that in the coding visualization following, the absence of activation condition

and/or execution constraint is indicated with “N/A.” In this case (or where absent entirely), the default semantics apply (i.e., ‘at all times’ for Activation Conditions; ‘no constraints’ for Execution Constraints ). 2 In addition to the recognition of the structural compatibility of the components with the regulative syntactic form, on semantic grounds the specific example highlights the configurational relationship of both decomposed statements leading to the characterization of the statement as a sanctioning provision, exemplifying how a purely syntactic interpretation of institutional quality can lead to mischaracterization (based on the presumed absence of the syntactic Or else), an aspect discussed in Chapter 3, Sect. 4.2.3. The book will revisit this aspect and associated transformation rules to address this concern in Sect. 6.1.4.

144

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

first place. Most notably, a strategy in the institutional sense is thought of as being applied by multiple actors. Albeit coded as strategies in the individual sense, the characterization of individual choices may not be understood as institutions, but rather as instances of behavior regulated by institutions. Such behavior thus may or may not generalize into, or be linked to institutional expressions regulating the behavior of different kinds. Introducing some nuance, if the activation condition read Where organic farmers fail to meet organic farming provisions due to external circumstances, …

the actors’ behavior may not necessarily be interpreted as a Strategy, since the actor’s noncompliance may no longer be a strategic choice, but rather a consequence or a result of circumstance outside an actor’s control, reflecting the lack of behavioral alternatives or options. Instances of behavior (as opposed to behavioral regularities), in which referenced behavior may or may not reflect choice, or reflect environmental circumstances,3 are referred to as Institutional States – contrasting the Institutional Statement that explicitly regulates behavior, or parameterizes the institutional setting more generally. While the previous example referenced actor-centric behavioral state, a common observation in institutional statements is the characterization of the environmental state that conditions the applicability of an institutional statement with or without the involvement of actors relevant to the institutional setting. Let us exemplify such environmental states: Where the number of certified organic farmers per region exceeds a specified threshold, certifiers may appoint additional inspectors to ensure sufficient inspection coverage.

Here the Activation Condition makes explicit reference to observations that cannot be attributed to individual actors, but rather reflect an institutional state. However, similarly to the characterization of behavior oriented at the regulative statement syntax, one can observe a complex syntactic pattern reflecting the constitutive syntactic form (see Sect. 4.2.5), as exemplified below. 3 Here environment is understood in the wider institutional sense, with its interpretation not restricted to the bio-physical perspective only.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

145

Analog to the behavioral variant of institutional states, the statement exemplified here reflects an institutionally relevant state of affairs (i.e., captures a potential situational state of an institutional arrangement) without broader parameterization of the institutional setting (i.e., it does not reflect how an institutional arrangement ought to be), as a precondition for the activation of the leading institutional statement. Structurally, this institutional state, as a precondition for the discretionary revocation of certifications, nests on the activation condition of the leading statement as visualized below:

Generalizing the concept of institutional states as an instance-centric counterpart to the more general institutional statements, one can broadly differentiate both concepts alongside their variable forms based on two dimensions as shown in Fig. 5.1. While the function of institutional statements is general in nature (i.e., to regulate and parameterize the institutional setting), institutional state reflects specific situational characterizations, states of affairs, or instances, of institutional arrangements,

146

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 5.1 Institutional statements vs. institutional states

and primarily serve a descriptive purpose. As indicated above, the contextual application of institutional state references is flexible; it can, for example, refer to observed factual arrangements (e.g., specific instances of violations), mental conceptions (e.g., beliefs, suspicions), desired states (e.g., to reflect the motivation or purpose of a regulated activity) or outcomes (e.g., achieved institutional state). Reiterating an earlier aspect, in addition to the differentiation based on scope or purpose, Institutional State conceptually mirrors the distinction between behavior-centric regulative forms, following the Attributes-AimContext (AIC) pattern (alongside optional Object characterizations), and environment-centric constitutive forms, following the Constituted EntityConstitutive Function-Context (EFC) pattern (alongside the optional Constituting Properties characterization). Despite this conceptual distinction, and as indicated in the context of the motivating examples, environment and behavior state characterizations may not necessarily be separated but can be interlinked or combined in as far as they reflect the state of affairs of the institutional arrangement more broadly. Notably, and complementing the discussion around Hybrid Institutional Statements (Sect. 5.2) more generally, institutional statements can reference institutional states of either kind, i.e., constitutive and regulative statements can link to behavioral state characterizations, as well as environmental characterizations. The previous example showcases the

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

147

explicit reference of a regulative statement to preconditions capturing environmental state. This third form of structural nesting, the substitution of individual statement components by institutional statements or institutional states parsed in terms of syntactic components of the Institutional Grammar, is referred to as Component-level Nesting. While the stylized example showed a simple linear linkage of precondition and institutional statement, where combinations of activity or state exist, those are reduced to individual (atomic) state characterizations and linked following the principles of horizontal nesting (Sect. 4.2.2) introduced in the context of institutional statements. The examples to this stage exclusively applied component-level nesting in the context of activation conditions. However, while commonly observed in the context of activation conditions, it equally applies to other components, including Attributes, Object variants, Execution Constraints, as well as the constitutive counterparts, namely Constituted Entities, Constituting Properties, alongside the Context component that equally applies on regulative and constitutive side. In addition, nested institutional statements can be found on all Properties associated with any component. The following statement, for instance, highlights the use of component-level nesting on an Object component: Inspectors must ensure that certified organic farmers report annually on their agricultural practices.

While not necessarily immediately evident, the receiver of the action regulated in this statement is the desired behavioral strategy “… certified organic farmers report annually on their agricultural practices ” in its entirety, which can be, similar to the leading statement “Inspectors must ensure …” parsed in regulative syntactic form. Representing the component-level nesting on the Object in visual form:

148

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

While showing the variable applicability of component-level nesting, the previous examples may still suggest the linearity or focal presence of nested structure within a single component only. A final example will display the concurrent presence across various components, as well as applicability across variable levels: The Program Manager may initiate revocation proceedings against a certified operation when the Program Manager has reason to believe that a certified operation has violated the Act or when a certifying agent fails to enforce the Act.

This statement decomposes into a leading institutional statement (“The Program Manager may initiate …” ), alongside two conditions (“… when the Program Manager …”; “when a certifying agent …” ) under which the activity described in the leading institutional statement applies. One of the conditions further contains a nested object characterization (“… a certified operation has violated the Act …” ). This latter embedding is an example of institutional state representations reflecting mental concepts (here beliefs or suspicions). Applying the principles of component-level nesting, i.e., the identification of state or statement structure in the syntactic form of institutional statements, the analyst can reconstruct the interlinked institutional features of the compound statement.4 4 Note that activation condition and execution constraint are not explicitly specified unless they carry distinctive value. Where entries are omitted, the default semantics apply (i.e., ‘at all times’ for Activation Conditions; ‘no constraints’ for Execution Constraints ).

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

149

This example highlights the complexity embedded in individual components, potentially to an extent that the central institutional content is in fact captured within the structures that the nested components embed.5 With the introduction of component-level nesting and the differentiated characterization of institutional state, and statements more generally, IG Extended represents a central mechanism to extract deep institutional structure beyond the coarse-grained characterization of components as

5 While concluding the introduction of component-level nesting with this statement, note that these aspects will be revisited using variants of statements referenced in this section, alongside strategies for their systematic encoding in Chapter 7.

150

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

emphasized in the context of IG Core. Deep parsing of institutional statements, as represented here, motivates the potential of IG Extended to preempt the omission of institutionally relevant features from analytic treatment, while, at the same time, extending the robustness of the IG against effects of linguistic construction of institutional statements, by systematically identifying and extracting institutional patterns irrespective of expression, responding to a central motivation for the dissociation of linguistic and institutional treatment of institutional statements discussed in Chapter 3. Before turning to the discussion of approaches to guide the systematic extraction of institutional content, Table 5.1 summarizes the different forms of institutional statement nesting as introduced as part of the IG 2.0 concept, alongside central criteria for their application, such as the underlying principles, purpose, and affected components and logical operators. Table 5.1 Types of nesting in institutional statements Nesting type

Principle

Purpose

Affected components/operators

Vertical Nesting

Linkage between statements or parts of statements relaying regulated monitored activity or parameterization, and consequence of violation Combination of atomic institutional statements using logical operators Substitution of individual components with complete institutional statement/state expression

Semantic disambiguation of governance relationships

Or else

Fine-granular decomposition of institutional information

all components; operators: AND, OR, XOR, including potentially combined negation (NOT)

Extraction of institutionally relevant structural complexity embedded in individual components

Attributes, Object, Constituted Entity, Constituting Properties, Context

Horizontal Nesting

Component-Level Nesting

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

151

A central contrast of the component-level nesting introduced in the context of IG Extended, and the previously discussed horizontal and vertical nesting forms is that the latter operates on statement level, i.e., linking distinctive statements in varying forms. Component-level nesting, in contrast, reflects a substitution of individual components within statements, thus affecting their structural integrity, an aspect schematically captured in Fig. 5.2. Combined, the different nesting concepts provide the basis for the logical treatment of institutional statements based on transformation rules discussed in Sect. 6.1.4. 5.1.3

Reconstructing Embedded Institutional Meaning

The examples introduced to this stage leverage analytically valuable6 institutional content based on the recognition of institutional patterns in the form of activity (AIC) or state (EFC) characterizations. Despite their intrinsic complexity, in all examples showcased throughout the previous section these uniform patterns were overt. However, not in all cases, do those present themselves in explicit form, but are obscured by stylistic features, such as varying tense, enumeration of relevant terms, conflation of activities or states. Inasmuch as a linguistic grammar offers the flexibility to construct conceptual constellations of arbitrary complexity, it often relies on stylistic forms that deviate from idiomatic patterns by offering efficiencies in expression that do not challenge the human interpretation of the underlying content. The IG, in contrast, aims at extracting the structural complexity in its raw form, so as to reduce the influence of language, both with respect to style and form, as a confounding factor that may otherwise obscure institutionally relevant details (see Chapter 3). Structuring the insights developed to this stage, while, at the same time, preparing a methodological basis to retrace concepts presented in the following, IG Extended emphasizes a constructionist perspective on institutional analysis made explicit in the following high-level blueprint of the institutional statement parsing process discussed in the following. Any parsing commences at the statement level, assessing linguistic expression with respect to the corresponding institutional meaning by

6 Analytical opportunities will be discussed in Chapter 8.

152

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 5.2 Schematic overview of nesting characteristics

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

153

extracting classes of statements (e.g., statements, states), the classification of such statements based on observed syntactic form (e.g., constitutive, regulative), followed by fine-grained parsing of their elementary structure (i.e., identification of components and combinations thereof). While presented as a linear process, any classification may potentially involve iterative refinement of the statement characterization based on structural and semantic knowledge developed during the parsing process. For example, a statement overtly presented in regulative form may expose its parameterizing function when interpreting individual components, and may in turn be interpreted as constitutive in kind. Based on the high-level, or first-order, characterization of the general statement, the decomposition is sequentially applied to the individual components in order to detect and classify substructures embedded therein, such as demonstrated for activation conditions and objects in the previous section. This general process, i.e., the sequential parsing of statements (including the iterative refinement of their characterization), followed by the review of clauses captured within individual components (according to the same principles) is highlighted in Fig. 5.3. Central in this process is the retention of the relationships among individual components (as facilitated by the idiomatic structure of institutional statements of regulative or constitutive kind), but more importantly, the linkage between the first-order statements and the structure embedded in specific components. This provides the basis for the analytical reconstruction of the internal structure of institutional statements,7 implicitly motivated by the representation of institutional statements as institutional statement trees. The statement visualizations provided throughout the previous and the following sections offer an intuitive representation of these very structures. As observable from the process, the encoding of institutional statements requires an understanding of institutional structures as expressed in terms of (a) institutional statements and states, (b) their linkage, and (c) their positioning within an action situation. With this background, IG Extended opens a principled approach to capture institutional content not overtly expressed. To motivate this approach, let us introduce the following example:

7 The dissociated treatment of the leading provision without a potential complex activation condition would render the statement non-sensical.

154

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 5.3 Institutional Statement Coding Process

When an inspection of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any non-compliance with the Act, a written notification of non-compliance shall be sent to the certifying agent.

Overtly, this statement can be decomposed into two parts, the first being the leading conditional clause (“When an inspection of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any non-compliance with the Act” ) representing the activation condition for the second clause, the main statement (“a written notification of non-compliance shall be sent to the certifying agent.” ). While components of the Institutional Grammar are observable, this statement presents the challenge that neither clause reflects the conventional regulative (ADIBC) or constitutive (EMFPC) syntactic form. Turning initially to the latter main statement, the challenge specifically relates to the implicitly characterized responsible actor, the Attributes component of the statement. Contextually, however – where context both refers to the statement in the narrow sense, and the policy in the wider sense –, the parsing resolves the Program Manager as such actor, given

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

155

its evident role in detecting any noncompliance in the first place. On this basis, the statement can be complemented by identifying its basic syntactic form as regulative – given its primary focus on the regulation of behavior. A second commonly observed aspect is the expression of activities in passive form (… be sent …), given the accredited certifying agent, the subject of any administered sanction is the subject in the linguistic expression. Here the essential role lies in the reconstruction of the statement in its complete form so as to express the regulative content. Applying these basic operational principles8 – the inference of implicit components, and the reconstruction of activities from the perspective of the responsible actor regulated in this statement –, the parsing process renders the statement shown below (with the inferred/transformed component values italicized). AƩributes: Program Manager DeonƟc: shall Aim: send Direct Object: noƟce Direct Object ProperƟes: wriƩen; of non-compliance Indirect Object: cerƟfying agent Indirect Object ProperƟes: to the accredited

Following the blueprint outlined in Fig. 5.3, this leaves the exploration of the second statement part (“When an inspection of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any non-compliance with the Act” ), necessitating a more substantive reconstruction of the institutionally relevant semantics embedded in this statement. Evaluating the conditional clause based on its general structure, this statement indicates an institutional state – circumstance(s) that leads to the activation of the consequence expressed in the earlier statement, identifying this statement as an Activation Condition. Similar to the first statement part, we observe a provision centered on the Program Manager as the responsible actor observing a potential transgression. However, while overtly concerned with the detection of a noncompliance by the accredited certifying agent, upon closer review, we can identify that the initial part of this statement signals a precondition – the inspection – for the identification of the noncompliance in the first place. Interpreting the statement from a logical perspective, and in the conventional form 8 We will discuss these and further aspects in the upcoming Chapter 7.

156

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

of regulative statements, the Program Manager thus not only reveals a noncompliance, but also performs the inspection, de facto rendering the statement with two interdependent activities – the inspection, and the potential revelation of noncompliance. Reflecting the institutional content accurately, while accommodating the atomic institutional statement structure that seeks the decomposition into elementary unique components (i.e., the AIC syntax, alongside optional components, for regulative statements), the statement can thus be reconstructed as “When Program Manager reveals any non-compliance with the Act [by the accredited certifying agent] [under the precondition that] Program Manager inspects accredited certifying agent …”. Paying closer attention to the initial activity (revelation), we can further observe its decomposition based on the characterization of noncompliance, that, following the institutional statement syntax, accurately decomposes into a complex object characterization, expressed as “When Program Manager reveals [that] accredited certifying agent does not comply with the Act…, where “accredited certifying agent does not comply …” reflects the decomposed object that the revelation applies to. The specific signal that is indicative for the activity characterization is the reference to the responsible actor (“by the accredited certifying agent” ). Deviating from the original expression, we can thus observe the decomposition of the compound conditional expression into two expressions that capture the fact that any revelation on the part of the Program Manager is contingent on the inspection in the first place, where the revelation of noncompliance represents a complex activity relationship in itself. Represented in schematic form, the overall statement – decomposed in terms of atomic statement form – decomposes as follows:

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

157

The compound linguistic expression of the statement part thus renders two dependent institutional state characterizations that themselves are the precondition for any sanction administered as a consequence, one of which carries complexity by resolving noncompliance as a complex activity in its own right. At first glance, this form of reconstruction requires the furthest reinterpretation of institutional statements on semantic grounds, and certainly demands the principled interpretation of the institutional setting based on its contextualization with and reconstruction within the action situation in the form of activity (“someone does” ) or state (“something is” ) primitives. This example illustrates, however, how far linguistic expression can deviate from the interpretation of institutional configurations in terms of structure reflected in institutional statements. The reconstruction of statements as promoted in the context of IG Extended finds theoretical support in the field of cognitive linguistics, as initially motivated in Chapter 3. In cognitive linguistics – a branch of linguistics that considers the embodiment of language essential in production and its interpretation9 – the observed phenomenon is referred to as an instance of conceptual 9 Contrasting the firm separation of syntax, semantics and morphology, cognitive linguistics demands for the consideration of all linguistic aspects to extract, or reconstruct the meaning of an expression (Broccias, 2013).

158

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

reification (Langacker, 2008), observed here in the rephrasing of activities (“inspecting”) in substantive form (“inspection”). More specifically, in this instance, conceptual reification captures the representation of institutional statements in uniform patterns that leverage their interpretation from an institutional perspective. More specifically, in this instance, conceptual reification means representing institutional statement information in terms of institutional primitives understood by actors that are subject to the institution (or monitors of that institution). This principled composition of institutional information from atomic patterns further showcases how institutional statement information assembles configurally to inform regulation of behavior or parameterization of the institutional setting, (re)creating the complex structural interlinkages that real-world institutions represent. Reification of linguistic expression introduces efficiency benefits by conflating expressions, for instance by avoiding the reiteration of the subject-verb-object form for all activities, especially if they are contextually unambiguous (e.g., where the activity is performed by the same actor, and potentially on the same subject). A second motivation is of stylistic nature, specifically, to draw attention to essential activity. In the given example, the revelation of noncompliance is of central concern, in contrast to the implied inspection. While expressions relying on those abstractions are accessible to the human reader and desirable to guide attention and interest, the Institutional Grammar as an institutional language draws out this tacit, but nevertheless important, institutional information to make it accessible for structural and semantic evaluation. Whereas sentence structure as found in natural language grammars allows for open-ended combination of lexical building blocks to produce novel linguistic constructs and meaning, the Institutional Grammar, as an analytical tool, differs in that it selectively focuses on the analysis of structure of an institutional setting. Doing so, the IG assumes a constructionist perspective, in that the concepts captured in an individual institutional statement do not only seek integrity of the referenced components within an institutional statement, but further consider the configurational linkage of statement components (such as actor and objects) and their meaning (e.g., the institutional function of the activity “revealing noncompliance”) beyond the scope of individual statements by conceptually positioning (and thereby integrating) all relevant entities in a shared ontological structure that the institutional setting represents, and that any statement can reference and draw from.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

159

Fig. 5.4 Institutional Statement Component Linkage to Action Situation

To this end, the Institutional Grammar specifies a set of well-defined institutional structures reflecting the skeletal institution types, all the components of which are linked to ontological concepts and relationships – the fixtures of the action situation – present as part of the institutional arrangement that these statements describe or relate to. By combining these basic structures based on a set of predefined patterns, the IG can reconstruct the complexity of the institutional configuration, and thereby capture the essential institutional meaning that the original linguistic statement conveys. Figure 5.4 schematically reflects the variable linkage of the elementary components of different institutional statement structures to the action situation, while, at the same time, reflecting the complementary nature of constitutive and regulative statements as central representational and analytical units. Following the extended motivation for the reconstruction as part of the coding process,10 this section concludes with the visual reconstruction of the illustrative institutional statement in its entirety, reflecting the two

10 Operational details are revisited in Chapter 7.

160

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

levels of nested activation conditions (and the nested complex object) on which the applicability of the first-order statement – the sending of a notification as a sanctioning activity – rests.

5.1.4

Object-Property Hierarchy

As signaled in the previous section, the extraction of institutional content based on deep interpretation and reconstruction of institutional meaning captured in individual statements extends beyond a mere mapping of linguistic concepts onto their institutional counterparts, but the recognition of a semantic linkage between entities, activities, and contexts referenced across different statements.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

161

Aspects implicit to the human reader, but not overtly captured by institutional statements following the IG Core features, are the conceptual relationships that relate individual entities referenced in institutional statements. To motivate this challenge, we will use an illustrative example: Program Manager shall send a written notification of proposed suspension or revocation of certification to certified organic farmer.

Encoded in the structural form proposed above, we arrive at

While most elements of this statement find direct correspondence in institutional statement form, notably, the Direct Object Properties stand out based on the complexity they embed. The initial property offers a qualitative characterization of the Direct Object by characterizing its written nature. On the other hand, the properties capture the organizational relationship to other institutionally relevant concepts, including the suspension and revocation in relationship to the certification, nuanced structural relationships not captured in the syntactic elements of institutional statements.11 While these concepts are only indirectly referenced, they nevertheless expose conceptual features of the institutional setting, alongside their relational linkages. The statement, for instance, references the terms suspension and revocation, both of which are linked to the certification, and more specifically, both concepts are functionally dependent on the existence of the certification; administering a suspension without an explicit or implied reference to the status that is withdrawn or otherwise affected (here: the certification) reflects an incomplete information basis. The entity referenced as Direct Object in the exemplary institutional statement itself (notification) likewise depends on the existence of the suspension or revocation, which 11 The implied logical linkage has been emphasized in the example above.

162

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

are inadvertently linked to the certification. Properties, in their simplest form, can assume a qualifying function directly associated with the qualified object. Alternatively, and capturing complex structural relationships, the Institutional Grammar organizes the existence of principal forms of relationships of entities in an Object-Property Hierarchy. Following principles of conceptual ontologies (Agazzi, 2011; Campbell, 2005), entities can consist of, or associate with any number of properties, where the latter can either be objects themselves, and similarly signal relationships to or dependence on other entities. Relationships can be of variable quality, signaling both the independence of objects or, as indicated above, the ontological dependence between entities (e.g., between suspension and certification). Such hierarchy does not need to be rooted in an institutional statement, but the entities referenced in an institutional statement may anchor to this hierarchical structure on any entity (or multiple where relevant). Recontextualizing the discussion provided above with the initial example, Fig. 5.5 offers an overview of the Object-Property Hierarchy inferred from the Direct Object Properties component of the statement referenced above that anchors on the notification as a direct object.

Fig. 5.5 Exemplified linkage of objects and properties

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

163

The value of making conceptual relationships overt is to leverage features of institutional configurations that may or may not be explicitly based on the specification in institutional statements alone. The ObjectProperty Hierarchy plays across-cutting function in capturing institutional structure comprehensively that operates across and, to some extent, independent of institutional statements, while being anchored in statement components. In addition to extracting tacit institutional information, the lateral operation of the Object-Property Hierarchy compensates for shortcomings in policy specifications (e.g., missing policy information, tacit context). Given the general function of the Object-Property Hierarchy in the context of institutional statements, structural information can be provided as part of any property characterization across institutional statements. While exemplified here for objects, structural complexity can occur in various other components of the IG, namely Attributes Properties, Direct Object Properties, Indirect Object Properties, Constituted Entity Properties, Constituting Properties Properties, but also as part of Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints. The principles of the Object-Property Hierarchy, and, in extension, properties as prevalent across various statement components, can be summarized as follows: • Objects can have one or more properties. • Properties can be simple or complex in kind. – Simple properties offer qualifications of the associated objects. – Properties themselves can be objects (and consequently possess their own properties). • Objects and their properties are linked by relationships of different quality, most notably indicating functional, or ontological, dependence (i.e., the existence of one concept depends on the existing of the other), or independence.12 • Properties of objects (as objects themselves) can be logically linked (e.g., signaling combined or alternative applicability13 ). 12 In the context of the Cognitive Grammar (Broccias, 2013; Langacker, 2008), these variable relationships are characterized as conceptually dependent and conceptually autonomous, respectively. 13 This aspect is illustrated in the referenced example.

164

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

5.1.5

Property Types

Building on the observed relationships between entities and their properties as captured in the Object-Property Hierarchy, and their flexible association with institutional statements across various components, closer observation of empirically encountered properties allows for a refined classification that supports different analytical use cases. In addition to recognizing the distinction between simple qualifications and complex structural relationships, properties further carry quantitative information, whether explicitly expressed in numeric or linguistic form (e.g., 1, one), or as quantifiers (e.g., each, some, all, most ). Those features specifically, are valuable from an evaluative perspective, e.g., to make the scope of applicability of a given instruction or provision explicit, and to allow the explicit assessment of regulatory compliance, and thus contrast the qualitative features highlighted earlier. Reviewing structural aspects of qualitative property characterizations, we further observe a differentiation between simple and complex properties. Complex properties can afford a circumstantial qualification of entities based on references to activity or state information. Exemplifying the latter two aspects, an activity-centric property can pertain to activity the entities engage in (e.g., “Participants engaging in non-compliant practice …” ), as well as the reference to internal or mental processes, such as beliefs (e.g., “Inspectors who believe that operations are in violation …” ). State-centric properties relate to externally attributed properties and can carry status implications. An example for this is the statement “Participants without valid certification …”. While, in this instance, an external entity (certification) is referenced, it primarily acts as a descriptor of the associated actor (Participants ), as opposed to describing relational properties that functionally link these entities as introduced in the earlier discussion of the Object-Property Hierarchy. Complex properties can also describe the positioning of Objects within the relevant institutional setting; for example, by situating those in relation to other institutional statements. For example, “certification granted according to procedures set forth in section A of policy X.” Syntactically, the activity- and state-centric properties draw on the Institutional State characterization (discussed in Sect. 5.1.2) using either activity-centric regulative patterns, or the state-centric constitutive patterns, thus conceptually integrating selected property types with the fundamental syntactic patterns of institutional statements.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

165

Figure 5.6 provides an overview of the proposed high-level characterization of properties as observed in select components (and properties of components more generally). Naturally, observations that generalize within or across particular domains, or signal features of specific relevance for relevant analytical objectives, may naturally invite for the extension or customization of this base typology in order to extract institutionally relevant information embedded in individual components. The mechanisms introduced to this stage provide the basis for the deep structural parsing of institutionally relevant details embedded in the institutional statements themselves, involving both the tacit expression of activity leveraged by component-level nesting, as well as the explication of conceptual relationships of referenced entities (Object-Property Hierarchy), alongside a general characterization of properties with respect to their function in relation to the entity (e.g., actor, object) they qualify (Property Typology). Naturally, the structural decomposition introduced here is general, and leaves opportunities for further refinement, including accommodations that reflect source characteristics (e.g., policy document, interview) – and implicitly language-specific aspects – or features particular to analyzed domains.

Fig. 5.6 Property Typology

166

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

5.1.6

Context Taxonomy

Complementing features that focus on the institutional content internal to institutional statements, an aspect that has not been reflected at this stage are potential external linkages and contextual embedding. Institutional statements do not exist in isolation, but are integral to the comprehensive characterization of an action situation and its embedding in the wider institutional setting. To this end, IG Extended seeks the contextual linkage of institutional statements with environmental features. This specific aspect builds on the basic characterization offered in the original IG (Crawford & Ostrom, 1995) that suggested the labeling of content captured in the Conditions component as temporal, spatial, or procedural in kind, essentially highlighting a basic contextual embedding. Prevalent coding practice (e.g., Brady et al., 2018) relies on an extended set of additional features commonly observed in institutional statements, such as the “how” qualification of conditions. As alluded to in Chapter 3, the Context component (previously Conditions component) takes a diverse and important role in an institutional statement by: • specifying the conditions under which a particular activity takes place (Activation Condition), as well as the qualification of enacted activities (Execution Constraint ), • potentially capturing those preconditions or qualifications in a form that resembles institutional statement structure itself – reflecting inter-statement linkages resolved via component-level nesting –, and finally, • providing the contextual anchoring of an institutional statement within and beyond the action situation the statement associates with. While the first two aspects have been introduced and motivated throughout this chapter, a remaining aspect is the contextual embedding. Drawing on empirical observation of diverse context characterizations in policy statements, alongside the patterns recognized in established coding practice, as well as the characterization of supersenses observed in human language (e.g., Schneider et al., 2016, 2018), the IG includes a Context Taxonomy that organizes context characterizations along general categories, allowing both for a general and fine-grained characterization of contextual embedding.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

167

We recognize four central categories along which context characterizations are organized. Those include: • • • •

Substantive Context Procedural Context Aspirational Context Situational Context

5.1.6.1 Substantive Context Context characterizations associated with Substantive Context relate to contextual aspects pertaining to the wider institutional setting and its metaphysical embedding, including the temporal, spatial, and, in addition, a domanial dimension. Temporal and spatial dimensions maintain the same purpose as in the original Institutional Grammar, but are further augmented with more specific characterizations of either kind. Whereas temporal context characterizations reference points in time (e.g., at 8am), time frames (e.g., from 9am to 5 pm), or alternatively, frequencies (e.g., annually), spatial characterizations, for instance, specialize into location (e.g., at the town hall ), direction (e.g., on the way home), and path (e.g., through the town). Reflecting the relevance of and frequent reference to domain-specific aspects, the substantive context characterizations include different forms of realms that variably capture contextual linkages captured in specific components. Specifically, those may pertain to specific activities in the form of activity realms (e.g., during accreditation), topical realms that capture the theme of the domain (e.g., for drinking water), and potential forms of existential realms that reference features of the entities embedded in the setting (e.g., during adolescence). Context associations of these types capture general dimensions of embedding of institutional statements or action situations in a wider institutional context (e.g., policy, domain), alongside the overarching general temporal and spatial dimensions. 5.1.6.2 Procedural Context Institutional design frequently references implied or explicit procedural characterizations, where explicit may involve the explicit specification of execution order (e.g., “first …, second …, …” ), a reference to corresponding instructions (e.g., “… as specified in section 5(2)” ), or

168

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

methodical guidance that reflects essential information of the institutional setting. In addition to the characterization of procedural aspects as the first category of the Procedural Context characterization, a second category focuses on the method by which activities or processual aspects are satisfied. This instrumental orientation divides between means, or instruments used to perform a particular activity (e.g., by car), and actor behavior characterized as manners (e.g., by handshake). 5.1.6.3 Aspirational Context Besides the common characterizations captured in the substantive and procedural contextual embeddings, a third dimension is the aspirational context that focuses on the motivation and objectives underlying a particular regulation or provision (e.g., in order to; for the purpose of ), and hence labeled Purpose. Context classifications of this nature have diverse uses, including the justification of regulated behavior specifically, or signaling the objectives of the provision and thus providing the basis for the interpretation of policies in their entirety (e.g., as constitutive strategies discussed in Sect. 4.2.6). Mirroring the aspirational perspective of the Purpose category, a second, and to some extent complementary, category is the Effect. This subcategory indicates, for instance, the satisfaction of an expectation set out in previous statements (e.g., “If pollution thresholds are met, …” ). 5.1.6.4 Situational Context The last context category is the Situational Context, which shifts the perspective of statement context away from categories that reference environmental universals or instrumental aspects. Complementing the reference to motivational aspects commonplace in policy, the situational context aims at capturing the state of affairs and distinct changes or transitions specific institutional statements are linked to, with specific categories including States and Events.14 States, as understood here, characterize specific constellations of circumstances (states of affairs) of relevance for the institutional setting

14 The conception developed here builds on Mourelatos (1978)’s characterization, where “Processes,” as a complementary classification to “Events,” are reflected in the activities of the Aim and Constitutive Function components, respectively.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

169

(e.g., as a precondition for an activity or change in institutional configuration). These can be external or internal to the institutional statement, i.e., referring to the action situation or institutional setting more generally, or variably referring to entities referenced in the institutional statement.15 Events, in contrast, reflect instantaneous situational occurrences signaling a change in the state of affairs, including the instantiation of novel entities, as well as indicating changes in their properties. Events can thereby act as state transition markers both relevant for constitutive and regulative statements. As a central distinction, States persist over time spans, whereas Events are inherently instantaneous in nature. As suggested as part of the characterization, the context categories offered as part of the situational context are general in nature, and aim at capturing circumstances and changes therein on any scale (micro, macro), and may optionally combine with any other context characterization of the different categories (e.g., substantive, procedural, aspirational). 5.1.6.5 Integrating the Context Taxonomy The context characterizations, or rather classifications, offered in the context of IG Extended aim at reflecting the diverse and complex nature of statement context, and the variable forms in which institutional statements can be embedded in an action situation or wider institutional, let alone bio-physical, setting. Such embedding is oftentimes complex; a given statement can potentially be contextualized in multiple ways; i.e., statements can make reference to multiple forms of context. The context characterizations proposed as part of the Context Taxonomy apply to any C ontext component, especially since Execution Constraints assume the primary role in qualifying (regulated) behavior and (constitutive) functions. However, where contextual aspects are referenced within Properties in particular (e.g., to offer a characterization of the associated entity, e.g., “farmers operating West of the mountain range” ), the taxonomy can equally be used to establish the corresponding contextual characterization. Another component that may selectively draw on the contextual characterization is the Object, Constituted Entity, and Constituting Properties components (e.g., a state or event, or location referenced in an Object component, or defined as a Constituted Entity). 15 It is noteworthy to state that states are different from facts in that states do not necessarily signal truth in the epistemological sense.

170

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 5.7 Context taxonomy

To synthesize and illustrate the use of the context types introduced in this section, Fig. 5.7 provides an overview of all referenced types and exemplifies their application for Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints, reflecting the most common use cases for annotations based on the Context Taxonomy. A detailed characterization of all categories introduced here from a high-level perspective is provided as part of the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). Summarizing the principles, the Context Taxonomy groups context characterizations into categories that variably represent general reference frames of the statement, including the substantive context, procedural, and aspirational types. Contrasting these general anchor points, the assessment of state transitions and situational activities on the micro level are captured by situational context characterizations.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

171

Specifically, this latter characterization offers a classification that may of course apply conjointly with other context categories proposed in this subsection. However, this particular category carries specific value for the assessment of institutional dynamics based on state changes (e.g., as potential signifiers for transitions between action situations) as mediated by events (e.g., as a proxy for instances of enforcement interventions or collective action), and can do so detached from domain-specific information more closely associated with the other context categories. The other two categories, notably, the characterization of methodical aspects reflects the focus on specific behavior forms (i.e., the means by which an activity is performed) as subject to regulation in the first place, making the explicit identification of such qualifications important. Aspirations aspects, such as the purpose, function, or anticipated effects of regulation provide an evaluative basis relevant for litigation (i.e., whether aspirations are sensibly addressed), as well as assessment of success of a given provision (e.g., whether the objectives have been met), hence rendering it, similar to the methodical characterization, as an important feature in the assessment of institutional design. This selection of categories discussed and exemplified is not exhaustive, but rather includes a general set of dimensions as a basis for institutional analysis, striking a balance among characterizations of general kind (substantive), empirically observed ones (procedural context, aspirations) and ones capturing dynamics that context reflects (situational). Where domain-specific aspects apply, the expansion and refinement of the taxonomy for, or beyond, the specific application is relevant. Similarly, and as relevant for specific analytical objectives, the analyst may draw on these categories selectively (e.g., only capture situational context characterizations) and at the level of general categories or specific context types. The Context Taxonomy offers a link between institutional statement and its wider context in the first place, but also reflects the starting point for shifting from a primarily structural perspective on institutional statements and the entities characterized therein, to a semantic perspective that focuses on the meaning embedded in institutional statements and their systemic linkages, a perspective strengthened further in the context of IG Logico in Chapter 6.

172

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

5.2

Hybrid Institutional Statements

The introduction of institutional statements as developed in this chapter has primarily focused on the refinement of specificity across different levels of expressiveness. A central novelty associated with the refined Institutional Grammar is the treatment of both regulative and constitutive statements (with an initial introduction in Sect. 4.1.2), establishing the Grammar’s ability to code policy comprehensively. Throughout the discussion of the Institutional Grammar, this chapter maintained the distinctive nature of both forms, in which constitutive statements parameterize an institutional setting and expose the entities and affordances on which the conceptual establishment of regulation, i.e., provisions in the form of obligations, permissions, etc., rests. In this idealized form, constitutive statements provide the fixture on which regulative statements anchor, linking different actors, objects, artifacts operationally. Empirically, the analyst will however recognize that the identification of statements as either regulative or constitutive is not at all times unambiguous. At the same time, the theoretical discourse invites for a reconciliation that recognizes the opportunities for a distinctive treatment of both statement forms, as well as its limitations. The IG harmonizes this cleavage by introducing the concept of Hybrid Institutional Statements; however, not before providing an overview of theoretical discourse and empirical observations motivating this proposal. 5.2.1

Revisiting Constitutive Rules in Literature

While the conceptually separated presentation of constitutive and regulative statements is useful to guide and develop a discrete understanding of either form, any such introduction cannot ignore the ongoing debate on the nature of constitutive and regulative rules (as referenced in the literature). Building on earlier works of analytical philosophers such as Wittgenstein (1983) and Rawls (1955), Searle (1969) proposed the distinctive characterization of rules as rules that are either constitutive or regulative in kind. Regulative rules, Searle posits, “regulate antecedently or independently existing forms of behaviour […].” Constitutive rules then “do not merely regulate, they create or define new forms of behaviour” (Searle, 1969, p. 33). The essential aspect of his distinctive conception is the separation and independent operation of rules of constitutive and regulative kinds.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

173

Objections to this distinctive characterization between the two types of rules were raised on various grounds. Notably, Raz (2012) offered a substantive critique based on the implied dependency between constitutive and regulative rules, given that the parameterization necessarily precedes the regulation, and thus implies that any regulative rule has a constitutive correspondent that defines the behavior in the first place. Given the functional interdependence of both representations, any separated treatment then becomes artificial, challenging the validity of the distinction and its analytical value. Variations of the concerns expressed by Raz are mirrored in observations made by other researchers, however, varying by level of rejection or reconceptualization. Giddens (1984), for instance, as one of the leaner accounts, rejects the existence of constitutive rules in their entirety given that any regulative statement de facto assumes a descriptive function with respect to the underlying institutional concepts. As Giddens (1984) puts forth, any rule prescribing employees’ working hours, for instance, makes implicit reference to fundamental time governance principles associated with industrial societies (Giddens, 1984).16 A group of scholars that engage constructively with the concept of constitutive rules are Ransdell (1971) and Cherry (1973). In contrast to the conflating position held by Giddens, central concerns center around the lack of distinctiveness associated with different forms of constitutive rules. Cherry (1973) observes the differentiation into rules that introduce brute affairs (aspects characterized earlier as brute (f)acts) into the institutional setting in the form of institutional affairs in the first place, and rules that draw on institutional (f)acts to constitute novel institutional (f)acts. Drawing on the example of marriage as an institution, its initiation relies on underlying brute rituals such as exchange of vows and practices (such as passing of artifacts or performing ceremonies). The act of divorce, in contrast, will inevitably rely on a pre-existent marriage (as an institutional concept) in the first place, hence making reference to the second kind of constitutive rules offered by Cherry. Ransdell (1971), likewise offering a constructive account, specifically suggests the avoidance of an explicit reference to an institutional (f)act, the intermediate “Y” in Searle’s “X is Y in Context Z” characterization. Eliminating the representational proxy, Ransdell suggests, avoids

16 Warnock (2020) assumes a similar position as Giddens.

174

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

conflated semantics, and instead produces distinctive rules that selectively focus on connotation – describing institutional affairs as embedded in context (e.g., intensional definitions) – and import – the pragmatics of usage associated with an institutional construct (e.g., operational function and interaction with other features in an institutional setting). More recent critiques are offered by Ruben (1997) and Hindriks (2009, 2013, 2015), centrally focusing on discounting the distinction between regulative and constitutive rules as a mere linguistic artifact, given the presumed lack of ontological validity. Targeting Searle’s conceptualization specifically based on the inconsistent characterization that language plays in the interpretation of rules, Hindriks implies that any rule can attain both constitutive and regulative function, irrespective of linguistic form. In doing so, Hindriks nevertheless implicitly recognizes a form of constitutive rules for the sole purpose of conveying status, stratified into power-specification and power-conferring rules.17 With this status account of constitutive rules, Hindriks (2009) provides a constructive basis that recognizes a principal, albeit narrower, ontological distinction between rules that assume regulative and constitutive function. Summarizing essential aspects, critique rests on the strong linguistic account offered in Searle’s conceptualization of constitutive rules (see e.g., Hindriks, 2009), the variably narrow characterization of constitutive rules (see e.g., Hage, 2018), or insufficient specificity (see e.g., Cherry, 1973; Ransdell, 1971). This short contextualization of extant concerns around the distinction of regulative and constitutive rules underpins the challenges underlying the characterization of statements as regulative or constitutive (let alone the acceptance of this distinction in the first place), but, at the same time, provides the backdrop for the integrative treatment of both forms proposed in the following. 5.2.2

Integrating Constitutive and Regulative Statements

The presented challenges offer the basis for a clarification, and provide retroactive justification for design choices associated with the constitutive syntactic form introduced in Sect. 4.2.5, and implicitly, a basis for reconciling concerns in extant debates. To this end, this section provides a basic

17 Naturally, these critiques have been met with rebuttals by Searle (2015).

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

175

discussion of essential features and offers a contextualization based on the positions discussed in literature. Reflecting on the constitutive form introduced in the IG, a central aspect that, on the one hand, widens the applicability of constitutive statements, while, at the same time, provides the basis for heuristic guidance, is the abstract functional linkage between Constituted Entities and Constituting Properties in the form of the Constitutive Function. Unlike Searle (1969) and Grossi et al. (2008)’s characterization of the linkage as “counts as,” the specific semantics of the function in a specific institutional statement depends on the effect the linkage plays in the context of the institutional statement. The ability to distinguish between different constitutive statements, and more importantly, to characterize their operational role in the institutional setting, the IG as presented here introduces a categorization of Constitutive Functions based on prototypical linkages captured in the Constitutive Functions Taxonomy (see Sect. 6.1.2.4). The general distinction between constitutive and regulative statements in the IG rests on empirically observed structural and semantic forms prototypical of either type of statement. Absent the characterization of a responsible actor (and the inability to infer such), the introduction of a novel entity into an institutional setting, e.g., by defining it, reflects the constitutive character of the statement based on form and effect on the institution setting, as exemplified in the statement “A majority of Council members constitutes a quorum”, introducing the concept quorum into the setting.18 ConsƟtuted EnƟty: a quorum ConsƟtuƟve FuncƟon: is (inferred) ConsƟtuƟng ProperƟes: a majority ConsƟtuƟng ProperƟes ProperƟes: of Council members

This exists in contrast to the prototypical regulative form “Council members must participate in Annual General Meeting” that offers a clear assignment of obligations, and is schematically represented as follows. AƩributes: council members DeonƟc: must Aim: parƟcipate Direct Object: in Annual General MeeƟng 18 This example shows properties hierarchically nested across multiple levels.

176

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Another specific aspect of Searle’s definition that is inconsistent with empirical observation is the assumption that constitutive rules antecedently define or otherwise introduce entities into an institutional setting, which are then subsequently referenced by regulative statements. Prima facie, legal documents appear organized in ways that separate the parameterization of the institutional setting (e.g., as part of a ‘Definitions’ section) from sections that group statements of regulative kind, potentially aligned with action situation specifications (è.g., ‘Conflict Resolution’). In practice, however, the linkage between statements of regulative and constitutive kind in a document itself may at times be less distinct, such as exemplified in the following stylized example: “Certified organic farmers must submit a organic handling system plan, which describes associated operational practices, including a list of substances utilized during production, as well as monitoring practices.”

This statement specifies obligations associated with an actor, where the artifact of relevance (here: the organic handling system plan) is defined in situ, thus giving the statement both regulative and constitutive character. Seeking conceptual clarity, such provision can naturally be decomposed into distinctive statements as follows (applying both the nesting of the Constituted Entity ‘organic handling system plan’ on the Direct Object, as well as reflecting the composite nature of the constitutive statement):

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

177

Naturally, and implied in the decomposition above, the statement can be decomposed into two distinctive statements of different type, showcasing an implicit inter-statement linkage of institutional statements (as opposed to the explicit linkage afforded by Statement References (see Sect. 6.1.3)). Returning to the original critique, recognizing the linkage, but also the distinctive structural institutional patterns, the entanglement can be systematically resolved under consideration of the structural linkage. At the same time, the ontological distinction between regulative and constitutive statements can be retained. As a second aspect, this example

178

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

illustrates that the specification of entities and their reference (as part of regulative statements) does not rely on the antecedent specification of behavior in constitutive statements prior to its invocation in regulative terms as originally suggested by Searle. The IG 2.0 refers to statements that variably link regulative and constitutive statements as Hybrid Institutional Statements , with the statement shown above referenced as regulative-constitutive statement, reflecting the order in which the specific statement is linked (i.e., a leading regulative statements, on which the constitutive statement nests). The extent of these linkages can be arbitrarily deep (e.g., higher-order statements can nest on preceding nested statements). Exemplifying the converse form of hybrid statements in constitutiveregulative configuration, the following example provides an illustration: “A non-compliance notification must include detailed specification of transgressions, or else the non-compliance notification is invalid and affected farmers may appeal the associated sanctions.”

Absent further contextual qualification of the responsible actor (e.g., in associated statements), this example is constitutive in kind since it outlines the required elements of a noncompliance notification (in this interpretation “must” signals the necessity that a notification contains the specification of transgressions). While implicitly obliging an associated actor (an aspect potentially captured in a complementary regulative statement), the statement per se provides an extensional specification of the artifact ‘non-compliance notification.’ Drawing a linkage to the existential nature of consequences associated with constitutive statements, if the requirement laid out in the monitored statement is not satisfied, the non-compliance notification is invalid, i.e., does not have required status to produce the intended institutional effect as an enforcement mechanism. In addition to the existential consequence (which is characterized as constitutive in its own right), and where interpreted as an explicitly linked consequence of the invalidated notification, the non-fulfillment can further provide the basis for associated behavioral consequences – here the possible appeal or rejection of sanction on the part of the affected entity. Decomposed into the corresponding linked institutional structures, the statement composes as follows:

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

179

Working toward reconciling the varying perspectives on regulative and constitutive statements as discussed above, the IG is able to address selected concerns by explicitly recognizing the complementary function of both statement types, and offering a structural integration based on their systematic linkage both on component and statement level. Specifically, the first example highlights how the definition of a novel entity in constitutive form is interleaved with its referencing from a regulative perspective. The exemplified compositional approach offered by the IG enables the dissociated treatment of statements for analytical purposes (i.e., the selective focus on regulative or constitutive aspects only) while retaining the structural integrity of the linguistic expression (i.e., the interpretation based on the original construction). With a focus on the operational perspective (i.e., encoding institutional statement for the purpose of analyzing institutional design), this representation is able to capture

180

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

complex statement constructions as observed empirically, affording the linkage between the form in which institutional content is structured and the representation of its meaning. However, the linkage of statement structures of different kinds, as introduced to this stage, does not resolve all challenges related to the distinction between constitutive and regulative statements. Inasmuch as the decomposition introduced above captures distinctive semantic aspects associated with the regulative and constitutive forms, the interpretation of institutional statements is further framed by considerations of interpretational scope and contextual knowledge, as well as analytical preferences. This specifically applies if statements offer limited structural distinctiveness, or are in fact amenable to trivial reconstruction that affects the characterization as regulative and constitutive respectively. The following example highlights such as variable interpretation basis: “The functions of the Board shall be: (a) to implement the decisions of the Health Assembly; (b) to perform any other functions entrusted to it by the Health Assembly.”

Interpreted as parameterizing, the statement indicates the function of the board, defining behavior associated with the “Board.” Borrowing the constitutive structure, and with reference to the divergent Constituting Properties component, the statement can thus be decomposed as:19

19 Note that this visualization, as the previous, favors the explicit decomposition into atomic institutional statements; Chapter 7 introduces a syntactic form that concisely captures the complexity embedded in the institutional statement.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

181

Alternatively, and recognizing the specific activities assigned to the entity, the analyst may intend to resolve the semantic linkage in regulative form and encode the statement based on an operational interpretation, resulting in the following decomposition:

182

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Juxtaposing both forms, the reader may observe the systematic reconstruction in both forms, and observe the variable focus the reinterpretation introduces. An example is the representation of the Board that is variably referenced in the context of the Constituted Entity “functions” for the constitutive interpretation, or alternatively as the responsible actor associated with the representation in regulative form. Similarly, whereas the Constitutive Function emphasizes existential qualities for the first statement variants, the second set ignores this characterization and focuses on the operational activity that composes the “function” in the constitutive statement. This variable interpretation highlights operational challenges with the distinctive characterization of constitutive and regulative statements.20 However, inasmuch as this dual characterization exposes threats for a reliable classification and encoding of institutional statements, and thereby requires methodological affordances addressed in Chapter 7, conceptually it mirrors the variable interpretations of statements observed in extant literature and the introduction of constitutive statements provided in Sect. 4.1.2. Constitutive and regulative statements act complementarily, where constitutive statements ontologically (or rather institutionally) establish concepts, and regulative statements operationalize those. In selected instances, such as the one exemplified, this duality in purpose invites for the concurrent interpretation as both definitional and operational. However, instead of disqualifying any such ontological distinction on this basis and challenging its operational value, it exposes the central role the analytical perspective assume. Where the analysis primarily focuses on features of the action situation, or institutional setting, such as the nature and organization of actors, as well as environmental characteristics, the interpretation may be biased toward a constitutive interpretation. Where, in contrast, behavioral regulation and assessment of compliance is of primary concern, the analyst may favor a regulative interpretation. Given the IG’s intent to both support the encoding of institutional statement both for circumstances where analytical objectives are well defined, as well as the encoding of statement for general purposes, i.e., agnostic of specific application cases, such as for the creation of generic datasets of institutional information, the IG supports the dual encoding of 20 A commonplace indicator for the variable interpretation, as in this case, is the presence of a responsible actor endowed with activities referenced in the Constituting Properties.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

183

statements in both syntactic forms, rendering such statements polymorphic institutional statements . The introduction of the dual form reflects the potential dissociation of parsing or encoding of institutional information and the ensuing analytical uses, where the latter may selectively draw on either (or both) encoded variants. As an alternative to the analytical perspective as the basis for the variable characterization of statements – here resolved by affording the dual annotation – the IG highlights the variable classification of statements based on the contextual knowledge and scoping of the interpretation by the coder and analyst. Another form of institutional statement commonly found in policy documents are what could be referred to as “blanket statements,” statements that reference and link other statements, e.g., to introduce exceptions or impose limitations on more general provisions. Exemplifying such case, the following example showcases a listing of individual statement, and a final statement indicating exceptions for the applicability of all preceding statements: (1) Organic farming operations must not utilize genetically modified seeds. (2) Organic farming operations may not process crops other than the ones specified in Appendix A. … (10) Paragraphs in this section are not applicable to traces of genetically modified material. As observed based on this example, the final statement assumes a parameterizing function based on its modification of existing statements (i.e., the preceding statements). Naturally, the analyst is tasked to identify such statement as either type. Understood narrowly by itself, i.e., without consideration of contextual information (including the implicitly referenced statements), the statement primarily assumes a parameterizing function, since its effect is the modification of existing statements, and thus implicitly the institutional setting that the existing statements define.

184

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Taken in isolation, the statement would thus compose as follows21 : ConsƟtuted EnƟty: Paragraphs ConsƟtuted EnƟty ProperƟes: in this secƟon ConsƟtuƟve FuncƟon: are not applicable ExecuƟon Constraint: to traces of geneƟcally modified material

Understood broadly, i.e., under resolution of the semantic linkage to the affected statements, an alternative encoding practice is the encoding based on the target statement composition, rendering the following structure: AƩributes: Organic farming operaƟons DeonƟc: may not Aim: apply Direct Object: paragraphs Direct Object ProperƟes: in this secƟon ExecuƟon Constraint: to traces of geneƟcally modified material

Applying a wider contextual consideration, the coder resolves the embedded linkage to the referenced statement, and by doing so, superimposes the target structure on the encoded statement, which, in this instance, renders the statement regulative.22 Similar to the previous case, such statement can thus be encoded as polymorphic. In contrast to the previous case that emphasizes diversity in analytical objectives as a source of classification preferences, the latter case can be specified with greater consistency based on an agreed-upon scope of interpretation applied in the coding process. Any scope of interpretation can either be determined as wide or narrow, where wide interpretational scope presumes the resolution of semantic linkages to other statements embedded in the statement of concern, invariably extending the unit of 21 Note the characterization of traces of genetically modified material as Execution Constraint, since it contextualizes the application of the referenced paragraph, as opposed to modifying the paragraph directly (which would imply the encoding as Constituting Properties ). 22 The encoding could conceivably extend further and alternatively afford the modification of the linked statement as “Organic farming operations must not utilize genetically-modified seeds, with the exception of genetically modified material.”, where the appended component is underlined. Note, however, that such reconstruction has significant reliability challenges, including the iterative refinement and structural modification of already encoded statements, as well as the de facto exclusion of the superfluous statement whose institutional content has been absorbed into the refined statement.

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

185

analysis beyond the focal statement, to the policy/transcript (or subset thereof) in the wider sense. A narrow interpretational scope consequently focuses on the statement in isolation. Contextual information outside the statement is not considered, and the effect of the statement is assessed based on the semantics captured in the statement itself, ensuring high levels of reliability, at the expense of not accommodating the resolution of implied semantic linkages during the encoding phase, an aspect that may be desirable or undesirable in the first place. Methodological considerations and analytical implications associated with either preference are, along with methodological guidelines, discussed in Chapter 7. Concluding the conceptual discussion, the IG 2.0 recognizes a novel hybrid form of institutional statement that augments the existing regulative and constitutive forms. Doing so, it responds to the theoretical discourse challenging the ontological distinctiveness of constitutive and regulative statements in the first place, as well as reflects empirical observations related to the combined or variably parameterizing and regulating effects of statements. Signals that indicate the hybrid nature of statements can either be structural in kind, leading to the characterization of statements as constitutive-regulative and regulative-constitutive respectively. Beyond the structural perspective, ambiguity arises from the position of the coder/analyst in the process. For statements of such kind, the encoding may respond to the analytical objective, or variably permit an encoding as a polymorphic statement to avoid concessions to a specific analytical objective, while reflecting the dual function that the statement of concern holds. The last form of hybrid statement reflects the commonplace re-parameterization of existing statements by subsequent provisions. Recognizing the interpretational scope as a central determinant, the planning of any study shall consider the scope as a central parameter of the study design, an aspect discussed in the supplementary IG 2.0 Codebook. As for the varying analytical perspective, statements could conceivably be encoded as polymorphic statements to seek dissociation of encoding from specific or predefined analytical objectives (e.g., to establish a general-purpose dataset). Table 5.2 summarizes the discussed points, along with candidate strategies to prevent ambiguous encoding and associated reliability challenges. Substantiating the presence of hybrid institutional statements as an integrative feature, recognizing both the presence of regulative and constitutive statements, as well as their combined use that addresses a

186

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Table 5.2 Indicators of Hybrid Statements Signal for hybrid statement

Resolution strategies

Structure

Encoding as constitutive-regulative or constitutive-regulative statements respectively Variably encoding from analytical perspective or as polymorphic statement to establish objective-agnostic set of coded statements Interpretation according to interpretational scope defined in planning phase, or as polymorphic if interpretational scope is undefined

Analytical Perspective

Interpretational Scope

Fig. 5.8 Institutional Statement Variants

set of the highlighted theoretical and operational challenges, Fig. 5.8 positions the various forms on a continuum, with definitional and behavior-regulating statements occupying the extreme strata, and the varying integrative forms introduced throughout this section situated in between. This includes hybrid statements that are based on the structural linkage of statements of varying kinds, generally with a dominant regulative or constitutive effect, and a center occupied by polymorphic institutional statements as forms of hybrid institutional statements that, in the absence of methodological guidelines, can take either shape based on varying contextual interpretation. This integrative treatment of statements of all forms implies the cross-cutting nature of the features previously described separately for regulative and constitutive statements throughout this chapter (e.g., Object-Property Hierarchy, Property Types, Context Taxonomy); these equally apply to hybrid statements in their varying forms. This harmonization of all statement forms attends to one central objectives of the IG, the comprehensive encoding of institutional settings. However, it further exposes the susceptibility of interpretation to analytical objectives, and

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

187

the challenges associated with the establishment of a generic encoding scheme that dissociates from, and thereby accommodates, a wide range of analytical objectives and techniques. The introduction of hybrid institutional statements concludes the conceptual foundations of IG Extended, as well as the central structural features of IG 2.0 specifically. However, before turning to the discussion of semantic aspects of the IG, essential concepts introduced under the label IG Extended are recalled and synthesized.

5.3

Summary of Chapter Content

Before turning to the highest level of expressiveness, IG Logico, in Chapter 6, the breadth of features and conceptual background introduced under the label IG Extended (highlighted in Fig. 5.9) invite for a review. Where IG Core provided the basis for the general parsing of institutional statements by specifying prototypical syntactic forms of institutional statements, alongside consistent semantics associated with specific components, and, more importantly, their interlinkage, IG Extended revisits parsing on the component level in order to draw out detail and nuance that the IG Core specification does not capture.

Fig. 5.9 IG 2.0 Features by Level of Expressiveness

188

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

To this end, IG Extended introduces a set of distinctive principles that operate across components of both the regulative and constitutive syntactic forms, and expose additional detail by making nested statement structures on component level explicit (Sect. 5.1.1), and introducing a distinction between institutional statements and the institutional states these reference (see Sect. 5.1.2), a common occurrence in the context of Activation Conditions. To realize these linkages as part of the coding process, the deep parsing of IG Extended abstracts from the structural alignment of linguistic and institutional form by motivating the reconstruction of institutional content captured within components in terms of the same syntactic patterns that apply to statements as a whole by drawing on concepts of Cognitive Linguistics (see Sect. 5.1.3). To motivate the principal application of deep parsing based on component-level nesting – and departing from the primarily conceptual introduction of the IG – this chapter offered initial methodological guidance (see Sect. 5.1.3) with respect to statement parsing under IG Extended, an aspect that receives dedicated attention in Chapter 7. Complementing the nested behavioral/existential structures captured in institutional statements, IG Extended further identifies conceptual relationships of entities in the form of objects (or entities more generally) and associated properties organized in various patterns referenced as the Object-Property Hierarchy (Sect. 5.1.4) that is able to reflect variable forms of complexity by signaling existential dependency relationships. The extraction of conceptual relationships is further linked to a general Property Typology (Sect. 5.1.5) that identifies component properties based on their general nature as either quantitative or qualitative in kind. A final cross-cutting feature is the Context Taxonomy (Sect. 5.1.6), which draws the contextual linkage of components to the action situation or the wider institutional setting based on discussed substantive, procedural, aspirational, or situational criteria. Table 5.3 highlights the features introduced as part of IG Extended in greater detail, and recalls components affected by the corresponding features. This review of features that enable the deep structural parsing principles introduced with IG Extended includes the resolution of the empirically observed interlinked use of regulative and constitutive statements by conceptually integrating those in the form of Hybrid Institutional Statements. The explicit recognition of this integration facilitates a comprehensive treatment of institutional information, but furthermore,

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

189

Table 5.3 IG Extended Features Summary Feature

Purpose

Affected components/operators

Component-level Nesting

Extracting behavioral/existential information from components based on uniform components

Object-Property Hierarchy

Extracting conceptual relationships between entities

Property Typology

Classifications of entity descriptors/properties as qualitative, quantitative, or structural in kind Context classification to capture linkage between statements, action situations and institutional settings

Activation Condition, Execution Constraint, Direct Object, Indirect Object, Constituting Properties, Properties associated with any component Direct Object, Indirect Object, Constituting Properties, Activation Condition and Execution Constraint (implicitly), Properties associated with any component Properties associated with any component

Context Taxonomy

Activation Condition, Execution Constraint, Direct Object, Indirect Object, Constituting Properties, Properties associated with any component

offers the opportunity to provide a conceptual response to the theoretical rift surrounding the distinctive differentiation between regulative and constitutive statements discussed in the chapter, and hence a proposal to reconcile studies of institutions in theory and practice. The upcoming Chapter 6 shifts the attention to semantic features of the IG, enabling its conceptual and epistemological linkage and adaptation to specific analytical use cases, in addition to complementing the concepts introduced intuitively to this stage with a formal characterization that lays the foundation for the logical treatment of encoded institutional statements.

190

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

References Agazzi, E. (2011). Consistency, truth and ontology. Studia Logica, 97 , 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-010-9295-x Brady, U., Basurto, X., Bennett, A., Carter, D. P., Hanlon, J., Heikkila, T., Lien, A., Chonaiew, S. M., Olivier, T., Schlager, E., Siddiki, S., & Weible, C. (2018). Institutional analysis of rules-in-form coding guidelines (tech. rep.). Center for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment. https://complexity. asu.edu/sites/default/files/papers/cbie_wp_2018–006_0.pdf Broccias, C. (2013). Cognitive Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 1–14). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013. 0011 Campbell, Keith (2005). Ontology. In D. M. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy. Macmillan Reference USA. Cherry, C. (1973). Regulative rules and constitutive rules. Philosophical Quarterly, 23(93), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218059 Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2020). Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08937 Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Polity Press. Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J. C., & Dignum, F. (2008). The many faces of counts-as: A formal analysis of constitutive-rules. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(2), 192–217. Hage, J. (2018). Two concepts of constitutive rules. Argumenta, 4, 1, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.14275/2465-2334/20187.hag Hindriks, F. (2009). Constitutive rules, language, and ontology. Erkenntnis, 71(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9178-6 Hindriks, F. (2013). Restructuring Searle’s making the social world. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839311 1418299 Hindriks, F. (2015). Deconstructing Searle’s making the social world. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 45(3), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839311 5575911 Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 Mourelatos, A. P. (1978). Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2(3), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00149015 Ransdell, J. (1971). Constitutive rules and speech-act analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(13), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025037 Rawls, J. (1955). Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review, 64(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182230

5

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

191

Raz, J. (2012). Practical reason and norms. Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268345.001.0001 Ruben, D.-H. (1997). John Searle’s the construction of social reality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57 (2), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2953734 Schneider, N., Hwang, J. D., Srikumar, V., Green, M., Suresh, A., Conger, K., O’Gorman, T., & Palmer, M. (2016). A corpus of preposition supersenses. LAW 2016 - 10th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, held in conjuncion with ACL 2016 - Workshop Proceedings (pp. 99–109). https://doi.org/10.18653/ v1/w16-1712 Schneider, N., Prange, J., Blodgett, A., Hwang, J. D., Moeller, S. R., Srikumar, V., Stern, A., Bitan, A., & Abend, O. (2018). Comprehensive supersense disambiguation of English prepositions and possessives. ACL 2018 - 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference (Long Papers) (vol. 1, pp. 185–196). https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/p18-1018 Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (2015). Status functions and institutional facts: Reply to Hindriks and Guala. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 507–514. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1744137414000629 Warnock, G. J. (2020). The object of morality. Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9781003051053 Wittgenstein, L. (1983). Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees, & G. E. M. Anscombe, Eds.). MIT Press.

CHAPTER 6

Institutional Grammar 2.0: Semantic Features and Analytical Linkages

6.1

IG Logico

With the introduction of features that are primarily geared at extracting detailed structural information from institutional statements on (sub-) component level, IG Extended expands on the principles of coarsegrained encoding introduced as part of IG Core, and by doing so, represents a backward-compatible extension of the latter; data parsed at the granularity level of IG Extended can be collapsed to the coarse IG Core. As a further characteristic, both IG Core and IG Extended share the inter-component linkages and associated semantics, and thereby enable the representation of component relationships within an institutional statement. An aspect that neither IG Core nor IG Extended focuses on, is the expression of tacit properties as well as the linkages of entities across statements, and conversely, the meaning of behaviors (in regulative statements) or functions (in constitutive statements) evaluated through distinctive analytical perspectives – a central feature of the highest level of expressiveness, IG Logico. Shifting from a primarily structural to a semantic perspective, IG Logico introduces the underlying formal specification of the IG as an initial aspect, as well as a set of additional features that can draw on this specification and can be selectively applied. These include:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_6

193

194

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

• Syntactic and semantic specification of the Institutional Grammar • Semantic annotations of components based on general and domain/application-specific taxonomies • Resolution of logical linkages between individual components • Transformation rules Whereas the formal specification of the IG seeks to establish conceptual rigor of the IG by complementing the narrative introduction provided to this stage, the remaining features focus on the epistemological integration of the IG with specific domains and studies, as well as the opportunities associated with the algorithmic transformation of statements enabled by the formal specification. These features provide the basis for the discussion of applications in Chapter 8. Readers primarily interested in pragmatic aspects related to the application of IG Logico in IG studies – and less so in underlying formal foundations – are encouraged to continue their lecture from Sect. 6.1.2 onwards. Motivating the initial aspect of IG Logico, the introduction of the IG to this point in the book has implicitly highlighted semantic linkages between different components, starting with the stratification of the Context component into both Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints that variably relate to other components or the statement as a whole as either preconditions for applicability, or as qualifiers of the regulated activity (Aim) or C onstitutive F unction. Given the overarching objective to establish computational tractability of the IG (as part of the IG 2.0), a formal specification of both the syntax and the semantics is necessary to allow for independent, but conceptually compatible, implementations and interpretations – enabling diverse applications of the IG that can foster synergies not realized in current applications of the IG, while nevertheless ensuring the consistent and unambiguous interpretation of institutional statements. Maintaining compatibility across the various levels of expressiveness, IG Logico relies on many of the conceptual features related to IG Core and IG Extended as introduced in Sect. 4.2 and Sect. 5.1, respectively. 6.1.1

Semantic Specification

Since aspects of formalization are of primary concern for advanced analytical applications of the IG, conceptual principles are covered here, but

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

195

details are provided in supplementary resources at https://newinstituti onalgrammar.org.1 As far as the syntactic treatment of institutional statements is concerned, we will introduce those in Chapter 7 as part of the methodological aspects revolving around the encoding of institutional statements. Reviewing the semantics that underlie the evaluation of institutional statements is useful in order to understand the evaluation of institutional statements from a logical perspective, in contrast to the intuitive access based on the ABDICO,2 or ADIBCO, form that reflects the common linguistic representation of institutional statements. Where the linguistic perspective emphasizes an actor-centric or entity-centric interpretation for regulative and constitutive statements respectively, the logical interpretation commences with the precondition for the execution of a statement, the Activation Condition that signals the applicability of the remaining statement. As an initial step for the specification of the semantics, we thus introduce the symbols applied throughout the specification, starting with the individual components without comprehensively reiterating the definitions offered in Sects. 4.2.1 and 4.2.5. In this context, A symbolizes the Attributes component, referencing the actor whose behavior is constrained. In the specification, the Deontic D is a function that moderates the extent to which the behavior specified in the institutional statement is restrained or compelled. I is a function that represents the regulated activity that takes as parameters the components it operates on, namely Direct Object, represented as Bdir, the Indirect Object (Bind),3 and the Execution Constraint Cex that qualifies the behavior specified in I . Cac represents the Activation Condition that specifies the applicability of the specified provision in the first place.

1 Resources to this book include a general overview of the IG, its formal specification, methodological guidance for the encoding of institutional information, alongside coded examples from the book chapters and associated software to support the parsing and analysis of institutional statements (e.g., IG Parser), all of which can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org. 2 This acronym reflects the common form in which the original IG, including the additional Object component, is referenced. 3 The functional linkage between activity and objects is discussed in Sect. 4.2.1.4.

196

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Where A, I , and the Context types Cac and Cex are required for any regulative institutional statement,4 the remaining ones are optional. Complementing the regulative perspective, E represents the Constituted Entity, F the Constitutive Function, and the Modal (signaling optional or required/necessary nature of the activity described in the Constitutive Function as described in Sect. 4.2.5.2) is represented as M . As with the regulative side, F represents a function that takes Constituting Properties, represented as P, as parameter, alongside the Execution Constraints Cex that qualify the function execution. As with the regulative side, Activation Conditions Cac capture the conditions for applicability of the statement. Table 6.1 provides an overview of the symbols highlighted above and used throughout this chapter. On the basis of these components, the elementary form of an institutional statement, an atomic institutional statement (stmt atm ), is constructed as showcased in Eq. (6.1) in propositional logic. In its base form, this can either (the alternative linkage is signaled by ) take the shape of a strategy of regulative or constitutive kind, variably represented in the Attributes-Aim-Context (AIC ) or Constituted Entity-Constitutive Function-Context (EFC ) form. It can further assume a normative form that includes the Deontic or Modal as additional syntactic components, with Cac signaling the conditional activation of the Attributes-Aim linkage further parameterized with Object variants and Execution Constraints as shown in the first statement. Atomic Institutional Statement Regulative Strategy Regulative Norm

(6.1)

Constitutive Strategy Constitutive Norm

Atomic statements (stmt atm ) of such kind can be combined into statement combinations (stmt cmb ) as shown in Eq. (6.2), reflecting the notion 4 Note the inferred default values for Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints in the absence of an explicit specification (see Sect. 4.2.1.5).

6

Table 6.1 IG Component Symbols

Component Symbol

Component

Regulative Component Symbols A D I B dir B ind C ac

Regulative Components Attributes Deontic Aim Direct Object Indirect Object Activation Condition Execution Constraint

C ex Constitutive Component Symbols E M F P C ac C ex

197

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

Defined in

Section Section Section Section Section Section

4.2.1.1 4.2.1.2 4.2.1.3 4.2.1.4 4.2.1.4 4.2.1.5

Section 4.2.1.5

Constitutive Components Constituted Entity Modal Constitutive Function Constituting Properties Activation Condition Execution Constraint

Section 4.2.5.1 Section 4.2.5.2 Section 4.2.5.3 Section 4.2.5.4 Section 4.2.1.5 Section 4.2.1.5

of horizontal nesting (see Sect. 4.2.2) in the form of statement combinations. The linkage of these statements can occur in various forms, reflecting the logical operators introduced in Sect. 4.2.2, namely conjunction (∧), inclusive disjunction (∨), exclusive disjunction (), and various combinations of negated (¬) institutional statements.5 Statement combinations, themselves, can comprise of atomic statements or already existing statement combinations, or any mix thereof (e.g., (stmt atm ∨ stmt cmb )),

5 The negation of institutional statements will be of central concern in the discussion of transformation rules in Sect. 6.1.4.

198

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

allowing for arbitrary forms and extents of (de)composition.

(6.2) An institutional statement (stmt ) in its general form is then either of atomic type (stmt atm ) or a combination (stmt cmb ) as shown in Eq. (6.3).

(6.3) Based on this definition of institutional statements, we can then finally introduce the consequential linkage of institutional statements in Eq. (6.4), introduced as vertical nesting (see Sect. 4.2.2) that links a leading monitored statement (stmt m ) with a separate consequential statement (stmt c ) that activates in the case of violating (or not fulfilling) the leading monitored statement (i.e., ¬stmt m ). Since both these statements rest on the specification introduced before, monitored and consequential statements can exhibit the same level of complexity (i.e., be themselves atomic or combinations). Statements embedded in horizontally nested statement combinations can themselves showcase vertical linkages to statements outside the statement combination, reflecting a form of interstatement linkage (e.g., to reflect potential side effects associated with the violation of specific parts of a statement). Consequential Linkage of Institutional Statements ¬stmtm → stmtc

Vertical Nesting

(6.4)

A further aspect introduced in the context of IG Extended is the substitution of individual components by statements in their entirety

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

199

(i.e., either as individual statements or combinations thereof), an aspect referred to as component-level nesting (see Sect. 5.1.1). This concept revisits the formalization of individual components to articulate the variable complexity those can exhibit. This approach is exemplified for the Activation Condition component (showcased in Eq. [6.5]), given its central role in the representation of inter-statement linkages of institutional statements. Activation Conditions are furthermore special in that their presence may be implicit, but nevertheless be required to constitute a complete institutional statement. In its basic form, and if not explicitly specified, an Activation Condition holds under all circumstances, semantically resolving to the Boolean value true. Alternatively, an explicit atomic condition (e.g., “at 8 am”) or its negation (¬Cac; i.e., “NOT at 8 am”) may be present, or any of those atomic conditions may exist in various forms of logical combinations (e.g., (expr ∧ expr), etc.). The final, complex variant of an Activation Condition is an institutional statement (stmt ) that itself can be of atomic and complex nature, including the negated form (¬stmt ). As signaled here, component-level nesting captures the full spectrum of expressiveness ranging from default values, simple atomic values to complex expressions, and any combination thereof.

(6.5)

200

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The component-level nesting semantics, reflected for Activation Conditions at this stage, apply in similar form (i.e., adapted to the specific component characteristics) to other syntactic components of the IG, as well as to their respective Propert y subcomponents (where existing for a given component). The complete semantic specification is provided in equivalent form via the book website.6 More than offering a complete introduction to the semantic foundations of the IG, the central purpose is to draw the link between the intuitive access to the IG, presented throughout the preceding chapters, and its sound formal specification of component characteristics, their interrelationships, as well as the various forms of statement linkages that the Institutional Grammar affords. By doing so, it highlights the general nature and applicability of the previously introduced concepts, while at the same time sponsoring the precision needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation of encoded institutional information. This formal rigor is particularly relevant to ensure compatibility and interoperability of computational applications building on the Institutional Grammar, leveraging the synergetic potential of future studies and applications of the IG. Finally, it is essential to reiterate that the specification outlined here is inclusive of both regulative and constitutive statement forms, an aspect revisited in Sect. 5.2. Beyond the operationalization offered here and elsewhere,7 this high-level semantic specification is not intended to be limiting, but rather provides the basis for the introduction of domain-specific refinements where analytically useful (e.g., specific actor or context semantics) or operationally necessary (e.g., for computational modeling), while at the same time assuring compatibility based on first principles. Following this initial discussion of formal characteristics of the IG that invite for the computational and logical treatment of institutional information (and returning to it in later sections), the following sections focus on features of more immediate practical analytical value by highlighting the ability to encode the functional meaning and purpose of institutions more generally, as well as allowing the analyst to draw theoretical linkages to her domain and application as part of the encoding. 6 The book website can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org. 7 The semantic specification linked via the book website (https://newinstitutionalgr

ammar.org) puts particular emphasis on individual component specifications not covered here.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

201

Central to achieving this is, as indicated in the beginning of this section, a consequent shift to a semantic perspective when encoding and interpreting components and institutional statements, an aspect that builds on semantic annotations as a central feature. 6.1.2

Semantic Annotations

Fundamentally, the IG is intended to support understanding of what institutional statements do within institutional settings by drawing on patterns reflected in their structural features. Thus, offering a mechanism for overlaying structural features with semantic characterizations suited to the institutional setting as well as the analyst’s objectives, is critical. Specifically, this involves the aggregation of institutional information across specific components, the reconstruction of semantically rich relationship networks, and furthermore allowance for the analytical mapping of statements and concepts embedded therein to concepts and theory in the target domain. Given the highest level of expressiveness that IG Logico reflects, it is important to highlight that the features and concepts introduced in this and other sections of this chapter allow for selective application and refinement—albeit without concessions to methodological rigor and consistency in application; conventions to define and specify the use of features is subject to the methodological design of any study applying the Institutional Grammar, an aspect discussed in Chapter 7, as well as in supplementary resources. To support the aforementioned mapping between structure and meaning, or semantics, IG Logico revisits components of institutional statements and proposes a set of classifications, here presented in the form of taxonomies of annotations that are associated with specific (or apply across) components to extract richer contextual meaning not accessible based on the analysis of structure alone, or information of common concern in the context of institutional analysis. A second purpose of this incremental revisiting of institutional statements is to resolve inconsistencies present in the prior conception and operationalization of selected components in the Institutional Grammar. A particular taxonomy that has found earlier introduction is the Context Taxonomy. Explicitly introduced in the context of IG Extended, its central purpose is to disambiguate the—by definition—conceptually diverse Context component, building on the basic stratification present in the original Grammar. Another typology introduced as part of IG Extended is the Property Typology, affording the structural (and implicitly

202

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

high-level semantic) decomposition of the compound Properties concept applicable across a wide range of components. Taxonomies introduced in the context of this section include not only the referenced variants, but extend to (and at times across) other components based on the associated institutional features and their underlying meaning or function. Complementing the annotation on component level, selected taxonomies operate on statement level, so as to capture the specific function of a statement in relation to other statements, or within the broader institutional setting. The following sections iterate through a set of such general taxonomies, alongside the scope of applicability and contextualization of institutional and/or analytical value. 6.1.2.1 Animacy Taxonomy An implicit characterization that the original Institutional Grammar relied on, specifically with a focus on the Object component, Animacy is an essential feature in the coding process. Recognizing the diversity of forms that the revised Object component, now in the form of Direct Object and Indirect Object, can take, semantic annotations do not limit either Object type to reference animate or inanimate entities, but rather allow for the flexible case-specific annotation thereof. The Animacy Taxonomy hence recognizes two categories, animate and inanimate, that apply across various components, including Attributes, Attributes Properties, Direct Object, Direct Object Properties, Indirect Object, Indirect Object Properties, Activation Condition, Execution Constraint, Constituted Entity, Constituted Entity Properties, Constituting Properties, Constituting Properties Properties.8 The value of such characterization specifically lies in the reconstruction of actor relationships based on the presence of animate actors across the individual components (e.g., for social network analysis or agentbased institutional models), distinguishing those from activities that link actors and inanimate objects, such as artifacts, or abstract concepts. Where analytically central, the analyst can thus filter institutional information based on animacy characteristics for specific or across components in order to extract relevant linkages, as opposed to being limited to particular components that conventionally (but not exclusively) hold (in)animate entities.

8 Given the implicit replication of these components in component-level nested statements, or consequential linkage via the Or else, the same principles apply on those levels.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

203

6.1.2.2 Metatype Taxonomy Objects, for instance, can not only be either animate or inanimate in kind, but can be of concrete nature, or be abstract in kind (e.g., representing mental concepts, such as beliefs or suspicions) and can furthermore appear in varying forms of complexity, e.g., embedding complex institutional content (e.g., “Inspectors must ensure that farmers report on their agricultural practices ...”, with the nested Object structure represented in italicized form), an aspect elaborated in Section 5.1.2. To capture the variable use of selected components, the introduced Metatype Taxonomy allows for an explicit characterization of entities as either concrete or abstract in kind. Offering such distinction provides the analyst with the opportunity to explicitly distinguish between objects, actions, and states that produce detectable correspondents in the institutional setting, i.e., have institutional status, in contrast to ones that do not (e.g., entirely mental concepts). Where introduced or referenced by constitutive or regulative statements, respectively, institutional concepts, such as a notification, have a function and effect in the institutional setting, including a potential physical correspondence (e.g., in the form of an artifact). Similarly, a violation may represent a concept that manifests itself in the form of action in the institutional setting, i.e., is physically observable both in terms of performance and effect. Contrasting this position, purely mental concepts, such as beliefs or goals, may not carry institutional status (or may not be sufficiently observable), and thus not qualify as concrete in the institutional sense. The value of this differentiation is linked to the objectives, and techniques applied in the analysis, but aimed at analyses that intend to extract richer systemic structure that extend beyond actor networks. The analyst may seek to triangulate institutional concepts referenced in the institutional setting, while distinguishing those from relevant actors (identified via the Animacy Taxonomy), and mental concepts represented in Direct Object or Indirect Object fields at the same time. Moreover, analyzing the presence or absence of institutional concepts across components offers a basis to draw insights on combinatorial or interaction effects of components of particular types. For instance, drawing on this characterization can indicate as to whether decision-making parameters in an action situation primarily consist of mental concepts (e.g., as signals for discretion) – and thus pointing to high on subjective assessment of institutional arrangements –, or are in fact grounded in tangible observable institutional concepts – pointing toward arrangements that can be robustly

204

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

and more objectively assessed by third parties or from the perspectives of multiple actors. Naturally, this annotation applies to any occurrence of entity references across institutional statements, such as Attributes, Object variants, Constituted Entity, as well as Constituting Properties and Context components. Table 6.2, at the end of this subsection, explicitly highlights the associated components (alongside potential properties) explicitly. 6.1.2.3 Role Taxonomy Whenever interacting in an institutional setting, or more narrowly, in an action situation, actors necessarily assume positions, or roles therein. Naturally, the specific nature and configuration of roles in terms of responsibilities, liabilities, and other forms of status characterizations, depends on the institutional setting and domain. Operationally, these roles can shift situationally across different components, based on their thematic positioning (e.g., an entity who may be the sender of an object in one statement may be the receiver in another). These situational characterizations can be identified in terms of general thematic roles (Carlson, 1984) that exist independently of the underlying domain. Specifically the categorization of actors (and implicitly other entities) by thematic role, recognized both theoretically (Carlson, 1984) as well as empirically observed in natural language (with varying levels of specificity, e.g., Schneider et al., [2018]), allows for a semantic layer that enables a precise situational characterization and positioning of actors and entities as described by individual institutional statements. Within regulative institutional statements, for instance, actors associated with the Attributes component are the actors whose behavior is explicitly described and regulated in the statement, whereas actors referenced in the context of Direct Object are receivers of activity, or, specifically when referenced in the Indirect Object component, experiencers of activity. Conversely, actors may be referenced in Properties of varying kind, in which they assume a relationship to the entity characterized, oftentimes in possessive form (e.g., “operation owned by farmer” ). Referenced actors may, however, also be represented as a beneficiary of an action contextually referenced (e.g., in Context or Properties components), but not directly involved or immediately affected by the regulated or specified activity. While largely motivated for regulative statements, references to actors in varying forms equally apply to components of constitutive kind. A specific example is the reference to an actor that is endowed with a specific position, such

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

205

as being promoted to manager, and thus recipient of associated institutional power. Such individual is thereby directly advantaged in the context of the action situation, whereas others, such as future subordinates, are indirectly affected by experiencing the change in authority. Where contextually inferable, the status endowment of the manager may be to their advantage or disadvantage. An essential benefit of a principal role structure is to allow for an abstract classification of functional relationships associated with the actor structure overtly presented in institutional statements. While conceptual linkages between specific components exist (e.g., Attributes as originators of activity), the relational dimensions in the role taxonomy apply across components and properties. Such characterizations offer the basis for the combination with linguistic concepts such as Semantic Role Labeling (Fillmore, 1968). As a set of general actor characterizations, the IG recognizes the following annotations that showcase differentiated actor role and effect characterizations, where role characterizations reflect the operational linkage of different entities as expressed through the statement more generally, and the Aim or Constitutive Function more specifically. The complementary effect characterization captures the potential effect of the instruction captured in the statement on directly or laterally involved entities, selectively reflecting that an individual is affected in the first place, or qualifying the nature of the effect (either as being advantaged or disadvantaged). • Role Characterizations – Originator/Causer/Agent – Entity from which action originates – Recipient – Recipient of whatever is conferred (e.g., actions, objects) – Possessor – Owner of an object/entity (e.g., “house owner”) • Effect Characterizations – Experiencer – Indirectly affected actor (e.g., “observer of noncompliance”) – Advantaged – Beneficiary distinctively advantaged by referenced activity/function; may not necessarily be recipient

206

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

– Disadvantaged – Maleficiary distinctively burdened by referenced activity/function; may not necessarily be recipient However, since role characterizations are functionally linked to the underlying activities or functions, let alone their domain-specific meaning, the general categories introduced here can only offer a coarse categorization and characterization of linkages commonly encountered in institutional arrangements. Both characterizations are thus neither exclusive or exhaustive. Instead, they invite for adaptations or extensions that consider domain-specific features (e.g., power relationships established based on interactions), or capture specific semantic frames associated with the activities and functions relevant in a given action situation or broader institutional setting (e.g., by drawing on the lexical database FrameNet [Baker et al., 2003]). 6.1.2.4 Institutional Functions The IG taxonomies introduced to this stage essentially focus on the contextual embedding and physical characterization of entities referenced in institutional statements. The earlier taxonomies primarily attend to features that are specific to entities and exist independently of the contextual interpretation in the institutional setting (such as on the characterization of an entity as animate based on its natural kind). The Role characterizations draw the attention toward a contextual embedding of individual entities, and thus draw a more explicit linkage between the action situation and its elements. However, to move beyond actors, objects and artifacts, and to better accommodate functional specifics relevant to institutional analysis, a central focus lies on the activities that are referenced in institutional statements. Given the functional diversity those can exhibit (the Aim is inherently open-ended with respect to its content), the semantic characterization from an institutional perspective requires access to the meaning underlying the specific activities or functions, as well as their effects on the institutional setting. To this end, the IG includes a semantic classification of activities based on their institutional function specific to both the regulative and constitutive syntactic form, and referenced as Regulative Functions and Constitutive Functions, respectively. Regulative Functions Offering generalizable categories for regulative statements, and more specifically, the regulated activity captured in the Aim, the IG recognizes

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

207

the broad array of activities based both on the complex configurational positioning of actors, as well as the brute nature of the actions themselves. To this end, regulative functions act as a mechanism to apply conceptual and epistemological lenses on an institutional setting to introduce functional primitives of specific analytical value. Seen through the lens of regulatory compliance, for instance, stereotypical actors include operational entities that are subject to regulation (e.g., organic farmers), actors assuming responsibility for monitoring (e.g., inspector) and enforcement (e.g., program manager), where the latter variably exists in conflated or separate form as discussed in Section 4.2.3. Seen through the abstraction of primary concern for the evaluation of compliance assessment, regulative functions can be used to indicate whether the activities referenced in an institutional statement signal compliance or violation behavior. Exemplifying this using the statement “if organic farmers do not deliver documentation before the deadline, Program Managers may suspend their certification,” the non-delivery may in fact represent a violation, whereas a delivery on time (e.g., “if organic farmers deliver documentation before the deadline, ...” ) can be interpreted as compliance behavior. For all occurrences of institutionally relevant activities, regulative functions are thus a consistent set of primitives that reflect an abstract functional overlay that isolates the meaning of the described activity in the wider context of the action situation, and thereby offers specific insight into the coordinating purpose of a particular statement. Organized by distinctive classes of activities and associated positions, a regulative functions taxonomy (based on the complementarity of selected sub-elements also characterizable as an ontology) exemplarily focused on compliance assessment includes functions related to compliance or violation events, monitoring, enforcement, as well as corresponding responses (e.g., an actor’s rejection of enforcement), leading to a set of annotations organized as follows: • Compliance action – action reflecting compliance behavior – Comply – action reflecting compliance – Violate – action reflecting violation • Monitor – action reflecting the institutional function of monitoring – Detect compliance – action reflecting the detection of compliance

208

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

– Detect violation – action reflecting the detection of violation • Enforce – action reflecting enforcement acts – Reward – action reflecting rewarding behavior (regulativeincentivizing) – Sanction – action reflecting sanctioning behavior (regulativepunitive) • Enforcement response – action reflecting responses to enforcement outcomes – Accept – action reflecting acceptance of enforcement outcome – Reject – action reflecting the rejection of enforcement outcome – Appeal (specialization of reject) – action reflecting appeal against enforcement outcome It is important to reemphasize that the nature of such abstractions shall respond to analytical purposes. The general form introduced initially, for instance, highlights compliance assessments, whereas other analyses may primarily focus on transaction characteristics of a particular action situation, and thus emphasizing a sequential flow of interactions, which affords a varying (or extended) set of labels to adequately reflect this in annotated institutional information. Transgressing into formal territory, regulative function taxonomies can further afford a mapping from linguistic expression to symbolic representations that enable a logical treatment of annotated information in algorithmic form or based on formal calculi, thus closing the gap to advanced logical applications in disciplines that have a formal approach to institutional analysis, such as Normative MultiAgent Systems (Boella et al., 2006) or Legal Informatics (Katz et al., 2021) (see also the discussion in Chapter 1). The abstraction levels applied to the different functional characterizations naturally vary. Applications can, for example, include superimposed theoretical frameworks, such as Lowi’s policy typology (Lowi, 1964) that focuses on variable redistributive functions. Adapted to individual statements, regulative functions can draw an effective linkage to relevant theoretical frameworks and thereby offer a robust linkage between underlying data and evaluation and interpretation in terms of the theoretical frame of the study. This extends, for instance, to analyses applying policy process theories (Weible & Sabatier, 2018), especially for circumstances in which the

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

209

researcher can identify direct linkages between framework and specific relevant statements. In this context, it is noteworthy to restate that the IG may not only be applied to policy itself, but rather institutions of any nature as well as associated processes. A central prerequisite for the applicability of the IG, however, is ability to operationally link theoretical abstractions provided in theory of interest with institutional information at the granularity level of individual institutional statements (or groups or configurations thereof), an aspect of particular challenge for theories that operate on policy level at large. Barring this concern, analysis of regulative functions can operate on a wide range of abstractions and without linkage to particular disciplines or domains. Where analysts may, for instance, be interested in the analysis of Process lifecycles, such as the initiation or termination of activities of concern (e.g., for the purpose of modeling those), these can be reflected with a corresponding exemplary set of labels, such as: • Process—Life cycle – – – –

Initiate Interrupt Resume Conclude

Summarizing this discussion, institutional functions in general, and regulative functions in particular, offer a basis to link theoretical constructs relevant for a given field, domain, theory, or analytical framework onto institutional statements, and more specifically, the activity or function they convey. The central benefit is to draw an immediate analytical linkage between the micro-level activity that the statement captures, and the associated macro-level observations and effects, or, complementarily, to make the linkage between analytical conclusions and underlying institutional information transparent, making an appeal to methodological rigor of the analysis. Drawing on this annotation capability affords analytical benefits for traditional statistical analyses that primarily aim at establishing regularities and metrics, to constructionist approaches to analysis that aim at understanding policy by reconstructing it in silico, and accommodates the logical treatment of statements by exploiting the semantics the regulative functions reflect in order to draw explanatory insights into the policy or to assess its conceptual integrity.

210

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Constitutive Functions Contrasting the regulative perspective, institutional functions of constitutive kind vary in focus. As discussed in Sect. 4.1.2, constitutive statements bring about entities, relate those conceptually, or otherwise parameterize their role in the wider action situation. The contrasting characterization necessitates a different set of labels that best capture the declarative form and existential focus that Constitutive Functions reflect. The effects of Constitutive Functions, reflecting the various ways in which Constituted Entities and potential Constituting Properties are linked, show a set of general patterns that transcend domain-specific observations, and respond to the nature of C onstitutive F unctions as parameterizing in kind. To this end, the Constitutive Functions Taxonomy provided in this context aims at capturing the general functions that the Constitutive Function component plays, while, at the same time, affording opportunities for refinement with respect to specificity. Capturing the essential effects, Constitutive Function labels are organized into two general groups, namely functions that reference entities defined or otherwise parameterized, and functions that reference the institution (e.g., policy) itself, de facto assuming a meta-constitutive role. As far as the characterization of entities is concerned (and reiterating central aspects discussed in Sect. 4.2.5), Constitutive Functions can either define entities, such as actors, roles, actions, artifacts, venues, status, or other objects or concepts relevant in the institutional setting. Constitutive Functions can further establish Relationships between entities, reference Lifecycle states or stages, as well as reference the Conferral of Status of various kinds. These varying classes of functions can carry various specializations characterizing the functional semantics with greater specificity. Entities, for instance, can be defined intensionally (i.e., based on what they are), or extensionally (e.g., based on what they do). Similarly, referenced relationships can reflect linkages of different strengths, such as compositional (e.g., describing what an entity consists of ) forms signaling conceptual dependence (e.g., existential structural dependence),9 functional dependence (e.g., control relationships), or organizational forms (e.g., describing hierarchical linkages or embeddedness) that assume limited levels of existential dependency. Beyond the stratified lifecycle characterization, various forms of status can be conferred. This includes 9 For a discussion of conceptual and functional dependence in the IG, please refer to Sect. 5.1.4.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

211

the assignment of explicit rights, authority (alongside associated responsibility reflected in corresponding regulative statements), privileges, or liabilities to other kinds of entities (e.g., parameterizing roles in terms of status characteristics). It is important to note that the status endowment as operationalized here applies to kinds or types of actors or roles more generally (e.g., organic farmers as a role), as opposed to specific actor or role instances only (e.g., a specific farmer). In addition to honorary status, the institutionally relevant forms of status referenced here characterize legal relationships (Hohfeld, 1913) conceivably endowed explicitly.10 Applying to institutions more generally (e.g., informal rules, policy), constitutive statements assume reflexive functions, including the specification of lifecycle characteristics, implied relationships to other institutions based on substitutions or amendments, as well as signal the purpose of the institution, or other relevant information related to the institution or associated states of affairs. Figure 6.1 visualizes the general Constitutive Functions Taxonomy, alongside exemplary references to verbs operationalizing the corresponding Constitutive Function. The analytical value of analyzing institutional statements based on the annotated Constitutive Functions is manifold. From a purely quantitative perspective, a central analytical value drawn from the annotation of Constitutive Functions lies on the isolated analysis of constitutive statements and the distribution of prevalent ways in which entities are established, and/or related in a given institutional setting. From a constructionist perspective, a central value is the characterization of the entities embedded in a given scenario, in the ideal case based on definitional statements that introduce relevant entities, akin to the antecedent specification suggested by Searle, but furthermore to distinguish those from re-parameterizations that occur throughout the operationalized action situation, including modified linkages of entities, and changes in lifecycle status – thus providing the basis for the assessment of institutional dynamics and change. A noteworthy value of the distinctive characterization of Constitutive Functions is the integrated treatment of the complementary operation of constitutive and regulative statements, where, for instance, constitutive statements create status modifications on 10 While Hohfeld references a wider range of relationships, it is noteworthy to highlight the interdependence of the referenced legal concepts, i.e., they are effects of the jural correlatives (e.g., an assigned power may affect another person’s liability if subjected to the endowed power), and may not be explicitly stated in policy.

212

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 6.1 Constitutive Functions Taxonomy

the one hand, and regulative statements afford the corresponding operational implementation. The logical perspective, in contrast, benefits from the annotations in that they enable the analysis of institutions for consistency, asking questions as to whether all referenced entities in a formal institution (e.g., policy) are actually defined in the first place, or identifying gaps in the specification of entities and their relationships, providing the basis for a quality assessment of the institution. At the same time, the logical treatment provides the basis to establish an explanatory account of institutional analysis by extracting and relating semantic institutional content on statement level.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

213

As indicated above, the Constitutive Functions Taxonomy in the context of the IG, and equivalent to the Regulative Functions, explicitly annotates the Constitutive Function component, i.e., the semantic linkage of Constituted Entity and, where existing, Constituting Properties. This sits in contrast to higher-level taxonomies that classify statements more generally with respect to the functions and effects that these statements exercise in the wider context of a policy, especially with respect to legal context, nature of the document, and legislative forum. Notable examples for the latter taxonomies include the work by Ceci et al. (2018) in the field of Legal Informatics, and Brady’s (2020) taxonomy developed in the context of conservation treaties. 6.1.2.5 Vertical Nesting Annotations In contrast to the annotations offered in the previous section that primarily focus on the annotation of individual components, other than referencing existing taxonomies that aim at capturing constitutive content semantically, explicit statement-level annotations have found limited attention, an aspect addressed by the remaining annotation schemes. A central concept applicable across all levels of expressiveness is the notion of vertical nesting (Sect. 4.2.1.6; Sect. 4.2.2), a feature that provides the basis for the administration of select transformation rules (as discussed in Sect. 6.1.4). Where applied explicitly, the parsing of institutional statements in terms of monitored and corresponding consequential statement invites for the unambiguous functional characterization of the linked statements. While the principal linking mechanism of statements based on the logical operation that the Or else reflects – the material consequence of non-fulfillment of a monitored statement – implies the characterization of statements as either monitored or consequential. However, where such inference is not automatically inferred, the corresponding characterization can be made explicit. Complementing the annotation as either monitored or consequential , the novel distinction into monitoring and enforcing statements based on the nature and potential distinctiveness of monitors and enforcers (introduced in Sect. 4.2.3), further invites for a more specific characterization of a statement as monitoring in addition, or independent of the annotation as consequential statement. Statements can naturally occupy multiple such annotations, including both being monitored and consequential (based on the linkage

214

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

to other statements), as motivated in Sect. 4.2.1.6,11 and exemplified in Chapter 8. The proposition of this tripartite characterization is twofold. Firstly, from a theoretical perspective, it reflects the dissociated analysis of enforcing and monitoring entity – representing empirically observed governance regimes that either favor a conflated or separated positioning of monitor and enforcer in action situations, an aspect of relevance both for socio-institutional and legal-institutional settings. This aspect is unspecified in the original IG, thus endowing the New IG with extended validity. The second benefit is of analytical kind: the explicit recognition of statement types leverages the ability to distinguish between statements that are subjected to monitoring (monitored statements ), primarily carry incentivizing content (consequential statements ), or merely signal oversight without direct intervention opportunities (monitoring statements ), offering an indication of a policy’s integrity on the one hand, and assessment of facilitative or punitive measures embedded in institutional statements, in addition to the dissociated treatment of monitor and enforcer motivated above. Exploring the linkage of such oversight characteristics across configurations, or the policy at large, further enables a macroscopic assessment of the governance design. 6.1.2.6 Consequence Annotations The widened characterization of consequence types as part of the IG 2.0 (Sect. 4.2.5.6) expanded the range of analytical features by making explicit the general forms that consequences take, namely the interlinked social and institutional consequences (e.g., economic or status moderation, environmental), and configurational consequences (i.e., re-parameterizing effects on the institutional setting). Extracting this information provides the analyst with a second-order analytical qualification of consequences based on their identification via Vertical Nesting Annotations (Sect. 6.1.2.5). While hinging on the presence of consequences, corresponding annotations leverage insights into policy effectiveness and, potentially, into underlying value systems [e.g., fear of natural consequences as an incentive (Watkins & Westphal, 2016)], by providing the basis to assess the performance of an institution based 11 A statement that prescribes the administration of a sanction (i.e., a consequential statement) can be a monitored statement by being subjected to oversight by another monitoring or consequential statement.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

215

on the nature of the consequences. Naturally, such annotation is valuable only for scenarios that extensively rely on incentivizing features, but is agnostic to the internal or external origin of such incentives and hence invites for the applications that draw on Deltas (Section 4.2.4) to establish a fine-grained understanding of the incentive structure and its linkage to institutional design. As with most other taxonomies or ontologies discussed in this section, the analyst may feel inclined to adapt the consequence characterizations for the specific analytical use (e.g., by introducing refined subcategories). 6.1.2.7 Summary The introduction of the statement-level annotations completes the overview of the IG with respect to abstract semantic annotations applied across syntactic components (and statements) that are organized in distinctive taxonomies and typologies. The introduced annotation principles signal the shift to an analytical interpretation by drawing the focus away from a primarily structurally motivated analysis to one that emphasizes the semantics that specific statements embed, leveraging analytical focus on the institutional meaning that actions, actors, and contextual aspects reflect. The taxonomies broadly associate with the syntactic components, and in selected instances, specifically apply to individual components, but more commonly, find their application across component groups. Fig. 6.2 showcases the high-level association of the introduced taxonomies (represented as a middle layer) with the syntactic components of regulative and

Fig. 6.2 First-order Linkages between Taxonomies and IG Components

216

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

constitutive components, with the Or else acting as a proxy for the underlying institutional statement to which the corresponding taxonomies apply. As broadly observed, all components, other than the Deontic/Modal (an aspect discussed later in this section), may be selectively associated with the taxonomies introduced in this section. Most prominent is the characterization of actors based on two dimensions that relate to physical and biological categorization (Animacy Taxonomy, Metatype Taxonomy), and thereby accommodating the various forms of entities the IG can reference (e.g., mental concepts). The Role Taxonomy captures variable actor relationships and their positioning in specific statements as occurring across Attributes, Object, Constituted Entity, and Constituting Properties components. The Context Taxonomy assumes the central role of structuring the diverse nature of Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints referenced under this label. As discussed in the context of IG Extended, classes and categories in this specific taxonomy operate on general classes of context either offering specific value for a nuanced analysis of transitions between statements and action situations (Situational Context ), embedding in physical and domanial context (Substantive Context ), alongside further empirically observed classes, such as instrumental references or specification of purpose (Procedural and Aspirational Context ). These dimensions are not independent, potentially allowing for the annotation of statement context along with multiple such categories. The Institutional Functions taxonomies, specifically Regulative Functions and Constitutive Functions Taxonomy, exclusively focus on the semantic annotation of activities and functions represented in institutional statements, drawing out the functions those statements play in a given action situation, potentially detecting statements acting in configurational form in order to highlight complex functional arrangements. Specifically, the Regulative Functions provide the basis for introducing analytical perspectives that reflect aspects related to specific domains, and theoretical applications. The final group of statement-level annotations, represented by the Vertical Nesting annotations (Sect. 6.1.2.5), as well as the Consequences annotations (Sect. 6.1.2.6), emphasize the semantic qualification of enforcement and oversight structures more generally, thus providing the basis for a configurational assessment of institutional statements in an institutional setting by drawing out distinctive institutional purposes the

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

217

individual statements reflect. The annotation of consequences offers a second-order qualification of consequences that provides insight into how such governance regimes are furnished. It is central to note that the referenced taxonomies do not operate in isolation, but can be combined systematically to support specific analytical objectives by drawing links to existing theoretical frameworks across disciplines. Illustrating such adaptation from a linguistic perspective, a categorization scheme that complements the interpretation of institutional statements as compositional patterns (see Sect. 5.1), is the notion of semantic roles (Carlson, 1984). The general thematic roles embedded in this theory can, if superimposed on selected taxonomies, be directly derived and made accessible for linguistic treatment of encoded semantic properties.12 Inasmuch as the taxonomies thus augment individual components with semantic contextualization, they do not exist in isolation, but perform an integrative function, complementing the analytical picture, whether drawn from a perspective of logical and computational analysis, linguistic treatment, or statistical aggregation traditionally associated with the IG. As indicated repeatedly, the taxonomies as shown here are not exhaustive, and lend themselves for domain-specific adaptation where useful, including contextual considerations that span across multiple components, or link semantics only accessible when reviewing multiple components. Variably, the taxonomies can be augmented with or substituted by ontologies that integrate domain-specific relevant concepts entirely. Ontologies offer hierarchical relationships of concepts that enrich the flat classifications offered by taxonomies with conceptual interlinkages, underlying rules, and axioms that underpin the application (Staab & Studer, 2009). By doing so, they provide the basis for logical applications such as querying institutional statements (individual, collections, or systems thereof) based on simple or complex criteria, as well as affording assessments of consistency of statements based on the associated ontology. A specific example of a component whose effect can both be established based on the annotation of an individual component, as well as the compound interpretation, is the Deontic component. Where their semantics are grounded in the underlying logic (e.g., McNamara, 2006; von 12 Whereas the Role Taxonomy captures actor-centric thematic roles, additional thematic roles such as Instrument or Goal are directly or indirectly referenced by other taxonomies (i.e., Context Taxonomy and Metatype Taxonomy).

218

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Wright, 1951), if applied in the context of specific document forms (e.g., contracts, specifications), specific deontics may carry distinctive semantics reflected in discretized form (see e.g., Bodansky, 2016; Bradner, 1997), and be captured explicitly as part of the annotation process. Alternatively, or in addition, such operationalization may leverage the conception of deontics organized along a continuum as motivated in Sect. 4.2.1.2, which may either be theoretically grounded, or be based on empirical observations. The actual effect of Deontic values, however, can often only be assessed in context, e.g., under consideration of Execution Constraints and logical operators that may moderate or emphasize the stringency associated with a particular Deontic. The Deontic “must,” for instance, may be moderated in effect if combined with qualifications such as “especially for cases ...” Similarly, where actors can choose to perform a set of actions (e.g., ‘suspend’, ‘revoke’), e.g., based on an AND/OR combination of individual activities, the effect of the Deontic “must” is moderated based on the discretion to selectively apply one or both activities in the first place (compared to a provision that those not offer such discretion). We discuss selected analytical opportunities related to the combined interpretation of components in Chapter 8. It is important to note that the schematics shown in Fig. 6.2 focuses on high-level, or first-order linkages between taxonomies and corresponding components. It does not capture higher-order relationships, such as the applicability of these taxonomies across P roperties associated with the different components (e.g., Attributes Properties, Direct Object Properties, etc.). The basis for this is twofold, firstly based on the very nature of P roperties to contextualize the entity they describe (e.g., based on categories captured in the Context Taxonomy), as well as entities/actors referenced in addition to the primary annotation (an aspect of particular relevance for the Role Taxonomy). The second reason is the potential presence of nested institutional statements across a range of these components (e.g., nested activation condition), the components of which can naturally be categorized in the same form as the first-order components. At the risk of sacrificing the conceptual simplicity presented above, Table 6.2 makes the linkages between components, subcomponents, and taxonomies explicit. It further includes the qualitative characterization of Properties by the Property Typology introduced in 5.1.4 (and referenced accordingly in Table 6.2). Following the characterization of a wide range of general taxonomies and annotations to provide a foundation for the qualitative analysis of

Relevant components x x x x x** x x (x) x x x x

(x)

x x x x (x) x x x

(x)

x x x x (x) x x x

(x)

x x x x (x)

x

IG Logico Taxonomies and affected Institutional Statement Components

Taxonomy Context Properties Animacy Metatype Role Regulative Functions Constitutive Functions****

Table 6.2

Attributes Attributes Properties Deontic* Aim Direct Object

Direct Object Properties

Indirect Object

Indirect Object Properties

Constituted Entity

Constituted Entity Properties

Modal* Constitutive Function x x x x x Constituting Properties x x x x (x)

Constituting Properties Properties

x x x x*** x***

Activation Condition

(continued)

x x x x*** x***

Execution Constraint Or else*****

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

219

(continued)

Activation Condition (x) (x)

x x

Or else*****

Execution Constraint

Constituting Properties Properties Constituting Properties

Constitutive Function

Modal*

Constituted Entity Properties

Constituted Entity

Indirect Object Properties

Indirect Object

Direct Object Properties

Direct Object

Aim

Deontic*

Attributes Properties

for the Modal can be found in Sect. 4.2.5.2 ** While generally concrete in nature, an anthropomorphized abstract actor is a conceivable Attribute (e.g., Nature) *** The referenced taxonomies implicitly apply for complex Context characterizations **** The taxonomy variably applies to entities specified or referenced in institutions, or the institution itself (see Sect. 6.1.2.4). Similarly, where multiple components are indicative for the identification of a function, the annotation applies on statement level ***** The Or else is a proxy for the underlying statement to which the annotation applies

(x) Indicates implicit applicability (e.g., as nested reference to an actor or context; implied consequential relationships) * The semantic operationalization of the Deontic component is discussed in this section, with reference to Sect. 4.2.1.2. Corresponding considerations

Vertical Nesting Consequences

Table 6.2

Attributes

220 C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

221

institutional content directly, the following section focuses on the representation of statement linkages, which play a central meta-analytical role for analysis of institutional design. 6.1.3

Statement References

Institutional statements do not exist in isolation. While oftentimes unambiguously linked based on the situatedness within the same action situation, or co-location within an institution-in-form (such as a policy document), a common feature of statements is the explicit reference to other institutions, an aspect that is overt in policy documents, and includes references to other policy documents, Acts, parts, or sections therein. To afford the comprehensive capturing of institutions in general, IG Logico recognizes two dimensions along which statement or institution references are organized, namely • Internal vs. external references (and, generally correlating with this distinction, implicit and explicit references) • Scope of references (1:1, 1:n) The first aspect highlights whether a statement references other statements within the same source (e.g., policy document, contract), or reference a source external to the analyzed document/dataset, etc. A second differentiation relates to the scope of a reference, i.e., whether an individual statement references another specific statement, a collection of statements (e.g., section), or a document entirely (e.g., Act, contract). Beyond those two distinctive dimensions, operationally, the occurrence of such references further varies by the degree of explicitness. The following expression when an inspection of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part, …

features internal references of varying scope, referencing an Act in its entirety, or a specific part. In this instance, such references are reflexive in that they target the same policy or provision the reference is embedded in, but do not make the Act explicit – inadvertently requiring manual annotation/inference of the Act where analytically beneficial. Variably, an

222

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

implicit linkage can describe dependency relationships between different statements that may not even be implied in the text but are apparent or known to the reader (e.g., legal commentary). This is in contrast to the following statement: the Federal Environment Agency may grant temporary exemptions from §11 (1), first and fifth sentences …

While this statement is reflexive, the references to other provisions are in explicit form. The difference between both forms lies in the necessary contextual knowledge the analyst requires about the statement origin. Exemplifying this for policies, the initial reflexive implicit reference requires specific knowledge about the association of a statement with a policy, as well as its positioning within the policy to derive the Act referred to in general, but more importantly, the positioning within the specific part. The second example, in contrast, requires only limited knowledge to resolve the reference explicitly.13 With the identification of general characteristics of policy references, specifics relate to the nature of the annotation, which may diverge based on the statement origin based on type (e.g., policy, contract, agreement) and, reflecting on institutions more broadly, potentially form (e.g., written vs. oral). Speaking to institutions-in-form specifically, the origin and nature of the document, e.g., an act, deed, treaties, contract, etc., as well as the legal setting (e.g., private vs. public actors) and governance level (State-level legislation, international forums), affect the role and status of statements within a document (e.g., as legally binding vs. merely signaling intent), but, more centrally, define the structure of the document, such as recognizing standards for the structural organization of acts into Act, Chapter, Part, Sub-parts, Sections, and Paragraph (see e.g., the Document Drafting Handbook14 for Federal Agencies in the United States).

13 Supporting the resolution of reflexive annotations, the operationalization discussed in Chapter 7 encourages the annotation of encoded institutional statements with information about the document structure they are embedded in (e.g., Section reference). 14 The latest version of the Document Drafting Handbook is available under https:// www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/handbook.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

223

Looking at specifications and conventions associated with document drafting, i.e., the production side, a set of standards have emerged for the handling of archival information based on bibliographical reference standards, such as the Uniform System of Citations for legal texts, commonly referred to as the “Blue Book” (Harvard Law Review Association, 2015), or, representing the initiatives to foster machine-readable interpretation, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (Madison, 2005). The latter is a referencing format used in other electronic standards for document annotation such as Akoma Ntoso (Palmirani et al., 2018) that devises an entity-relationship model to represent document linkages across hierarchical levels and document types. Specific forms of referencing are highlighted in Chapter 7, without narrowly imposing a specific general form of referencing, due to the divergent forms of document structures, as well as established efforts in this direction as outlined above. Corresponding conventions will be collated in supplementary resources such as the IG 2.0 Codebook (and continuously revised therein), but the broad and open use cases for the IG invite for further exploration based on empirical applications. Further exploration is particularly applicable in the context of institutions-inuse, in which such linkages may more commonly be implied, be it linguistically, or may at times only be inferred probabilistically, such as signaling relationships between institutions based on structural similarity or alignment on statement or component level, rather than any form of explicit reference. This handling of references in institutions-in-use specifically renders a potential opportunity for methodological extensions (e.g., interpretation of implied references in interview or survey settings), or the application of statistical and computational techniques (e.g., machine learning). Concluding the discussion, an essential aspect of the statement linkages is the resolution of linkages in parseable and consistent form. This includes retaining the nature of relationships as either direct relationships between statements, or relationships between individual statements and collections (e.g., sections parts, Acts entirely). As indicated, references may be implicit or explicit reflexive (i.e., reference statements within the document), or external to the document the referencing statement is embedded in. Essential for the parseable linkage, however, is the explicit resolution of implicit linkages in order to afford the interpretation from within an institutional statement (as unit of analysis), without relying on extended contextual inference.

224

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The value of resolving linkages between institutional statements relates to the open-ended scoping of analysis of institutional designs across provisions, e.g., to reference aspects that are externally defined, recognize amendments of substitutions of documents, etc. Reflecting on policy linkages endows the analysts with a mechanism to explicitly decide on the scope of the study, i.e., deciding whether external policy linkages reflect the boundary of analysis, or the extent to which the referenced information is considered in the analysis. Observed from a systemic perspective, the resolution of statement relationships inevitably establishes opportunities to operationally link institutions as part of the analysis, drawing inferences about the integrity of a given set of statements, or conversely, its linkages, and of course interdependencies with other institutions. Such analysis, in contrast to most other concepts introduced in the context of IG Logico, can shift the perspective from individual statements to the analysis of linkages between institutions, and networks or systems of institutions more broadly – potentially steering the attention away from semantic content toward large-scale structural features of institutional design. 6.1.4

Statement Transformation Rules

The extended annotation and formalization of structurally deeply parsed statements as part of IG Logico provides us with the immediate analytical benefit not only to afford richer semantic interpretation of statements with respect to their institutional semantics, but further allows us to explicate selected logical transformations of institutional statements that modify the form of the institutional statements without modifying the underlying meaning. IG Extended afforded the encoding of institutional statements in detail by capturing nested structures across statements and inadvertently introduced structural specificity that extracts institutional content. In this process, it does, however, fundamentally retain the structure of the institutional statement in its parsing. Introducing a formal representation of institutional statements, IG Logico is in the position to afford structural transformations that can be selectively applied to allow for a uniform expression of institutional statements (e.g., to facilitate analytical treatment), make institutional meaning overt, but also to rephrase institutional statements in ways that make them amenable for logical evaluation and identification of logical consequences, let alone readability. This supports

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

225

the intent to gain accessible insight into the institutional content, but also serves as a starting point for assessing the quality of institutional statements. To this end, this section introduces a set of statement transformations that, in conjunction with the formal semantics of institutional statements (introduced in Sect. 6.1.1) and the introduction of semantic component annotations (introduced in Sect. 6.1.2), provide the basis for advanced analytical approaches discussed further in Chapter 8 that draw on statement transformations specifically. As part of this section, we initially introduce elementary syntactic transformations in part to formalize concepts introduced intuitively previously, but also to shed light on the variable forms in which statements can be constructed while carrying identical institutional content, on which analytical applications build. 6.1.4.1 Combination-Level Component Transformation A transformation implicitly motivated as part of Sect. 4.2.2 is the reconstruction of logically combined components within institutional statements. The common occurrence of multiple logically linked actors, activities, objects, and context characterizations prescribed in institutional statements translates into a corresponding number of atomic institutional statements. The (intuitively annotated)15 statement (Certified agents [OR] inspectors) may (review [OR] sanction) certified operations.

effectively decomposes into four16 separate atomic institutional statements, variably emphasizing divergence on actorship and activity, resulting in the following statement linkage:

15 Stricter approaches for the comprehensive annotation of institutional statements are presented in Chapter 7. 16 The number of statements can be determined using ac cc , where ac represents the number of alternative choices per component (2), and cc the number of components that hold such combinations (i.e., Attributes and Aim), i.e., 22 for this case.

226

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

“(Certified agents may review certified operations [OR] Certified agents may sanction certified operations) [OR] (Inspectors may review certified operations [OR] Inspectors may sanction certified operations)”

Drawing on the symbolic representation of individual components introduced in Sect. 6.1.1, we can abstractly express the Component-Level Combination Transformation as shown in Eq. (6.6), exemplified for the Attributes component, and combinations of two components.

(6.6) As indicated above, this transformation makes the already discussed component-level linkages explicit; the transformation naturally applies for all components of institutional statements, and equally regulative and constitutive form. 6.1.4.2 Conditions-Consequence Transformation Beyond the statement expansion offered by the Component-Level Combination Transformation, the Conditions-Consequence Transformation is directly derived from the antecedent-consequent linkages operationalized via Activation Conditions, and in varying form linked in the Or else component. While the linkage between Activation Condition and leading institutional statement is congruent in that the enactment of the antecedent (i.e., the precondition) leads to the application of the remaining part of the institutional statement (i.e., if-then relationship), the linkage between the monitored institutional statement and consequential statement (the statement linked via Or else) inverts the relationship (i.e., if not-then relationship) to represent the concept of institutional consequences associated

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

227

with the non-fulfillment of the specifications (i.e., behavioral regulation or parameterization) offered as part of the leading monitored institutional statement. We can draw on the following statement as a motivational example: Program Manager may suspend certification if certified organic farmer violates organic farming provisions.

The directly parsed statement has the following structure:

The activation of the leading statement “Program Manager may suspend certification ...” is contingent on the farmer’s violation. Important to note here is that the focal entity of this institutional statement is the Program Manager. Alternatively, the statement can (with minor accommodations in expression, and added elements held in square brackets) be reconstructed as Certified organic farmers [must not] violate organic farming provisions, or else Program Manager may suspend certification.

Parsed visually, the reconstructed statement reads as follows:

228

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

This statement, originating from a positive antecedent-consequent linkage, can thus be expressed with focal emphasis on the actor central to the (previous) Activation Condition, the Certified organic farmer. Reflecting the inverse consequential linkage afforded by vertical nesting – the decomposition into a monitored and consequential statement – can thus be made explicit by inverting the leading (then monitored) statement’s Aim or Constitutive Function component. This transformation leaves us with distinctive benefits. As a central aspect, it provides the basis for greater abstraction from stylistic features (e.g., writing style) encoded in institutional statement structure (beyond the affordances introduced by IG Extended). More importantly, however, and based on the structural organization (e.g., dedicated policy section related to enforcement) or writing conventions and preferences, writers may selectively construct punitive or incentivizing provisions from the perspective of the monitor or enforcer, leading to a representation of monitored statements in terms of Activation Conditions (as highlighted in the example above). The idiomatic form introduced in the original IG by Crawford and Ostrom, in contrast, seeks the representation of consequences from the perspective of the regulated actor, associating any sanctioning provision with the Or else component. The transformation thus allows reconstruction of institutional statements in the idiomatic (i.e., intended) IG form, encoding institutional consequences using vertical nesting, and recovering the semantic specificity the Or else operator offers with respect to the representation of consequences. The logical linkage via Activation Conditions is more general in kind, not only including institutional consequential linkages, but any form of

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

229

precondition, including references to statement context more generally, as well as context not expressed in terms of nested institutional statements (i.e., atomic values, such as “at 8am”, but similarly across the categories referenced in the Context Taxonomy in Sect. 5.1.6). Supporting the call for ontological consistency (see Sect. 3.1), this transformation thus affords the reconstruction of institutional statements with greatest possible specificity – in a form that accurately reflects the semantics underlying the specific components. Embedding this consideration as part of the encoding process, resulting encoding may further bear methodological benefits by rendering improved reliability. It is important to note, however, that this transformation affords the inference of an implicit Deontic (here ‘must not’) not present in the original structural form. This, on the one hand, presents itself as a source of reliability concerns, but may furthermore raise epistemological considerations, since it affords an explicit inference of information not present in the original institutional data. This may lead researchers to raise potential validity concerns around such reconstruction, e.g., based on conflicting disciplinary methodological conventions on content analysis. However, such transformation may not necessarily need to find application as part of the coding, but be performed in a separate step following the initial encoding. Motivations for this decomposition may be to improve methodological rigor based on reduction of task complexity and cognitive load on coders (e.g., based on coder characteristics discussed in Chapter 7). Alternatively, such transformations can be applied to existing, already encoded datasets, with the intent to accommodate specific or novel analytical objectives. As such, and where applicable in the first place, statement transformations require explicit methodological consideration, but can allow for flexible positioning in the research process. Dissociating the generic encoding of institutional statements, transformations can be applied to respond to specific analytical objectives, and as such can, for instance, afford uniform representations of institutional statements that serve specific analytical techniques (e.g., uniform social network relationship data), but conversely can be applied to reconstruct statements from the perspective of different actors (perspective extrapolation) in order to reconstruct actor-specific characterizations of, or perspectives on, institutions, an aspect discussed further in Chapter 8. Equation (6.7) formalizes the transformation process, both for regulative and constitutive statements. Referencing the regulative form, a statement’s Activation Condition (i.e., the atomic statement Cac,2 {A1 D1

230

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

I1 Cac,1 })17 can be reconstructed in inverted form (i.e., A1 D1 ¬I1 Cac,1 ) and be the monitored statement, with the original leading atomic statement assuming the role of the vertically nested consequential statement (i.e., O{A2 D2 I2 Cac,2 }).

(6.7) It is important to note that this transformation only applies for statements that have one or more nested Activation Conditions.18 As a result, consequential relationships can always be converted into condition-based linkages, but not all conditional statements can be reformulated in an institutional consequential sense,19 rendering the latter (as motivated above) with greater specificity. Drawing further attention to those concerns, it is important to emphasize that the applicability of transformations needs to be assessed from an institutional perspective, since it bears the risk of introducing logical fallacies – given the particular nature of the Or else linkage. The fact that a transformation may in principle be possible is not sufficient to assume its applicability. Rather, it requires consideration of whether the transformation makes sense institutionally. For instance, if the Activation Condition exclusively references environmental features (e.g., time, location), the activation of the non-context part of the institutional statement is a logical consequence, but does not signal an institutional consequence.20 In essence, while physical or brute laws may be representable in conditional form, such linkage may not have an institutional correspondence and hence not allow for the inference of a consequential relationship (see discussion of brute versus institutional facts in Sect. 4.1.2). 17 Recall that D can be tacit when expressed in the Activation Condition. 1 18 Application cases for multiple nested statements will be explored in Chapter 8. 19 The different forms of consequences explicitly supported in the consequential

statement are discussed in Sect. 4.2.5.6. 20 For example, the transformation of the statement “At 8am, parents must bring children to school” would lead to the intuitively accessible, but institutionally nonsensical conclusion that “It must not be 8am, or else parents will bring children to school” by implying that this particular institution governs the concept Time.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

231

6.1.4.3 Properties-Conditions-Transformation A further transformation linkage embedded in the semantics of institutional statements requires the focus on Properties associated with distinctive components. The Attributes Properties, if expressed in terms of the structural form of institutional statements themselves, can equally transform into Activation Conditions, and thereby simplify the Attributes characterization, while at the same time concentrate the preconditions for a statement’s applicability in the Activation Conditions component. As with the previous transformation rules, this is best explored in the context of an example, before formally presented in Eq. (6.8). The example “Program Manager who believes that certified operations violate organic farming provisions may initiate suspension proceedings” essentially embeds the precondition for enacting the wider statement in the Attributes Properties, (i.e., “who believes that certified operations violate organic farming provisions” ) but could conversely be written as “If the Program Manager believes that certified operations violate organic farming provisions, Program Manager may initiate suspension proceedings”. This principle equally holds for simple properties (e.g., “Citizens older than 18 years may vote in federal elections.” translates into “If citizens are older than 18 years, they [i.e., citizens] may vote in federal elections.” ). Equation (6.8) formalizes the transformation, in correspondence with the narrative above, for Attributes Properties. While displayed here for regulative statements, the transformation equally applies to constitutive statements. (6.8)

Similar to the previously introduced transformations, the reconstruction offered in this form leverages analytical opportunities, both related to the uniform construction of institutional statements, but more importantly, as a basis for its combined application with the previously introduced Conditions-Consequence-Transformation that operates on Activation Conditions and consequences expressed in the Or else component.

232

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The transformations introduced at this stage showcase the semantic integrity offered by the construction of institutional statements in terms of structural patterns that can be flexibly recombined without sacrificing the underlying institutional meaning. More importantly, it highlights the essential objective of the Institutional Grammar, the abstraction from the linguistic representation of institutional information, whether in written or oral form. The semantic representation of institutional statements, as motivated throughout this chapter, points to the analytical opportunities based on applied techniques and study design that can draw on features such as the combined use of transformation rules with semantic annotations, both of which rely on the underlying consistent interpretation and representation of institutional statements. Illustrative applications that draw on, extend, and combine these transformation rules are presented in Sect. 8.3. 6.1.5

Summary of Chapter Contents

The introduction of the transformation rules concludes the introduction of IG Logico as the highest level of expressiveness of the Institutional Grammar, and IG 2.0 specifically. It builds on the basic component structure derived from Crawford and Ostrom’s original syntax, which has been ontologically refined and augmented with a complementary constitutive syntax as part of IG Core. The deep structural parsing afforded by IG Extended – with specific focus on embedded structural features such as nested components and conceptual relationships between components and properties – provided the access to all structural features of an institutional statement. IG Logico completes this effort with a consequent shift to a semantic perspective, extracting the essential institutional content by introducing abstractions from the underlying structural features, affording the selective extraction of generic and specific features based on semantic annotations backed by extensible taxonomies, as well as introducing referential linkages to external statements. The statement transformations introduced as the final conceptual feature facilitate the systematic reconstruction of institutional statements as the strongest abstractions from the underlying linguistic expression, while, at the same time, preparing the IG for novel analytical applications (introduced in Chapter 8) that afford varying representations to respond to advanced analytical necessities and establish corresponding opportunities.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

233

In addition to contributing semantic soundness to the IG and establishing the basis for the logical treatment of IG-coded institutional information, IG Logico acts as an interface aimed at linking the IG to diverse disciplinary uses, recognizing diverse analytical techniques, a broad array of domain-specific theoretical frameworks, as well as scenariospecific features not accommodated by any generic encoding mechanism. To this end, IG Logico supports the adaptation of a range of features – most prominently the taxonomies – in order to build the basis for broad application, while retaining the necessary semantic integrity (e.g., ensuring the applicability of transformation rules) and retaining compatibility throughout the levels of expressiveness (i.e., the option to reduce complexity to lower, more coarse-grained, levels of expressiveness).

6.2

Synthesizing the Institutional Grammar

This chapter concludes the conceptual introduction of the Institutional Grammar, with a specific focus on the Institutional Grammar 2.0 providing the basis for a comprehensive encoding of institutions in terms of institutional statements under consideration of diverse analytical objectives and techniques. The purpose of this chapter is to go beyond what is, and to establish opportunities and develop aspirations regarding kinds of questions and features that can be explored (i.e., what can be) in institutional design across institutions that vary in “form” and/or “use”, application realm (e.g., private, public order), level (e.g., local, federal, international), and moreover, be addressed using different analytical techniques that go beyond currently established practices and approaches. To this end, the IG, in the presented form, reflects a New Institutional Grammar, marking a transition in uptake, applications, and paradigms for encoding and analysis of institutional design. The IG 2.0 is conceptualized by levels of expressiveness that respond to specific analytical objectives, and incrementally build on each other’s feature set, with institutional information encoded at lower levels accessible to analysis at higher levels of expressiveness. The levels of expressiveness and the associated feature set is shown in Fig. 6.3, and discussed in the following. Commencing with the initial level IG Core (introduced in Chapter 4), the individual components of the IG are presented under consideration of select refinements to resolve ambiguities identified both in existing work as well as based on the authors’ and others’ observations – establishing

234

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 6.3 IG 2.0 Levels of Expressiveness and Associated Features

ontological consistency within and among components. A notable revision in this context is the dissociated treatment of Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints, the refined treatment of the Object component, and the reconceptualization of the Or else as a semantic linkage of individual statements (vertical nesting ), as opposed to being a distinctive component. The identified components systematically combine to form distinctive types of institutional statements, alongside a novel elementary statement form, the atomic institutional statement, that captures essential institutional meaning in its elementary form by decomposing nested institutional statements – aimed at capturing institutional content at detail, and operating as the default unit of analysis. With the same objective, comprehensiveness, in mind, the IG introduces a complementary constitutive syntax that captures the specification and parameterization of institutional features, in contrast to the regulative syntax primarily focused on the regulation of existing behavior. The features introduced at the IG Core level provide the basis for a coarse structural analysis of institutional statements, primarily targeted as a basis to establish refined statistical assessment in the tradition of the original Institutional Grammar (see Chapter 2 for an overview).

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

235

IG Extended (introduced in Chapter 5), as the next higher level of expressiveness, shifts the perspective on institutional statements by motivating the analyst to move beyond a component-centric linguistic interpretation, and to focus on the detection of richer institutional patterns expressed in the syntactic components of institutional statements, introduced to as component-level nesting, to draw out implied statement linkages that signal the interdependency of activity in an institutional setting. Combining the varying forms of nesting introduced, IG 2.0 provides the basis for the compositional analysis of structural features of institutional settings, including combining the fine-grained and comprehensive characterization of activity embedded in institutional statements (horizontal nesting) with the bird’s eye perspective on statement interdependencies that operate across statements, including the referencing of preceding or embedded statements (component-level nesting), as well as the linkage of institutional consequences (vertical nesting). With this shift in perspective, IG Extended provides the foundations for a comprehensive analytical reconstruction of structural features of the statements, and, in consequence, the entire institutional setting in compositional form. This principle is abstractly visualized in Fig. 6.4, with elementary composi-

Fig. 6.4 Structural Composition Patterns for Nested Institutional Statements

236

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

tional patterns shown on the left side, and an illustrative composition on the right side, that further annotates the exemplary structural nature of the statements. The structural generalizations afforded by this approach essentially reflect the Morphology of institutional statements, capturing the type of the atomic structures of statements, alongside the ways in which they are linked to capture the form of institutional statements. Capturing individual statements, and their interlinkages with other institutional statements, at large, exposes the structure of the entire institutional setting, an aspect this book will return to in Chapter 8. In addition to expressing structural information in terms of Institutional State or activities, alongside inter-statement linkages, IG Extended introduces a richer qualification of context based on the Context Taxonomy, offering the basis for an extended embedding of statements in a general context structure. By capturing a wide range of environmental embeddings, the IG paves the way for a richer analysis of context-dependent interpretation of institutional data within and across datasets. Combined, the features introduced under the label IG Extended facilitate deep structural analysis, providing the basis for the establishment of advanced complexity metrics that capture the interlinkage of statements, and their configurational arrangements, alongside advanced network analyses that capture these features. Beyond these incremental refinements, the analytical shift to compositional patterns enables a constructionist perspective on institutional analysis as applied in the area of computational studies, be it to afford richer structural analysis, or to simulate institutional arrangements in artificial societies, either by parameterization or the endogenous generation of institutional statements (e.g., Frantz et al., 2015; Smajgl et al., 2008). The introduction of the structural features captured under the label IG Extended provides the basis for the introduction of Hybrid Institutional Statements in Sect. 5.2; statements that combine features of regulative and constitutive statements introduced throughout the chapter. The conceptualization of hybrid institutional statements responds to the surrounding theoretical debate on the ontological distinctiveness of regulative and constitutive statements, but more importantly, the empirical need to capture statements not expressed exclusively in regulative or constitutive form, or whose interpretation is contingent on the applied analytical lens. The consideration of Hybrid Institutional Statements supports the

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

237

comprehensive representation of institutional features, a central objective of the IG, but further offers a response to the ongoing theoretical discourse. The highest level of expressiveness, IG Logico (introduced in this chapter), moves beyond the structural assessment of statements, and introduces a semantic layer that revisits encoded information with the objective to extract not only structural detail (as afforded on IG Extended), but detailed institutional meaning by systematically annotating encoded components based on general extensible taxonomies customized to respond to specific analytical objectives. Drawing particular attention to the linkages of statements within and beyond a given policy, IG Logico further envisions the use of consistent annotations of internal and external statement linkages to provide assessments under consideration of their systemic embedding in the broader institutional context. Enabling the logical treatment of encoded information on this level, formal syntax and semantics are provided, alongside a set of generic transformations that retain institutional meaning. This affords further abstraction from the underlying structural representation, an aspect relevant for the logical assessment in the form of reasoning, and for validity and integrity assessments across varying scopes, ranging from statements to encoded institutional information in entirety (e.g., policy). As for IG Extended, IG Logico works toward comprehensive catchment of institutional settings, but extends to the establishment of computational tractability, affording the New Institutional Grammar transformational opportunities in the analysis of institutional design. IG Logico accommodates this by preparing the IG for a wide range of analytical use cases that rely on the tailored use of the Grammar, an aspect explored further below. Fig. 6.5 provides an integrated overview of the central concepts of IG 2.0, organizing its features by components and syntactic forms of statements across all levels of expressiveness. Appendix A complements this with a semi-formal structural overview of institutional statements, reflecting the variable forms (combinations, atomic) and kinds (regulative, constitutive) of institutional statements and their structural linkages. With the introduced concepts, the analyst may seek guidance on the selection of features pertinent for a given study, but may also be left with the impression that the individual features introduced as part of

238

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 6.5 Institutional Grammar Overview

the IG are invariably organized by and linked to levels of expressiveness. The first concern, the need for methodological guidance, will be addressed in the upcoming Chapter 7, which includes guidelines for the general planning of studies using the IG, alongside considerations related to analytical objectives, selection of relevant IG features, and preparation and execution of the operational coding (see Chapter 7). Responding to the need to customize the IG feature set, the IG 2.0 further includes principles, referenced as IG Profiles, that allow for the accommodation or configuration of specific feature compositions. Inasmuch as the features are organized by levels of expressiveness, IG Profiles act as aides to group features for analyses that do not follow stereotypical objectives, but instead require a flexible composition of features that capture structural and semantic information of institutional design. Reasons can be manifold, including varying study objectives and techniques and available institutional data, and may inadvertently lead to the need to selectively consider or forego features associated with a given

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

239

level of expressiveness. This can include the entire omission of components from the analysis (e.g., if contextual information or consequences are of limited concern), as well as the selective expansion of the feature set by drawing on features introduced on higher levels of expressiveness. Studies that apply the parsing of institutional statements on the IG Core level could, for instance, selectively draw on the context characterizations based on the Context Taxonomy without adopting the remaining features offered by IG Extended (which the Context Taxonomy is associated with).21 Alternatively, studies that operate on the IG Extended level may selectively include features from IG Logico (e.g., statement references), while, at the same time, ignore select features of IG Extended (e.g., the Object-Property Hierarchy). The IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020) provides a comprehensive overview of IG features and details the tailored specification of specific feature configurations. While the tailoring of the IG to study design objectives is of central concern, the accurate characterization of the flavor of IG is equally important to ensure the replicability of the parsing and further treatment of institutional information. Given the broad feature set, a precise feature description is further important as a means to establish the principal comparability (or lack thereof) of datasets originally encoded for different analytical objectives in mind, e.g., for the purpose of comparative studies, or to support machine coding efforts.22 This conceptual introduction of the IG, and specifically in its incarnation as IG 2.0, provides a rich set of features that show the variable forms in which the Institutional Grammar can extract institutional information on a structural level in the form of institutional statements, or selectively apply deep structural parsing to leverage institutional information that serves advanced analytical objectives, such as the reconstruction of institutional settings and their structural analysis. Establishing computational tractability, while drawing the semantic linkage to concepts embedded in the analyst’s domain positions this refined, then, New Institutional

21 Such feature composition would be characterized as IG Core+C, with further details discussed in the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). 22 Considerations related to objective-agnostic encoding of institutional statements has found brief discussion in Sect. 5.2 and will be further discussed in Chapter 7. The conclusion in Chapter 9 will further reiterate the importance of rigid documentation of process and data structures.

240

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Grammar as a theoretically integrated concept that can serve as an interdisciplinary interface to facilitate the interaction of researchers of different backgrounds based on a shared conceptual basis the IG provides. At the same time, it can support novel analyses in areas that study institutions in form and institutions in use, and their dynamics (based on the harmonized representation of institution types). The layered, feature-rich annotation afforded by the IG further enables the analysis of encoded institutional information by means of different techniques, including ones that may not have found application to date. Following the comprehensive introduction of the IG in this and the preceding chapters, Chapter 7 provides general methodological guidance relevant for the design of studies applying the IG, and furthermore provides the analyst with an introduction into operational coding principles. With the provided outlook, this chapter concludes the Foundations part of this book, with the remaining chapters turning to the Application of the reviewed concepts. As an initial step toward this end, the following chapter introduces an accessible syntactic representation that complements the primarily semantic focus emphasized throughout this earlier part of the book. Chapter 8 then turns to the exposition of analytical opportunities associated with the Institutional Grammar.

References Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B. (2003). The structure of the framenet database. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 281–296. https://doi. org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.281 Boella, G., van der Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computation and Mathematical Organizational Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9537-7 Bodansky, D. (2016). The legal character of the Paris agreement. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12154 Bradner, S. (1997). Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 2119. Brady, U. (2020). Robust Conservation Anarchy: Comparing Treaty Institutional Design for Evidence of Ostrom’s Design Principles, Fit, and Polycentricity (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.

6

INSTITUTIONAL GRAMMAR 2.0 …

241

Carlson, G. N. (1984). Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics, 22(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1984.22.3.259 Ceci, M., Butler, T., O’Brien, L., & Al Khalil, F. (2018). Legal patterns for different constitutive rules. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10791. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_7 Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach & Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Rinehart, Winston. Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Nowostawski, M. (2015). Modelling dynamic normative understanding in agent societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v16i4.1128 Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2020). Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08937 Harvard Law Review Association. (2015). The Bluebook: A uniform system of citation (20th ed.). Harvard Law Review Association. Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10. 2307/785533 Katz, D. M., Dolin, R., & Bommarito, M. J. (Eds.) (2021). Legal informatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316529683 Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009452 Madison, O. M. (2005). The origins of the IFLA study on functional requirements for bibliographic records. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 39(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v39n03_02 McNamara, P. (2006). Deontic logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, 7 , 197– 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80029-4 Palmirani, M., Sperberg, R., Vergottini, G., & Vitali, F. (2018). Akoma Ntoso Version 1.0 Part 1: XML Vocabulary, OASIS Standard. http://docs.oasisopen.org/legaldocml/akn-core/v1.0/os/part1-vocabulary/akn-core-v1.0os-part1vocabulary.html Schneider, N., Prange, J., Blodgett, A., Hwang, J. D., Moeller, S. R., Srikumar, V., Stern, A., Bitan, A., & Abend, O. (2018). Comprehensive supersense disambiguation of English prepositions and possessives. ACL 2018 - 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference (Long Papers), vol. 1, 185–196. https://doi.org/10.18653/ v1/p18-1018

242

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L. R., & Huigen, M. (2008). Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO Sequence. Advances in Complex Systems, 2(11), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1142/S02195259 0800157X Staab, S., & Studer, R. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook on ontologies. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3 von Wright, G. H. (1951). Deontic logic. Mind, 60(237), 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1093/mind/LX.237.1 Watkins, C., & Westphal, L. M. (2016). People don’t talk in institutional statements: A methodological case study of the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 44, 98–122. https://doi.org/10. 1111/psj.12139 Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (Eds.). (2018). Theories of the policy process (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284

CHAPTER 7

Methodological Guidance for Encoding Institutional Information

7.1 The IG Coding Process: Planning, Execution, Assessment Following the extensive review of the core features of the IG 2.0 in the preceding chapters, this chapter turns to methodological aspects related to the IG Coding Process. The coding process is described as consisting of three stages: (i) Planning; (ii) Execution; and (iii) Assessment. Generally, the description provided in this chapter walks the institutional analyst through the process of transforming institutional data into IG parsed institutional information which can subsequently be analyzed using the analyst’s technique of choice, and in accordance with his/her analytical objectives. Institutional data are those captured in institutions as they normally exist in their respective domains. For example, public policies which have undergone no processing or coding are considered institutional data, as are written transcripts of descriptions by community members of conventions that govern their behavior within a given domain. Institutional information, in the context of an IG application, is institutional data which have been processed and coded in accordance with the IG (i.e., by institutional statements and syntactic components). The final step involves an assessment of the encoding based on reliability tests so as to establish consistency and quality of the coded institutional information. Below, the individual phases Planning, Execution, and Assessment of the IG coding process are discussed in turn. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_7

243

244

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

7.2

Planning

The Planning phase of the IG coding process involves the institutional analyst’s consideration of what and how institutional data will be coded, as pertinent to his/her analytical objectives. As with any research study, each institutional analysis is motivated by different analytical objectives that will inform how data to be analyzed are to be collected, what tools will be used for data collection, what aspects of the data will be analyzed, and what data analysis techniques are appropriate for analyzing collected data given the structure of the data as well as what insights the analyst seeks to draw from them. For the IG application specifically, key aspects relating to the identification of analytical objectives include the delineation of the particular institutional dynamics the institutional analyst is interested in evaluating as well as consideration of whether these institutional dynamics will be discerned through an assessment of formal or informal institutions. 7.2.1

Data Collection Considerations

The design of the encoding process crucially depends on the nature and source of the encoded data, as well as the scope of the data collected. Associated considerations are discussed in the following. 7.2.1.1 Formal vs. Informal Institutional Data The means for collecting formal versus informal institutional data can be substantially different. For the collection of formal institutional data, the institutional analyst is likely to rely on some form of archival research, whereas the collection of informal institutional data is likely to entail primary data collection (e.g., participant observation, interviews). Collection of the latter may also involve archival research; in cases, for example, where an institutional analyst seeks to draw understanding of community practices through a review of documents, field notes, historical accounts, etc. For simulation studies that leverage institutional data for model parameterization, the institutional analyst may rely on formal or informal institutional data collected through the various means described above. Simulations may also be the source of data collection, insofar as modelers are often interested in evaluating institutional data that emerge through the modeling exercise. 7.2.1.2 Scoping Institutional Data One key consideration relating to the collection of institutional data is that of institutional scope; or more specifically, consideration of

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

245

sufficient capturing of institutional data to adequately assess institutional dynamics of interest. This can be a challenge in the collection of both informal and formal institutional data. When collecting informal institutional data, the analyst has to ensure through retrieval of multiple observations that reported practices are shared among a relevant set of actors within a particular domain, and that the analyst reaches a point of “data saturation,” the point at which new institutional data are not observed among collected observations. The first of these challenges is ameliorated for the collection of formal institutions, as their “shared” applicability is evidenced by their enactment and application by a entity commonly recognized as a governing authority. A different challenge that arises in the case of formal institutions is that relevant institutional data may be spread out over a number of different policies. Understanding of which formal institutions, or parts of formal institutions, the institutional analyst needs to collect to support his/her aims, requires contextual understanding. 7.2.2

Tool Support

The second aspect of planning is consideration of the tools/techniques that the institutional analyst will use to generate and analyze institutional information, which may be the same. Current practice tends to rely on spreadsheet and text annotation software for generating institutional information, and network analysis and statistical software for analyzing institutional information. On the generation side, the use of spreadsheet software enables the institutional analyst to capture institutional information in tabular form. Referencing current practice, in spreadsheets, institutional analysts typically parse institutional statements listed by row by syntactic components listed across columns (individual syntactic components are typically captured in individual columns). This obviously necessitates manual processing of institutional data (i.e., manually placing institutional data into columns). The tabular representation of institutional information, where information corresponding to particular statements and particular components is stacked in discrete cells, enables the analyst to easily observe the specific information of which individual statements are comprised, but also easily observe how specific information across statements compares. Text annotation software enables tagging of institutional data according to IG relevant labels. Unlike spreadsheet-based coding, where

246

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

information is placed within different cells, the institutional analyst need not engage in any manipulation of institutional data to engage in tagging. Other requisites for tagging information include uploading of institutional data into the annotation software in a software compatible file format, and the creation of labels according to which institutional data will be tagged. Generation of institutional information using text annotation software may be more efficient than if using spreadsheet software, given the lack of need to manually manipulate institutional data into tabular form, but it does not readily support cross-statement comparisons. For the purpose of coding institutional statements, specifically, this book introduces a variant of the latter approach by drawing on a purpose-built custom tool, IG Parser, alongside companion resources (e.g., codebook, software), available under https://newinstitutionalgr ammar.org, that facilitate the process. Details will be discussed in the context of the operational encoding process. An important criterion for the form (and potentially means) by which data are encoded are determined by the analytical use, examples of which are discussed in Chapter 8. The brief overview of tools and techniques offered here merely serves to show the different options used by convention, and variable utilities thereof, that analysts might consider as they plan to engage in an IG coding. 7.2.3

Determining applicable Institutional Grammar Feature Set

A third, important, aspect of planning for IG coding, is the identification of the IG 2.0 levels and features that one will engage. In particular, the institutional analyst must decide whether coding will be done according to the IG Core, IG Extended, or IG Logico levels of expressiveness; acknowledging that even when coding at one level, the analyst can engage select coding features that associate with other levels (see discussion in Sect. 6.2, and variable analytical use in Chapter 8). For example, the institutional analyst may decide to code institutional data at the IG Core level, but classify institutional information corresponding to the Context component according to the Context Taxonomy (a feature associated with coding at the IG Extended level). Similarly, during the Planning phase, the institutional analyst may also decide to code institutional data according to select features from within a particular level; for example, only code Attributes, Aim, and Objects as specified at the IG Core level. Again, the choice of levels and features to engage will be informed by

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

247

the analytical objectives, tools, and techniques the analyst plans to engage in his/her study. Generally, however, the following summary of features associated with different levels of expressiveness and related selection heuristics may help guide the institutional analyst’s choice.1 7.2.3.1 Summary of Key Features by Level IG Core (Chapter 4) facilitates coding following a fundamental syntactic structure, capturing in basic form Attributes, Deontic, Aim, Object, Context (differentiating between Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints ), and Or else statements in the regulative realm and Constituting Properties, Modal, Constituted Entity, Constitutive Function, Context and Or else statements in the constitutive realm. IG Core also accommodates statement-level nesting (horizontal and vertical) as well as Hybrid Institutional Statements.2 In practice, this involves parsing institutional data to the atomic statement level (see Sect. 4.2.2), with referencing of logical connections among atomic statements, which signal how one or more atomic statements configure to form composite institutional statements. This level of encoding is suited for comparatively simple institutional statements that largely follow the basic regulative or constitutive structure. Of the three levels of expressiveness, IG Core is considered to be the least computationally tractable; meaning that the institutional information that results from coding of institutional data at the IG Core level offers limited machine-interpretability, limiting most analytical applications to component-oriented descriptive statistics (see Sect. 8.1). Coding at the IG Extended level (Chapter 5) enables the institutional analyst to capture the syntactic structure of institutional statements in greater detail (deep structure). For regulative statements, this involves the fine-granular encoding of Actors and Objects, along with complex property relationships. Furthermore, it enables for both regulative and constitutive statements, a detailed encoding of Context, such as the characterization of statement dependencies, and categorization based on circumstantial aspects of conditions and constraints (e.g., temporal, spatial, procedural aspects). IG Extended also accommodates 1 Where acquainted, the reader may forego the following summary of key features. 2 While these are introduced in the context of deep structural parsing under IG

Extended, this is due to the lack of component-level nesting on IG Core level; the principles of linking regulative and constitutive statements, however, are equally applicable on IG Core level (albeit in more coarse-grained form).

248

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

component-level nesting, capturing of Object-Property hierarchies, and, necessarily, hybrid and polymorphic institutional statements. Choosing to encode on this level may be motivated by the complexity of institutional data (e.g., complex statements involving embedded object linkages, or extensive statement interdependencies), but also by analytical objectives, such as the operationalization of the extracted institutional information in advanced computational models that require the explicit actor and activity representations, alongside richer context characterization. This latter point reflects that IG Extended accommodates some computational application, but therein focuses on a largely structural perspective, whereas IG Logico augments this with a customizable semantic perspective. Coding at the IG Logico level (Chapter 6) enables the analyst to derive more sophisticated understanding of semantic relationships embedded in and among institutional statements based on institutional statement classification across syntactic components; for example, improved understanding of actor roles, explicit references between statements, as well as inference of actor obligations tacitly expressed in the coded document. As a point of contrast, whereas at the IG Core and IG Extended levels syntactic classification of institutional statements is a final goal of the encoding exercise, at the IG Logico level, the goal is to build on syntactic classification by leveraging this coding toward the identification of institutional semantics that relay functional and/or relational information of interest to the institutional analyst. 7.2.3.2 Heuristics for Feature Selection Associated with the variable opportunity of coding at different levels of expressiveness as described above, the following questions and associated heuristics may be helpful in guiding at which level to code. These questions and heuristics should not be considered exclusively; coding choices will be informed by various considerations reflected in different questions and heuristics. Heuristic 1: Based on the institutional analyst’s general understanding of the institution(s) to be coded, are related institutional data observed to be relatively simple or complex in kind? If institutional data are observed to follow a relatively simple structural form, coding at the IG Core level may be appropriate. If more complex, coding at the IG Extended or IG Logico level may be more appropriate, given that the features associated with these levels are more amenable to capturing statement complexity. Heuristic 2: Is the institutional analyst interested in basic or comprehensive, and syntactic and/or semantic classification? If a basic syntactic

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

249

classification, the coder will likely find an IG Core level coding suitable. If a comprehensive, syntactic, and semantic classification, the coder will find an IG Logico level coding suitable. If a comprehensive syntactic classification and partial semantic classification, an IG Extended level coding will likely be appropriate. Heuristic 3: Is the institutional analyst interested in engaging manual methods (e.g., manual coding or computer-assisted analysis) or computational methods (e.g., automated classification or agent-based modeling) in either the generation or use of institutional information for analytical purposes? If the analyst only intends to rely on manual methods, coding at the IG Core level will likely be sufficient. If the analyst plans to rely partially or fully on computational methods, coding at the IG Extended and IG Logico levels is suggested. To reiterate, the analyst need not be restricted to coding by one level. While coding at one level of expressiveness, the analyst may also choose to code institutional statements along select features corresponding to other levels. Further, the analyst may choose to only code statements along with a limited set of features corresponding with one particular level. This limited coding may entail only coding institutional statements along select syntactic components (e.g., Attributes, Objects, Aim). Critically, the IG 2.0, in comprehensively outlining coding features associated with three levels of expressiveness, is specifically designed to accommodate flexibility in IG coding to support diverse analytical aims. One additional point worth highlighting relating to the choice of level at which to code is the backward compatibility of coding at different levels. Recall that parsing of institutional information corresponding to syntactic components becomes more granular as one moves from the IG Core to IG Extended to IG Logico level. That is, institutional information undergoes a greater level of decomposition as one moves across these levels. This means that decomposed information can be recomposed to capture coding at levels prompting less expressiveness. The practical implication of this is that institutional analysts engaging a multi-pass coding, coding at a different level with each pass, do not need to change the basic syntactic coding of institutional data. Rather, the analyst will simply further decompose and classify information linked to the basic A-D-IB-C/E-M-F-P-C syntactic components (referenced in idiomatic symbol order) when moving from an IG Core to an IG Extended and/or IG Logico coding. Alternatively, the analyst might merely concatenate (i.e., combine) information within specific syntactic categories to reflect coding at a lower level of expressiveness.

250

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

7.2.4

Determining Data Processing Practices

During the planning phase of the coding process, the institutional analyst may also choose to engage in more detailed considerations about how institutional information will be captured as consistent with his/her aims, tooling choices, and intended analysis. One overarching consideration, which has several more specific considerations, is how closely institutional information should match institutional data. For several reasons, coded information may not correspond exactly to institutional data. One of these reasons is that institutional data may contain implied information which the analyst may wish to explicitly recognize when generating institutional information. 7.2.4.1 Inferred/Implied Information Take, for example, the following two statements, which may appear consecutively in a policy document. Farmer must submit an organic system plan. In addition, a copy of the organic system plan should be retained.

The consecutive presentation of these two statements in a policy would support the inference that the Attributes component of the second statement is “Farmer,” just like in the first statement. Thus, when generating institutional information (i.e., coding) for the second statement, the analyst may wish to imply “Farmer” as the Attributes component with some notation indicating that this is implied information. In practice, the implication of information – across syntactic components is common. However, the choice of coding tool may affect the possibility of doing so. Some text annotation tools, for instance, only allow the analyst to label information, not to manipulate text. 7.2.4.2 Handling Stylistic Features Other times, the institutional analyst may wish to make accommodations to account for stylistic qualities of institutional data. For example, use of plurals for types of actors (e.g., reference to “farmers” versus “farmer” ) or selective stemming of information (e.g., “Organic Program Official” versus “Official” ). In accordance with the analyst’s aims, it may be useful to capture institutional information in singular/plural form, stemmed/unstemmed, or lemmatized, form, even if this departs from its presentation in institutional data. Finally, the analyst may choose to eliminate prepositions or stop words (common terms that do not carry

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

251

distinctive meaning, such as “a”, “the” ) as institutional data are coded. The latter two aspects may be of particular concern for analysts engaging in computational methods (e.g., social network analysis, agent-based institutional modeling), but should in any case be carefully considered and documented. 7.2.4.3 Wide or Narrow Semantic Interpretation Yet another consideration that an institutional analyst may wish to entertain during the planning phase is whether a wide or narrow perspective will be adopted in statement coding. Essentially, with this consideration, the institutional analyst is deciding to what extent broader institutional context will be taken into account during the coding. This is of particular relevance when encoding constitutive statements, since the resolution of implied statement linkages may lead to varying characterizations, and correspondingly, coding, and ultimately hinges on shared knowledge of context and coder experience. Details are discussed in the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). 7.2.5

Coder Selection

A final aspect of the planning phase of the coding process we reference is decision making regarding who will be engaged in coding, and relatedly, how many coders will be engaged. The institutional analyst will want to ensure that coders have the requisite knowledge and experience to engage in coding. As well, when multiple coders are engaged, the analyst will want to make sure that mechanisms for determining, evaluating, and responding to concerns about intercoder reliability are identified. Intercoder reliability is discussed in more detail in later parts of this chapter (see Sect. 7.4). Especially where novice coders or coders with variable experience/background are involved, initial pilot coding exercises should be considered.

7.3

Execution

The previous section outlined various points of consideration for institutional analysts as they prepare for coding. This section describes the actual execution of coding. 7.3.1

Data Selection

A first, and critical, step in the coding process is the review of institutional data that will be coded. Institutional data represented in policies or

252

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

written accounts of social conventions should be comprehensively read to ensure that the institutional analyst has a baseline understanding of institutional content and context, before institutional data are parsed at the statement and syntax level. This baseline understanding is crucial for the analyst’s ability to discern how institutional information represented in different institutional statements connects. Among the utilities of this is the improved ability to infer information where the implication is required to complete institutional statement coding. 7.3.2

Coding Platform Selection

A second step in the coding process is final decision-making regarding the platform that will be used for coding. It is recommended that this decision-making commence during the Planning phase. However, the analyst may be prompted to make more specific decisions during this step about which and how platforms will be engaged and/or designed to support coding, following the data familiarization encouraged as part of Step 1. 7.3.3

Preprocessing Institutional Data

A third step in the coding process involves organizing and basically manipulating institutional data to make it more amenable to coding, and in accordance with the institutional analyst’s study objectives. This step is generally referred to as preprocessing. The organization part of preprocessing entails an initial segmentation of institutional data by section, theme, or other institutionally relevant demarcation, and by the institutional statement. 7.3.3.1 Document Preprocessing For public policies, this initial segmentation typically involves demarcating institutional data by the preamble, section, subsection, etc., and then conducting an initial identification of institutional statements within different sections of the document. For written transcripts of social conventions, this initial segmentation might entail demarcating institutional data by type of activity of thematic focus, and then conducting an initial identification of institutional statements that share a common activity or thematic focus. Here the coder is advised to acquaint him/herself with conventions about document structure as pertaining to the field of study (an aspect that has been discussed in Sect. 6.1.3).

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

253

7.3.3.2 Statement Preprocessing For the initial identification of institutional statements, the analyst will partition institutional data noting generally the presence of particular content that corresponds to different syntactic components. A more careful parsing with finer attention to syntactic information will be conducted as part of the next coding steps. Generally, the analyst is looking for clauses that contain at least Attributes-Aim-Context component information or Constituted Entity-Constitutive Function-Context component information that can be initially identified as institutional statements, which may signal a composite institutional statement, but where component-level combinations exist (e.g., two logically linked activities), may also indicate multiple atomic institutional statements, or variably two linked statements that express different content (actor, activity, etc.) entirely. Institutional analysts working with formal institutional data (e.g., public policies) may find that sentences map to institutional statements, but this may not always be the case. Multiple statements can be present within a sentence, for example. Analysts working with informal institutional data (e.g., interview transcripts documenting social conventions), may find relatively few expressions of complete institutional statements, since oral speech often contains phrase fragments and elements of personal conversational style that may need to be sorted. The practical implication of this is that the institutional analyst may need to start implying information for necessary components to generate complete statements, as well as engage in additional preprocessing to account for stylistic features of the data. Given the nature of data, and these associated tasks, it is critical that the analyst has an understanding of the institutional setting. Basic manipulation of institutional statement information during this step entails removal of extraneous information from initially parsed institutional statements (e.g., removal of stop words as referenced above) as well as a simple modification of institutional information to account for punctuation features therein that may interfere with subsequent institutional coding. Some punctuation may hinder accurate parsing on institutional data by computers. Some level of preprocessing is likely to be required for either manual or automated coding; in any case, preprocessing can actually make coding easier. Preprocessing can make coding easier insofar as the coder may not have to accommodate in his/her coding unneeded or unwanted data or stylistic qualities of institutional data that may challenge coding. Again,

254

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

identification of what will be considered useful data and how stylistic features will be handled is urged during the Planning phase, once the institutional analyst has collected institutional data and thus has a sense of types and styles of content captured therein. Generally, easing the coding process through preprocessing yields at least two notable benefits. It can reduce the cognitive burden and time needed to engage in manual coding, and it can improve accuracy and by extension reliability of manual or automated coding. A fourth step in the coding process is the verification of institutional statements initially identified as part of step 3 to support syntactic decomposition. Verification in this case means ascertaining that candidate statements accord with defining syntactic and semantic features of regulative and constitutive statements. Principally, this means verifying that statements presumed to be regulative in kind at least contain Attributes, Aim, and Context, and that statements presumed constitutive in kind at least contain Constituted Entity, Constitutive Function, and Context components. The coder may find it useful to begin labeling verified institutional statements as regulative or constitutive, or polymorphic, insofar as the delineation can cognitively queue the coder to engage a particular syntax for statement decomposition. The analyst may also wish to label statements as monitored and consequential statements reflecting instances of vertical nesting (see Sect. 4.2.1.6). To enable both of the tasks referenced above – statement verification and labeling of statement type – the institutional analyst can consider the following general heuristics (the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020) offers refined heuristics for the distinction between statement types). Constitutive Statement Heuristic: Does the statement introduce or parameterize fundamental aspects of the action situation (boundaries, definition or modification of actors, actions, objects, artifacts, and associated affordances; endowment of status, such as rights or authority/power), and in doing so, define the positioning and constellation of entities in an institutional setting in which potentially regulated behavior is enacted? → If so, the statement is constitutive in kind. Regulative Statement Heuristic: Does the statement signal behavioral guidance for an unambiguously implied or explicitly identified actor by specifying duty and discretion, alongside potential sanctions for transgression? In doing so, does the statement draw on (i.e., makes implicit or explicit reference to) actors, actions, objects, or artifacts in an institutional setting? → If so, the statement is regulative in kind.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

255

Practical Considerations Practical considerations beyond the identification of individual statements pertain to establishing standardized statement patterns irrespective of the representation in the underlying institutional data. To this end, the following practical considerations apply: Statements may be expressed from the perspective of an enforcing entity (e.g., Official may administer sanction if driver …). In such cases practical guidelines should consider – either as part of the preprocessing, or the operational coding – whether such statements are to be reconstructed to be expressed in consistent form, e.g., from the perspective of the monitored entity (e.g., Driver must not violate, or else official …) – thus reflecting idiomatic Or else linkages of consequences. Alternatively, the enforcement perspective can apply. Specifically where analytical applications benefit from uniform representation (e.g., computational use), or even both forms (see Sect. 8.3.1 for operational details), a corresponding guidance should be considered. Details on the associated transformation is provided under Eq. (6.7). Another important decision is the division between the entity and property characterization in compound expressions. The “certified operation” can conceivably be treated as a compound entity, or be decomposed into core entity (“operation” ) and associated property (“certified” ). While the distinction is subject to the specific study, general considerations exist. Decomposition is in principle desirable, e.g., to differentiate between “certified” and “non-certified” operations for instance. However, the decomposition must be meaningful and not dissociate multi-token proper terms, or lead to a distinction that is mere syntactic reduction, but ignores the polysemous nature of terms. Examples include chemical agent and foreign agent, for which a separation into properties and entities would not render semantically valuable criteria for distinction. The latter specifically applies if the policy references variable properties for a given entity (such as the previously mentioned variably ‘certified’ or ‘uncertified’ agent). Establishing this clarity as part of the study design is important to improve the reliability of the encoded data. More details and additional considerations are discussed in the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). Finally, the general handling of the coding inclusiveness is of relevance. Does the coder retain, independent from potential reformulation, the complete linguistic content of the statement (e.g., including prepositions, articles, etc.), or are those removed during the coding process? If retained, which component are they associated with (i.e., the

256

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

component they follow, or the one they precede)? Preferences should be linked to the downstream analytical usage of institutional information and be determined as part of the study design process to ensure reliable coding. As indicated before, the IG 2.0 Codebook discusses associated considerations. The fifth step in the coding process is to actually engage in the syntactic decomposition of institutional statements. In the following sections, we provide examples of coded statements for reference. With each example there is a brief commentary highlighting the central qualities of the captured institutional information. Before turning to the operational coding, a coding convention used throughout the coding examples – as a formal correspondence to the semantics presented under Sect. 6.1.1 – is introduced. 7.3.3.3 IG Script The IG Script notation introduced in this context is an accessible formal syntax for the encoding of institutional statements following IG 2.0 that complements the semantic specification of the Institutional Grammar in Sect. 6.1.1. and is a concise correspondence to the visual representation used in the preceding sections. The principal syntax consists of explicitly identified natural language elements that are parenthesized, alongside a symbol signaling the associated component. A simple Attributes annotation is: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex1

The combination of such annotations then reflects a statement, as exemplified here

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex2

The ordering of components within a statement is arbitrary (as long as the association with the statement is retained, and specifically relevant for statement combinations introduced later). For instance, the coding

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex3

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

257

is treated equivalent to the example shown before. The purpose of flexible reordering is to support the readability of encoded statements by providing the option to align the order of encoded components with the original text. IG Script supports all IG components, namely • • • • • • • • • • • •

Attributes (A) Deontic (D) Aim (I) Direct Object (Bdir) Indirect Object (Bind) Activation Conditions (Cac) Execution Constraints (Cex) Constituted Entity (E) Modal (M) Constitutive Function (F) Constituting Properties (P) Or else (O)

Component properties are indicated based on the suffix “,p”, for instance: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex4

Where components have multiple values (e.g., two actions), these are explicitly specified as a logical combination signaled by the potential operators AND, XOR, or OR combination within the annotated component, for instance: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex5

Where components themselves exist multiple times, they are implicitly treated as being AND-combined, i.e.: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex6

This statement reflects the “accept and fulfill.”

258

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The embedding of NOT as a special component reflects the negation within its scope, i.e., applying to the component when embedded within component annotation, or variably the statement if outside a component annotation. For instance To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex7

negates the entire statement irrespective of operator position. In contrast, the following To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex8

only applies within the first Aim element, i.e., applied within a combination, the operator only refers to the associated element. Generally, in IG Script, any non-annotated text other than logical operators is ignored for analytical purposes, highlighting the IG’s focus on information that is essential to the characterization of the institutional content. At the same time, it allows for the retention in coded data, e.g., to support readability. Where multiple independent statements exist, their respective scope is indicated with braces. As with the case of multiple components, unless explicitly linked by logical operators, multiple statements are considered AND-combined Bdir

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex9

This effectively corresponds to the following encoding:

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex10

The final feature relevant for the interpretation is the notion of component-level and vertical nesting. Where components embed entire statements, the content is embedded in braces instead of parentheses and augmented with the corresponding component symbol. For instance

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

259

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex11

reflects the nested consequence captured in the “O{ … }” element. This principle applies to any other form of component-level nesting (e.g., “Cac{ … }”). Finally, annotations associated with specific components are signaled with square brackets, such as: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex12

This applies analogously to statements (e.g., “O[stype=consequence]{ … }”). Where multiple values apply for annotations, these are embedded in nested square brackets To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex13

Where multiple annotations exist (e.g., by drawing on multiple taxonomies), the corresponding annotations are comma-separated: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex14

Where square brackets appear inside the annotated text (other than with logical operators), they are conventionally used to reflect text reconstructed or inferred as part of the encoding process. In the following example, the value for the aim (‘[sends]’ ) is indicated as contextually inferred or reconstructed To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex15

As indicated before, this specific use of square brackets inside annotated text is merely conventional (as opposed to the mandated use to indicate semantic annotations or logical operators where existing).

260

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The complete syntax specification, as well as tool support for the parsing of encoded institutional statements is provided via the book resources websites.3 All IG Script-encoded examples in this and the following chapters are directly processable by the purpose-built reference parser implementation IG Parser ( see https://newinstitutionalgrammar. org/ig-parser), and can be explored interactively by clicking on the link below the corresponding IG Script-coded institutional statement examples. 7.3.4

Operational Coding of Institutional Statements

The example statements in this section have been coded at the IG Core level. By way of general coding guidance, as applicable to coding at any level of expressiveness, it is recommended that the analyst begin statement coding with identification of the Aim or Constitutive Function for regulative and constitutive statements, respectively. For regulative statements, following the identification of Aim, it is recommended that the analyst identify other necessary statement components – Attributes (i.e., actor linked to statement Aim) and Context (i.e., qualifier and/or instantiator of statement Aim). From there, the analyst should identify the presence of sufficient component information (i.e., Deontic, Object, and Or else information). In a similar vein, following the identification of the Constitutive Function, it is recommended that the analyst identify other necessary components of constitutive statements – Constituted Entity (i.e., Entity being constituted with the Constitutive Function) and Context. From there, the analyst should identify the presence of sufficient information (i.e., Modal, Constituting Properties, and Or else information). The reasons for starting statement coding with identification of the Aim or Constitutive Function are twofold. First, from a conceptual standpoint, it is logical to commence coding along with necessary components of institutional statements. Second, from a practical standpoint, this information is typically explicit. The analyst is likely to encounter few instances in which either the Aim or the Constitutive Function is not explicitly present. Even other necessary information – Attributes and Context /Constituted Entity and Context information – tend to be more frequently missing, thus prompting inference on the part of analyst. Attributes in formal institutional statements, for example, are

3 The IG resources website can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

261

often missing explicit reference given the tendency for statements to be written passively in public policies. In the following, selected examples are exemplified, with initial consideration of regulative statements, before turning to the consideration of constitutive statements. 7.3.4.1 Regulative Statement Examples Each example is positioned as raw data, followed by a prototypical encoding and elaboration. For the following examples, articles are kept outside annotations (i.e., are ignored), and prepositions are associated with the receiving component. ———————————————————— A student may request an Incomplete if the student has exceptional circumstances that prevent the student from fulfilling all course requirements on time.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex16

This example is of a complete institutional statement, in which all necessary components for regulative statements (A-I-C) are explicitly expressed. ———————————————————— Students are expected to attend all class sessions.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex17

This example is missing explicit reference to Context. However, the coding makes reference to an implicit Context—with an Activation Condition “at all times,” and an Execution Constraint “no constraints.” This is considered a default Context for instances of statements in which the Context is not explicit. It is not uncommon to encounter statements like this. Nor is it uncommon to encounter regulative statements in which the Attribute is not explicitly stated. Attributes are typically missing when statements are written in passive form. Attribute information can usually be inferred from information provided in immediately preceding or following statements, though sometimes the institutional analyst may need to look beyond spatially proximate statements to derive needed

262

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

information. As indicated above, implied information is indicated by the use of brackets within component coding. This example also highlights an instance of Deontic information that exists in clause form, rather than word form. Additional practical heuristics that help distinguish Activation Conditions from Execution Constraints are the semantic impact of their absence, or the effects of reconstruction. ———————————————————— If physical access to university is restricted, instructors shall deliver courses via online teaching platforms.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex18

Initially, the coder will assess whether the omitted context (here the physical access to university) changes the applicability of the regulated part of the statement. If the applicability changed, the Context of concern is an Activation Condition. A more specific assessment pertains to an attempted reconstruction of an Execution Constraint in terms of an Activation Condition: does the reconstruction in if-then form with the candidate component as conditional lead to a modification of the substantive meaning (or require extensive reconstruction) of the statement?4 If such is the case, the Context of concern reflects an Execution Constraint.5 ———————————————————— Instructors set course-specific policies on absences from scheduled class meetings.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex19

This example highlights a case in which the Direct Object of the statement has a property assigned to it, and in which the property is essentially 4 In this instance “If via online teaching platform, instructors shall …” reflects a substantive change in the meaning of the instruction. 5 Note that this statement foregoes the deep structural parsing of the Activation Condition associated with IG Extended. Coding corresponding to the latter are introduced later in this section.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

263

a purpose-oriented descriptor of the Object. As the Context Taxonomy accommodates a purpose/function characterization – recognizing that Context information sometimes describes the purpose or intent of an Aim or Constitutive Function – the analyst may confront the question of whether a clause like that included in the example statement (i.e., “on absences from scheduled meetings”) is in fact an Object descriptor or characterizes the activity’s purpose in the form of an Execution Constraint. If confronted with such a question, it may be useful to recall that Execution Constraints are specifically linked to the Aim, and in extension the Constitutive Function. Therefore, if the clause in question is activating or qualifying the Aim or Constitutive Function in purposive or functional terms, then it should be coded as Context, or more specifically, as Execution Constraint. If however, as done in the example, the clause is describing the purpose or function of an Object, then it should be coded as an Object Property. ———————————————————— A state will rely on the advice of recognized clinical experts and scientists to review and approve the safety and effectiveness of every vaccine that is authorized by the federal government for distribution.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex20

This example highlights instances where a statement contains logically combined information associated with different syntactic components – “recognized clinical experts [AND] scientists” with the Direct Object Property field and “review [AND] approve” and “the safety [AND] effectiveness” with the Execution Constraint field. Generally, this statement also showcases that logically combined information can also be linked to any syntactic component. Note that the Execution Constraint carries further nested institutional state information. However, this is not decomposed on the IG Core level exemplified here (parsing of component-level nested statements is discussed below). ———————————————————— A sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel that can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.

264

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex21

This example shows an instance in which the Attribute of the statement is actually not an animate actor (i.e., “sailing vessel”) but it is coded as such because the statement phrasing animates (anthropomorphizes) the inanimate actor, by ascribing it agency in lieu of its operator. ———————————————————— Businesses must submit a financial report annually, or else authorizing body may suspend operating license.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex22

This example presents a case that includes an Or else (i.e., consequential statement) that nests on a monitored statement. The monitored statement (“Businesses must submit a financial report annually …”) and consequential statement (“… authorizing body may suspend operating license”) are both regulative in kind and are thus each coded in accordance with regulative statement syntactic components. The monitored statement also differentiates the Direct Object (“report”) from the Direct Object Property (“a financial”). As a general heuristic, properties are distinguished from Objects and Attributes when there are multiple kinds of particular Attributes or Objects to which the Property is linked, and the Property Qualifier plays an important distinguishing role. Using the example, if a particular set of statements reference multiple types of reports, then the “financial” qualifier is important for knowing which type of report will be acted upon with the application of an institutional statement, and this becomes easier to detect in the analysis process when the qualifier is labeled as a property. If however, there is only one type of report – a financial report – referenced in the set of statements, then the unique classification becomes less important. ———————————————————— If farmer fails to submit an organic system’s plan by the end of the calendar year, the certifier may suspend farmer’s operating license.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

265

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex23

The referenced statement is consequential in kind; that is, it specifies a sanctioning provision linked to a particular activity, or rather the failure to perform a particular activity. The monitored activity itself is not captured within a separate institutional statement, however, but rather is captured within the Context (in this case, Activation Condition) of the statement. In such cases – when the monitored activity to which a consequential statement is linked is presented in the Context clause of the consequential statement – it is advisable to engage by default to an IG Extended coding of the statement, which accommodates treatment of Context clauses as separable statements that can be syntactically parsed. In this case, the Context clause is transformed into a complete regulative, monitored statement to which the consequential statement represented in the non-Context part of the statement is linked.6 7.3.4.2 Constitutive Statement Examples ———————————————————— Board Directors are “fiduciaries” of the organization they serve. To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex24

This statement presents an example of a prototypical statement in which an entity is being defined. The example statement uses the Constitutive Function “are.” Other common Constitutive Functions found in such statements are “is” and “are defined as.” ———————————————————— All individuals 16 years of age and older that reside in the United States are eligible by law to receive the COVID vaccine.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex25

6 The formal qualification of this transformation is provided in Eq. (6.7) in Sect. 6.1.4.

266

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

This statement specifies status (captured in the Constituting Properties ), associated with a particular Constituted Entity through the Constitutive Function “are eligible.” In so doing, the Constitutive Function in essence ascribes rights to the Constituted Entity (i.e., “individuals 16 years and older that reside in the United States”). The Execution Constraint captures the contextual qualification of the Constitutive Function, i.e., how this status is conferred. Note that this statement offers a potential reconstruction in terms of a conditional specification (following the Properties-Conditions Transformation principles highlighted in Eq. (6.8) in Sect. 6.1.4) by moving the property characterization into the conditional clause (e.g., “if individuals are 16 years and older and reside in the United States, they are eligible …”). ———————————————————— A Renewable Energy Generation Unit may qualify as a Class II Generation Unit subject to regulatory provisions.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex26

This statement, by identifying how a Constituted Entity enters into a particular position, essentially establishes eligibility criteria for occupying a position. Coders will frequently find eligibility, phrased variably, as the Constitutive Function in constitutive institutional statements, though the statements may not only be referencing boundaries for occupying positions. ———————————————————— An approval granted by the Department shall be a temporary approval only.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex27

This statement offers an example of a constitutive statement in which “be” is the Constitutive Function. “Be” is a ubiquitous Function that coders will find in statements defining Entities based on explicit definition or ascription.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

267

Where constitutive statements assume different purposes, such as signaling a functional relationship, the encoding of the Constitutive Function captures this quality. ———————————————————— Inspection procedures are regulated by provisions laid out in Section 2. To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex28

In this example, the quality of functional linkage is captured in the Constitutive Function that links Constituted Entity and Constituting Properties explicitly. This similarly applies for the assignment of organizational relationship (e.g., “is embedded in” ), status (e.g., rights, authority), or any other form of functional relationship recognized for constitutive statements as captured in the Constitutive Functions Taxonomy (see Sect. 6.1.2.4). ———————————————————— Audits are financial inspections conducted by a certified authority licensed according to this Act.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex29

This example showcases intra-statement referencing. The statement links information contained therein to “the Act” more broadly. Other types of intra-statement linkages commonly observed in statements are the linking of statement information to particular sets of other institutional statements. In the case of formal institutions, linkages can be made to the same Act in which the statement occurs, or a different Act. Or, in the same case, linkages can be made to sets of other institutional statements in the same or different Act. Note that this statement, as well as all other preceding are coded according to IG Core principles. The following statements will incrementally introduce features associated with IG Extended and IG Logico. 7.3.4.3 Hybrid Institutional Statement Examples Statements that embed both regulative and constitutive statements are hybrid statements, with polymorphic statements reflecting a special form,

268

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

given that they can be variably expressed in regulative and constitutive form. The following examples highlight various complex statements. Note that the coding for the examples is indented to ease the interpretation for the reader.7 ———————————————————— The item in question must have the following characteristics: be duly passed by the Board of Directors, establish rule or convention of general application, and must be mission-consistent.”

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex30

This example in particular highlights instances in which an institutional statement can be broken into multiple atomic statements, some of which are constitutive in kind and some of which are regulative in kind. Specifically, the component-level combination of Constituting Properties (by AND operators) in definitions is a commonplace occurrence. Note that the coded statement highlights the inference of implied component values considered as part of the coding process, so as to make their interpretation overt. 7.3.4.4 Polymorphic Institutional Statement Examples As mentioned above, polymorphic institutional statements allow encoding in terms of both regulative and constitutive statements, depending on contextual interpretation, and more importantly, the focus on encoding, with narrow focus immediately and only focused on the statement of concern, or a wide focus that takes into account the nature of the statements that a particular statement is linked to. This decision is a central parameter to be determined as part of the study design (see Sect. 7.2). 7 IG Script allows for arbitrary formatting of encoded text.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

269

A more detailed discussion is offered as part of the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). Board members serve as organizational leaders. Coded in regulative form (as a descriptive strategy), along with stylistic adjustment, but under retention of component order (to visualize the analogy to constitutive coding): To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex31

Coded in constitutive form (reflecting a constitutive rule): To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex32

———————————————————— Faculty are responsible for assigning grades. Coded in regulative form: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex33

Coded in constitutive form: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex34

The two examples listed in this section, in being polymorphic statements, represent the special case of being coded as regulative and/or constitutive. Statements are generally polymorphic in kind if the actor responsible for affording the functional linkage in the constitutive statement can be unambiguously inferred. The notable difference is the general characterization of how aspects are conceptually characterized. The coding above exemplifies how each statement would be coded according to the regulative and constitutive syntaxes. In this particular instance, the statements reflect the endowment of responsibility on the constitutive side, which is operationalized as a duty (assuming the establishment in a formally recognized forum) on the regulative side.

270

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

7.3.4.5 Component-Level Nesting (IG Extended) Whereas the previous statements highlight the general coding of components and illustrate distinctive considerations, the following statement features the coding of structure embedded in components (see Sect. 5.1.3). ———————————————————— When an inspection, review, or investigation of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part, a written notification of noncompliance shall be sent to the certifying agent.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex35

This statement is complex in that it requires the reconstruction of the underlying statement from a structural perspective to reflect the institutional structure in terms of linked institutional state(ment)s following the AIC schema.8 Specifically, this involves reconstructing the sequence of events that condition the activity captured in the overall statement, namely “inspection,” followed by “revelation of non-compliance,” followed by “sending notification.” Reflecting this in the encoding, the statement captures two Activation Conditions. The first is the performance of an inspection (or variably review or investigation), which in fact is the precondition for the second one (the revelation of noncompliance).9 Moreover, the second Activation Condition exemplifies the nesting on the Object component to capture atomic institutional information captured therein (here the state specification of non-compliance, i.e., “accredited certifying agent is not in compliance with the Act …” ). Additional observations include the use of component-level combinations to express distinctive action or state alternatives captured in a 8 Modified or inferred component values are indicated using square brackets. 9 Recall that the ordering of components within atomic institutional statements is flex-

ible, i.e., the nested (first) Activation Condition could have been the first element in the second higher-level Activation Condition.

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

271

single statement, alongside a reconstruction that resolves the performance of distinctive monitoring activities in active terms (i.e., “inspects, reviews, investigates” ). Note that reconstructions of such kind should find consideration during the Planning Phase (see Sect. 7.2) to ensure principal compatibility with analytical objectives and methodological principles, alongside operational concerns for reliability (further details will be provided in Sect. 7.4). The encoding of deep structural information as presented here, including the resolution of patterns within components (i.e., the two Activation Conditions, and one Institutional State structure embedded in the Object ), is a feature associated with IG Extended. As indicated above, an extended discussion of the reconstruction principles, exemplified on a variant of the same statement, is offered in Sect. 5.1.3. While this statement retains the structure expressed in the original form, the nature of the statement itself expresses a sanctioning provision, i.e., is consequential in kind. The coder (and the study designer more generally) may consider affording the reconstruction in terms of the idiomatic consequential form by transforming the statement to reflect a linkage between monitored and consequential statements that accords with the statement linkage afforded by the Or else operator. The principles of this transformation are specified in Eq. (6.7) in Sect. 6.1.4, and further generalized in Sect. 8.3.1 (to extrapolate the statement from multiple perspectives). As indicated, the applicability of transformations as part of the coding process should be explicitly specified as part of the Planning step (see Sect. 7.2). 7.3.4.6 Object-Property Hierarchy (IG Extended) A specific feature of IG Extended is the introduction of complex entity relationships captured in the Object-Property Hierarchy (see Sect. 5.1.4). Specifically, the coder will frequently encounter not only multiple properties associated with a given object, but also recognize their nestedness across multiple levels, an aspect illustrated in the following example – an example previously encoded using IG Core. ———————————————————— Audits are financial inspections conducted by a certified authority licensed according to this Act.

272

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex36

The properties highlight noteworthy characteristics that warrant the encoding according to IG Extended, and more specifically, the ObjectProperty Hierarchy. Specifically, we can observe nested properties (i.e., “licensed according …” ), that is, properties that are associated with entities that are themselves linked to entities referenced in properties (“certified authority” ). Where multiple properties on a given level exist, and some of those carry specific nested properties, the former (i.e., parent properties) are indexed to retain the unique association between (parent) property and nested (child) property. This encoding ensures the unique association, but furthermore allows the coder to capture the dependencies of individual entities within and beyond the statements they are referenced in. The principles apply analogously to other components that associate with nested properties. Further examples exploring the full range of features of IG Extended are provided in the supplementary IG 2.0 Codebook. 7.3.4.7 Semantic Annotations (IG Logico) Highlighting the principles of semantic annotations and their operational representation, the following encoding features the same institutional statement shown before, but extends the encoding with distinctive semantic annotations that accord with the various taxonomies introduced in Sect. 6.1.2.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch7ex37

7

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

273

The example highlights the selective annotation, on the one hand, as well as the ability to specify multiple annotations, as well as nuanced second-order annotations linked to embedded value alternatives (e.g., Act vs. regulations in this part). Naturally, the nature and extent of annotation is subject to analytical objectives and necessities, and is discussed in Chapter 8. Notably, the overview of coded statements is intended to capture the principal coding approach, but does not capture nuances and detailed aspects of the coding process comprehensively. Rather, it links the methodological considerations that pertain to the study design more generally with the operationalization in terms of the coding exercise. Detailed coding instructions and study design guidance are provided as part of the IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). A comprehensive overview of relevant resources, including the specification of IG Script as well as tool support (such as the IG Parser reference implementation), can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org. Further considerations as part of the coding process – beyond planning and operational coding – include the assessment of coding quality in the form of reliability assessments, an aspect briefly discussed in the following section of this chapter.

7.4

Assessment

Having provided an example of IG coding according with the three levels of expressiveness, the discussion now turns to the third stage of the IG coding process – Assessment. In this section, the discussion focuses on the assessment of the validity of coded data and on the assessment of coding reliability, before we turn to the analysis of coded data toward particular research aims and using different forms of analytical techniques. With assessments of coding validity, the focus lies on ensuring that institutional information has been appropriately coded given aspects of the institutional domain. This is especially important because, as noted earlier in this chapter, analysts will often engage in the inference of institutional information to complete statement coding, let alone apply variable tacit conventions. Appropriate inference begs institutional and domanial understanding. To assess coding validity, the institutional analyst may seek to do additional archival research, particularly seeking information that

274

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

could aid in the verification of coding accuracy. Additionally, the institutional analyst may also consider soliciting feedback on coded data from domain experts. Coding reliability is assessed through intercoder reliability testing. Intercoder reliability testing (Gwet, 2014; O’Connor & Joffe, 2020) basically assesses whether multiple independent coders generate the same coding of institutional data. Reliable coding necessitates sufficient understanding of coding concepts, sufficient understanding of the institutional domain (as domain specific knowledge is crucial for correct interpretation and inference of institutional information), common understanding of how the institutional analyst will handle stylistic and other features of institutional data referenced earlier in this section, as well as common access to coding protocols, guides, or instructions. Intercoder reliability assessments require at least two coders per institutional dataset. These assessments may be easier to conduct when institutional analysts are working in teams rather than independently, again given the need to have domain-specific understanding. One convention in existing IG research is to assess percent agreement on statement and syntax level classification. It is recommended that a second coder code 10–20% of the institutional data coded by a first coder. Eighty percent agreement among coders is considered adequate agreement, by convention. Institutional analysts also rely on particular statistical measures for ascertaining coding reliability; for example, Cohen’s Kappa and Krippendorff’s Alpha (Krippendorff, 2018). It is important that teams of coders all be made aware of coding decisions made during the planning phase of an IG coding project (e.g., classification to accommodate different stylistic features), and that those are sufficiently tested in pilot studies, as awareness and internalization of these decisions can have significant implications for coding reliability. A final point of consideration relating to intercoder reliability concerns coding tools. Assessing intercoder reliability can be more or less difficult depending on the tool with which the coding has been conducted. Institutional information captured in tabular form is easier to compare and thus assess for reliability. In contrast, assessment of information that is captured using text annotation tools inherently relies on the facilities provided, and may, where absent, need to be further organized to facilitate a direct comparison of information generated by different coders.

7

7.5

METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE …

275

Concluding Remarks

This chapter provided a high-level overview of methodological aspects pertaining to any study that intends to encode institutional information in terms of the IG. The main focus of this overview was to provide insights into essential points to be considered during study design in order to ensure a robust design and an efficient coding process. In addition to principal planning steps, the chapter also highlighted operational coding, as well as introducing a formal coding syntax (IG Script) to support this process, before finally returning to discussions related to the operational assessment of reliability in the coding process. Beyond the high-level characterizations offered here, the analyst is encouraged to review the supplementary Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020) for additional and specific guidance on the operational aspects related to the coding of institutional statements. In the codebook, one will find guidance on the encoding of advanced concepts, such as complex data structures, comparators and quantifiers, as well as an extended discussion of encoding hierarchical relationships amongst properties, in addition to a rich overview of coding heuristics for regulative and constitutive statement classification only touched upon briefly in this chapter. A concluding point related to the methodological process involved in the encoding of institutional information is a note on documentation. The analyst should consider a careful documentation of individual decisions in the form of a customized codebook in order to support the coding process itself and ideally to accompany the dataset, both to foster rigidity and opportunity for replication of studies, supporting the call for methodological rigor of IG research. Moreover, it provides the basis to perform comparative studies produced by different teams or based on existing datasets, in which case detailed information about the encoded information (data description) and ensuing preprocessing, let alone coding, is essential to establish compatible and comparable datasets.10 Supporting this process, the supplementary codebook provides a continuously refined checklist that captures the essential aspects motivated throughout this chapter.

10 These aspects are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9.

276

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

References Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2020). Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08937 Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: the definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters, 4th edition, Advanced Analytics. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology ( 4th edition). SAGE Publications. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

CHAPTER 8

Institutional Analysis and Applications

The preceding chapters have introduced the Institutional Grammar as a multilevel approach for capturing and expressing institutional design. The Institutional Grammar supports the representation of institutional information at multiple levels of expressiveness to respond to different analytical objectives, either favoring the characterization of general structural features of institutions, the extraction of conceptual information expressed in language, or the semantic layering that links theoretical concepts of the application domain with the rigidity in analysis that the IG affords. The general methodological guidance offered in Chapter 7 reflects the differentiated treatment of institutional data to arrive at institutional information. However, any analytical approach, especially if rich in concept and methodological guidance, has to be assessed against the novel analytical opportunities it offers. Responding to this demand, alongside the introduction of associated analytical techniques that the refined IG is amenable to, is the objective of this penultimate chapter. This chapter approaches this essential discussion from two perspectives. On the one hand, it will offer a characterization of analytical features by level of expressiveness, incrementally enhancing the richness of the insights that the institutional information encoded in terms of institutional statements offers – and thereby establishing an intuitive sense of the opportunities that analysts can leverage. On the other hand, it aims © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_8

277

278

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.1 Analytical Applications by Levels of Expressiveness

at stimulating analysts to venture into unexplored research directions by posing exemplary research questions that can motivate the selection and adaptation of the IG feature set to respond to such questions. Inasmuch as this chapter describes established analytical pathways that, in part, build on the analytical traditions and techniques highlighted in Chapter 2, this chapter aims at opening novel directions, providing the basis for a reorientation of institutional analysis more generally, exemplifying particularly the analysis of policy design. To address these objectives, this chapter is loosely structured along the boundaries of the coarse-grained encoding sponsored by IG Core, followed by the deep structural parsing enabled by IG Extended, and the shift to a semantic perspective and disciplinary embedding highlighted as part of IG Logico. Figure 8.1 highlights the individual levels, and exemplifies techniques that broadly align with the granularity of parsed institutional information on corresponding levels. Preempting the discussion of potential applications and associated research questions in the context of the individual sections corresponding to the levels of expressiveness, the analytical themes associated with the levels progressively broaden, but initially emphasize the establishment of measures of

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

279

institutional design in the context of IG Core, the focus on understanding the structure of institutional design for IG Extended, and the development of pathways toward explaining institutional design using the facilities offered by IG Logico. The remainder of this chapter samples the referenced methods, techniques, and their application to IG data. In this process, the chapter makes an attempt to separate the analytical perspective from methodological considerations associated with the encoding of institutional information (as featured in Chapter 7). Given the diverse nature of the different analytical pathways presented here, some may require additional processing steps. Where essential to the analytical technique, relevant steps and associated considerations are discussed. The discussion in this section, and supporting analytical illustrations presented herein, draw on a dataset of coded institutional statements extracted from the United States National Organic Program Regulation, hereafter NOP regulation (the complete excerpt is included in Appendix B). This regulation, implemented by the United States Department of Agriculture, governs organic food production in the United States. The regulation outlines standards for organic food production, and details protocols pertaining to the processing, handling, and labeling of organic products.1 It also provides guidance on obtaining organic certification, accreditation of certifying agents, and monitoring and enforcement relating to organic certification. The referenced excerpt pertains to “Compliance” and describes the role of organic program managers and certifying agents in monitoring and enforcement of regulatory standards and also describes rights and responsibilities of organic operations subject to monitoring and enforcement. The excerpt contains 55 institutional statements, which altogether are comprised of 259 atomic institutional statements. 203 of the atomic institutional statements were identified as regulative in kind and 56 were identified as constitutive in kind. The discussion that follows reports on analysis of these coded statements in the context of a more general discussion of possibilities for analyzing institutional data parsed with techniques and approaches that leverage specific features of the different levels of expressiveness.

1 Source: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic.

280

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

8.1 IG Core---Establishing Fundamental Institutional Metrics The basis for the initial set of analyses discussed and proposed in this chapter are the metrics introduced as part of extant work discussed in Chapter 2, including the initial applications of Crawford and Ostrom (1995)’s original IG for the analysis of policy, Basurto et al. (2010) and Siddiki et al. (2011). In step with the structurally focused, and relatively coarse-grained encoding of institutional data at the IG Core level, analyses of institutional information generated at the IG Core level tend to focus on general, structural depictions of institutional statements drawing on basic parsing thereof along A-D-I-B-C/E-M-F-P-C components. Structural analysis of IG Core data relies on information corresponding to individual or sets of syntactic components but typically engages aggregate representations of this information across institutional statements. Most often, this aggregation entails a summary of information linked to syntactic components, but may also entail graphical representations of how syntactic information from different statements links together. It may also entail a translation of institutional information into specific kinds of values (e.g., network metrics, numerical values) that can be summarized and assessed in different ways and using different methods (e.g., network analysis, statistical analysis). Generally, structural analysis of IG Core data, which tends to orient on generating and/or analyzing aggregate representations of institutional information, focuses on discerning patterns in institutional design. Fundamentally, it is not about understanding the Attributes, Aim, Context, etc. of a single institutional statement (unless perhaps an institution of interest is only comprised of a single statement), but rather understanding which components’ values (i.e., Attributes, Aim, Context, etc.) are represented within a configuration of statements that comprise an institution of interest. 8.1.1

Component-Level Aggregate Metrics

The kind of structural analysis of institutional statement information referenced here is well exemplified in existing IG studies that rely on the original IG’s syntactic specification. The analysis engaged in existing studies is a relevant reference for what is described in this section, insofar

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

281

as IG Core only presents a modest departure in component characterization and coding features from the original IG. At the same time, however, analysis of IG Core parsed information, versus information parsed according to the original IG, can lend more nuanced and complete understanding of institutional design. This augmented capability stems from the inclusion of additional syntactic features along which data can be analyzed. Notably, the ability to capture different types of Objects (Direct Objects and Indirect Objects ) and Contexts (Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints ), as well as clearly delineate Attributes and Objects from their defining properties. An additional valuable feature of the IG 2.0 is the specification of atomic institutional statements that can logically combine to form composite institutional statements (see Sect. 4.2.2). Assessment of atomic statements comprising institutional statements, as an alternative or in addition to the analysis on composite statement level, can shed light on the structural complexity of institutional statements, and concomitant implications, a point which is discussed in more detail later in this section. Nevertheless, a practice observed in existing studies which retains relevance is the summary of institutional information by statements to derive broader understanding of an institution in question. For example, analysts can aggregate information corresponding to the Attributes component to gain an understanding of the array of targets of a given institution. Similarly, analysts can aggregate information corresponding to the Deontic component to generally infer prescriptiveness of a given institution. Summary by Aim component can signal focal activities referenced within an institution. Summary by Objects can be used to discern focal topics within an institution. By way of illustration, Table 8.1 identifies which Attributes, Deontic, Aim, and Direct Object component values are most frequently occurring in the institutional statements that comprise the Compliance excerpt from the NOP regulation of regulative kind. The reported information shows that “Program managers” are the most frequently occurring Attributes, “shall” is the most frequently occurring Deontic, “notification” is the most frequently occurring Direct Object, and “operation” is the most frequently occurring Indirect Object. Clearly, institutional analysts can also rely on summaries of syntactic information represented in constitutive statements to derive analogous qualities of information. Table 8.2 identifies the Constituted Entities (“notification”), Modal (“shall”), and Constituting Properties (“subject to the provisions of section 1001 of title

282

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Table 8.1 Most frequently occurring component information (regulative statements) Definition

Attributes

Most frequently Program manager occurring information corresponding to syntactic components Percentage of 0.34 statements in which most frequently occurring information is present Count of statements in 70 which most frequently occurring information is present

Deontic

Direct object

Indirect object

shall

notification

operation

0.38

0.40

0.37

78

82

74

Note There are 203 regulative statements in the example dataset

Table 8.2 Most frequently occurring component information (constitutive statements) Definition

Constituted entity

Modal

Constituted properties

Most frequently occurring information corresponding to syntactic components Percentage of statements in which most frequently occurring information is present Count of statements in which most frequently occurring information is present

Notification

shall

0.55

0.95

subject to the provisions of Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code 0.11

31

53

6

Note There are 56 constitutive statements in the example dataset

18, United State Code”). This pattern among regulative and constitutive statements is interesting, in that it conveys the focus on compliance notifications across both kinds of statements – compliance notifications are frequently being acted on by regulatory actors, as well as constituted (e.g., defined in terms of properties).

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

283

Aggregated representations of institutional information coded at the IG Core level need not only be done by individual components. Valuable insights may also be gleaned from assessing patterns in information according with multiple syntactic components. For example, the institutional analyst can summarize coupled Attributes and Aim data to assess which actor-action linkages occur most frequently within a given institution. The analyst can also analyze Attributes-Deontic-Aim linkages to assess general levels of prescription associated with actions associated with particular actors. Relating any of this institutional information with Context information can elucidate the kinds and extent of constraints assigned to particular actions. To illustrate the referenced analysis, Table 8.3 provides a summary of institutional information most often linked within coded regulative statements. Patterns observed in frequent institutional information pairings provide interesting general insights. The observed coupling of “Program Manager” with “may” versus a more prescriptive Deontic signals an ascription of discretionary authority Table 8.3 Most frequently paired institutional information across syntactic components Most frequently paired component Attributes information

Deontic

Attributes-Deontic

may

Attributes-Aim

Deontic-Aim Attributes-Deontic-Aim Attributes-Direct Object

Aim-Direct Object Attributes-Deontic-Aim-Direct Object

Program manager Organic program’s governing State official Program manager Organic program’s governing State official Organic program’s governing State official

Aim

Direct object

send

shall may

send initiate notification

shall

Note There are 203 regulative statements in the example dataset

send send

notification notification

284

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

to Program Managers. Further, the observed coupling of “Organic Program’s Governing State Official” and “send” signals the Official’s role in transmission of institutionally relevant information/artifacts. Importantly, referencing convention in existing studies, summaries of information by syntactic component need not only be interpreted in a strictly literal sense. Patterns reflected in summarized information can also be used as operationalizations of concepts of interest. For example, relative frequencies of Deontic information within a policy document may be used to measure policy stringency, prescriptiveness, and obligation, each of which can be used to understand how strongly behavior is compelled (regulative statements)/necessity or (im-)possibility of constitution (constitutive statements). These measures are signaled in institutional statements based on different treatment/interpretation of Deontic/Modal data. Table 8.4 shows the percentage of coded regulative and constitutive statements containing Deontics/Modals of particular kinds as a way to measure stringency. Note, stringency as operationalized here can be decomposed based on different values (e.g., “shall”, “shall not”, “must”, “must not”). However, the interpretation of these values as a quantification of stringency (e.g., suggesting that “must” signals stronger levels of stringency than “shall”) relies on contextual knowledge of domain- or discipline-specific conventions on the use of specific Deontic/Modal values as discussed in Sect. 4.2.1.2. Table 8.4 Statement stringency operationalization Metric General policy stringency

Stringency reflected with “shall/shall not” Stringency reflected with “must/must not”

Definition

Regulative measure

Percentage of regulative and 0.623 constitutive statements containing non-permissive deontics/modals (must, must not, shall, shall not) Percentage of regulative and 0.237 constitutive statements containing “shall” or “shall not” deontics/modals Percentage of regulative and 0.386 constitutive statements containing “must” and “must not” deontics/modals

Constitutive measure 1

0.964

0.036

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

285

Institutional analysts have used IG-coded data toward the operationalization of various concepts (see Chapter 2). One relatively understudied concept in existing IG research that the IG 2.0 is particularly well suited to support measurement of is policy complexity. Policy complexity has been measured variably in existing scholarship by social scientists from multiple fields of study. In this scholarship, policy complexity has been defined in terms of the length of a policy (Huber & Shipan, 2002), the size of a policy (Gerber & Teske, 2000), linguistic complexity of a policy (Chun & Rainey, 2005), the degree to which a policy is perceived as difficult to use and understand (Rogers, 2003, p. 242), and in terms of number of actors and collaborative decision points indicated in institutional design (Shaffer, 2021). IG Core-coded data can be readily leveraged to assess policy complexity defined in any of the above ways, as well as in additional ways. Notably, while the discussion in this paragraph is specific to assessing institutional complexity in policy studies, further discussion of institutional complexity in this chapter offered in Sect. 8.2.1.1 is more generalizable and speaks to other ways of quantifying the complexity of IG-parsed institutional information. For example, the analyst can seek to understand not only how many actors are linked to particular actions of interest, but also the extent of contextualization of actions as indicated by Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints associated with these actions. To generate these measures of complexity (i.e., complexity measured in terms of number of actors and number of activation conditions and/or execution constraints tied to different actions), the analyst will need to combine information from logically linked atomic statements corresponding to individual institutional statements – thus first constructing a complexity measure at the institutional statement level – and then the analyst can further aggregate this information across institutional statements to derive a policy level measure of complexity. Aggregate descriptions of syntactic information can also be used to assess linkages among regulative and constitutive statements, which, too, can signal important qualities of institutions of interest. For example, in a general assessment of policy comprehensiveness, the institutional analyst can assess information commonly captured across regulative and constitutive statements. Such assessments can be useful insofar as they capture, for example, to what extent artifacts upon which actors are pre-/de-scribed to act upon within regulative statements are defined through constitutive statements. It may also be useful to identify the

286

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

relative number of constitutive and regulative statements. Table 8.5 identifies both coded regulative and constitutive statements. With respect to the former, the table also indicates how many times co-occurring information is referenced in institutional statements. Additionally, the table indicates frequency of unique kinds of information conveyed in regulative and constitutive statements; i.e., types of Attributes, Objects, and Entities represented in institutional statements. Table 8.5 Constitutive-regulative Dynamics Metric

Atomic Diversity

Property Diversity

Occurrences of Most Frequent Component

Most Frequent Component Total Number of Components Total Number of Atomic Institutional Statements

Definition

Count of unique instances of syntactic information (e.g. “agent”, “official”) Count of unique component-property combinations (e.g. “certifying agent”, “certifying agent whose accreditation is suspended …”) Count of references to most frequently occurring component value across institutional statements Most frequently occurring component value Count of statements containing explicit reference to syntactic component Count of regulative and constitutive atomic institutional statements

Regulative

Constitutive

Attributes

Direct Object

Indirect Object

Constituted Entity

8

26

10

8

14

86

20

21

70

82

74

31

Program manager

Notification

Operation

Notification

203

203

124

56

203

56

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

8.1.2

287

Network Analysis

The discussion up to this point provides summaries of institutional information corresponding to different syntactic components in nominal or numerical form. As referenced above, scholars also rely on graphical summaries of information, which help to visualize connections among institutional information. In recent years, scholars engaging the IG in institutional analysis have increasingly relied on network analysis to support the generation of visualizations and assessment of institutional patterns found therein (Chapter 2). Institutional information can be engaged flexibly in network analysis, with syntactic information corresponding to nodes or edges depending on the analyst’s objectives. Further, the analyst may rely on information that corresponds to one or more syntactic components to support network visualization and analysis. For example, the analyst can connect Attributes to Objects treating both as nodes, and relying on edges to convey frequency of association across institutional statements. As an extension, the analyst can connect Attributes and Objects, while capturing Aim information on edges. Essentially, this analysis would convey the specific action through which actors act on objects. Figure 8.2 provides a network visualization of statements from the Compliance excerpt of the NOP regulation. All statements from the excerpt are represented in the network graph. Attribute, Direct Object, and Indirect Object information are used for nodes, and Aim information is used for edges. Arrows in the graphs show directionality in activity, which allows one to detect, where Attributes and Objects are actors, which actor is the “Originator” of an activity, and which actor is the “Recipient” of an activity (see reference to Role Taxonomy in Sect. 6.1.2 and further discussion in Sect. 8.3). Note that this type of analysis and representation of institutional information is uniquely afforded with IG Core coding, over the basic syntactic parsing recommended with the original Grammar, because it enables the reliable specification of actors in an action-receiving role. The analyst may wish to superimpose this role recognition onto network graphs, as well as superimpose other kinds of labels that accord with various taxonomies presented as part of the IG 2.0, which would essentially help portray notable semantic information along with structural information. Finally, the thickness of lines in the graph show the directional frequency of

288

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.2 Network structure of compliance excerpt (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-figures)

syntactic information pairings across institutional statements. One additional benefit of network analysis is the ability to generate network statistics (e.g., density, centrality)—quantitative metrics that convey qualities of networks. In essence, these statistics support assessments of institutional foci. 8.1.3

Additional Analytical Pathways

Finally, to support understanding of institutional patterns that draw on institutional information captured at the IG Core level, the analyst can correspond qualitative institutional information to numerical values to support usage thereof in statistical analyses, where numerical values accord to independent or dependent variables. Basically, the analyst can translate institutional information into discrete values which can be treated individually or indexed – through combined treatment of discrete values – and

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

289

then incorporated into statistical analysis (e.g., one could represent degradation of Deontic stringency based on a numerical scale). Discretization of institutional information in numerical form will necessarily require the analyst to a priori identify what characteristics/qualities of institutional information will map to different numerical values. Such decisions may be tied to theoretical, conceptual, and/or empirical foci. Zooming out to capture broader institutional dynamics, the institutional analyst may also be interested in capturing general patterns in the organization of institutions. For example, the analyst may perceive some value in identifying the number of statements present within different sections of a policy, as another – albeit general – way of capturing core institutional foci. For illustration, Fig. 8.3 shows how institutional statements are distributed across subsections of the Compliance section of NOP rule. The figure indicates that over half of all institutional statements pertain to noncompliance procedures for certified operations and noncompliance procedures for certifying agents. Additionally, extending the preceding discussion of policy complexity, the analyst may wish to capture patterns in institutional statement complexity by assessing the number of logically connected atomic statements a single statement is composed of. Figure 8.4, for example, shows

Fig. 8.3 Atomic statement distribution across subsections (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-fig ures)

290

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.4 Atomic statement distribution across policy (Complexity Landscape) (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutiona lgrammar.org/book-figures)

the breakdown of atomic statements by institutional statements included in the NOP regulation Compliance excerpt. Descriptively, the graph shows that statements in this excerpt are comprised of between 1 and 20 atomic statements. Substantively, an analyst can use such information for assessing complexity of instruction conveyed in policy language, recalling that each atomic statement conveys a unique instruction – an aspect explored at greater detail in the following section. This can have implications for compliance with statements, implementation of statements, as well as cognitive effort associated with the interpretation of statements. Even more broadly, and practically, statement complexity as measured by the number of atomic statements of which an institutional statement is comprised, can have implications for mere readability. Another analytical possibility in the assessment of broader institutional patterns is evaluation of the presence and qualities of linked monitored and consequential statements. Firstly, the analyst may be interested in ascertaining whether a set of institutional statements has consequential statements reflected within it. This fundamentally conveys whether institutions reference enforcement for instances of institutional nonconformance. Secondly, where consequential statements exist, the analyst

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

291

may wish to analyze features of enforcement; for example, who is responsible for enforcement (through assessment of Attributes information), how much discretion is afforded for enforcement (through assessment of Deontic information), and the severity of enforcement (through assessment of information corresponding to various components). For the latter, the analyst may find it useful to assess severity of referenced actions, and whether action contextualization tempers the Deontic. For example, the NOP rule references both the potential for enforcement personnel to “suspend” or “revoke” certifications, actions that clearly convey varying levels of enforcement severity. Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints can temper Deontics, by qualifying when, where, how, etc. varying levels of prescription should be applied. These latter aspects, the extended treatment of atomic statements, as well as Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints , are subject to the advanced metrics established in the upcoming section.

8.2

IG Extended---Structural and Behavioral Analysis of Institutional Design

Following the essential characterization of the basic structure of institutional statements under IG Core, which often entails an aggregated representation of institutional information corresponding to different syntactic components, the advanced coding introduced under the label IG Extended leverages additional features associated with this level to support a richer characterization of institutional statements drawing out, in particular, their compositional qualities. Among those features are component-level nesting and complex property characterizations. In this light, a central promise attached to the use of IG Extended is the extraction of deep structural information. This section differentiates between two types of techniques for evaluating the fine-grained parsing of institutional statements according with IG Extended. The first is structural, and the second is behavioral. Both are discussed in turn below. 8.2.1

Structural Analysis

Structural analysis works towards the extraction of embedded structural features relevant for extended analytical treatment. A central premise of the nesting facilities of the IG is that the complexity of institutions is embedded within statements, but also includes their linkages, allowing the

292

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

analysis of institutional statements both on atomic, as well as on a compositional level, transcending individual institutional statements and moving towards a systemic perspective based on the linkage of IG statements. 8.2.1.1 Complexity Analysis Commencing the overview of approaches to structural analysis using the IG, an initial innovation sponsored by IG Extended is the assessment of the complexity of the underlying information beyond the aggregate metrics introduced in Sect. 8.1. To motivate both complexity assessments based on its decomposition, this discussion draws on a variant of a complex institutional statement previously encoded in Chapter 7:

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex1

Given the self-evident complexity of the statement, the analyst may ask for a qualification of these linkages, as well as the conceptual mapping relevant in the analytical domain. Where the latter will be subject to later discussion, the former is an aspect addressed at this stage. While IG Core introduces metrics that capture, for example, the presence and quantity of the institutional information expressed and linked in atomic institutional statements, IG Extended expands this characterization based on additional decompositional facilities and their qualification. A central premise of the decomposition introduced in the IG is that it embeds nuanced, and institutionally relevant information. While this can necessarily be interpreted in terms of the institutional content, i.e., the specific actors involved, actions performed, contextual aspects, a varying perspective is the focus on the qualitative characterization of the linkages between statements or institutions themselves. Beyond the specific content, the nature and cardinality of linkages between statements or parts thereof reflects analytical approaches best captured under the label Structural Institutional Analysis.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

293

Motivating this principle of structural analysis, Fig. 8.5 decomposes the institutional statement in an Institutional Statement Decomposition

Fig. 8.5 Institutional State Complexity Metrics across Institutional Tree (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgr ammar.org/book-figures)

294

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Diagram, a vertically oriented tree diagram that navigates through individual components in fixed presentation order (here, ADIBC), and highlights the various navigational paths associated with individual components (e.g., multiple action alternatives), and, where components are nested, expands these into nested scopes embedded within the parent statement. The nested scopes can either represent institutional statements, or, as showcased here, institutional states (see Sect. 5.1.2). More specifically, in this instance, these representations capture nested Activation Conditions. The purpose of this representation is to indicate the composition of a statement in terms of its nested structure, while, at the same time, highlighting state variations within all scopes the statement is composed of (represented as dashed boxes in this example, and labeled according to the level of nesting). 8.2.1.2 Institutional State Complexity Reviewing this structure reveals various navigation paths that represent the potential institutional states (or more accurately state compositions) that this specific statement captures (see Sect. 5.1.2 for details on Institutional States ). Analytically speaking, this includes the most elementary states of affairs (e.g., instances of behavior or existential state constellations) that the statement describes, and in this case, regulates (since the statement is regulative in kind). Notably, this includes all interaction patterns of entities referenced in the institutional statement. Drawing on the illustrative example, this pertains to the implicit interaction between the Program Manager (making the top-level choice) and the activities of the Certified Operation or Certifying Agent that the Program Manager reacts to. Analytically, the decomposition afforded under IG Extended thus reveals the complete, atomic complexity of the institution captured as far as captured in the focal statement, and can be descriptively captured in a set of general metrics, captured under the umbrella Institutional State Complexity. While the statement essentially relies on component-level nesting on the Activation Conditions, with the two distinctive Activation Conditions operating on the same level, reflecting an operational example of horizontal nesting . Contrasting both Activation Conditions, the left one further displays component-level nesting on the Direct Object that reflects the content of the belief that the Program Manager can base the initiation of proceedings on, capturing the variable complexity the statement embeds.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

295

In step with this, the discussion of analysis associated with IG Extended introduces a set of complexity metrics that can be applied to individual statements to explore the action/state variations captured in a statement. The foundations of the assessment center on the logical operators, and their aggregation across levels. Essential parameters thus include the number of levels of a statement, which, for the illustrative example, are three in total, and two levels of nesting (Level 1 and 2). The second aspect relates to the nature of the logical operators. The semantics of the different operators signal different extents of variability, or institutionally speaking, discretion or choice. AND-combined activities, for instance, leave the actor without any discretion other than to perform both actions, reducing the number of potential choices to one. If two options are combined using the XOR operator, the actor has the choice between those two alternatives, whereas the OR operator extends the choice set to three, including the application of either action, as well as their combination. Table 8.6 generalizes the State Variability for all logical operators and any number of options, where k is the number of options that are logically linked. Referring to the flexibility associated with the different logical operators as Degrees of State Variability, the sum of these freedoms within a given scope, then aggregated by statement level (across scopes on a given level) reflects the possible states/activities the level captures. Generalizing further, the product of these states determined per level represents the Table 8.6 Degrees of State Variability for Logical Operators Logical operator

Degrees of State Variability

Description

AND

1

XOR

k

OR

2k −1

The AND operator requires the co-occurrence of the logically linked component options; without discretion on the part of the actor or situational state variation The XOR allows for the exclusive choice of either of the k logically linked component options The OR allows for any combination of the k logically linked component options

k represents the number of options for a given component

296

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

number of states the statement captures as a whole. Given the embeddedness of levels within other levels, this aggregation is performed from the deepest nesting level upwards, leading to the incremental aggregation of scopes across levels to arrive at the statement-level metric. Illustrating such complexity assessment for the statement shown in Fig. 8.5, Fig. 8.6 schematically captures the individual aggregation steps discussed in the following (with the left schema in Fig. 8.6 showcasing the state characterizations associated with the individual states, and the right schema illustrating the cumulative aggregation per level). Commencing at the lowest level, Level 2 comprises of two logical combinations. Given the presence of OR linkages for both options, Level 2 has a State Complexity of six (i.e., two OR alternatives allowing for three state alternatives each). On Level 1, the left branch of the tree allows only for a single state characterization (the fact that the Program Manager believes ). Multiplied with the State Complexity of the nested scope on Level 2, the left branch captures six possible states. The right Level 1 branch, reflects the linkages between different components and likewise displays a State Complexity of six (two OR alternatives). Combined across both branches, Level 1 reflects a State Complexity of 12. The top-level statement offers a single discretionary choice, but ensures exclusivity: the Program Manager can decide to initiate either a suspension or revocation; not both. The degree of variability on the top level is thus two. Combined with the State Complexity on the lower levels, the overall statement captures possible 24 state constellations that the actors referenced in this statement can

Fig. 8.6 Institutional State Complexity Aggregation

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

297

variably be positioned in based on their individual choices and reactions, or environmental circumstances. Imagining hypothetical constellations, if both Activation Conditions were AND-combined (i.e., both need to be met for the Program Manager to exercise any discretion at all), the State Complexity would reduce to 12. Reiterated algorithmically, the calculation of the Institutional State Complexity for a given statement is initiated on the deepest nesting level, initially determining State Complexity for individual Atomic Statements, before integrating these per Nesting Level and finally aggregating those to the entire Statement: 1. Identify atomic statement on deepest nesting level 2. Calculate Degree of State Variability for each logical linkage within institutional state(ment) scopes 3. Calculate sum of the Degrees of State Variability per state(ment) scope → Statement Scope Complexity 4. If multiple scopes exist on a given level (i.e., are horizontally nested), calculate sum across scopes → Level Complexity 5. Multiply with State Complexity of next higher level (determined using Step 2–4) 6. Repeat from Step 2 for next higher level, unless the top-level statement is reached → Statement Complexity/Institutional State Complexity Captured formally in Eq. (8.1), the Institutional State Complexity is the sum of Degrees of State Variability for each operator (DoV(operator(opIdx, optionCt))) within any level (where opIdx is a unique identifier of the operator on a given level, and optionCt the number of component value options linked via the logical operator), k ). multiplied across all levels of an institutional statement ( level=0 I nstitutional State Complexit y =

k 

m 

DoV (operator (opld x, optionCt))

level=0 op I d x=0

(8.1)

298

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Reviewing this metric, it is important to note that the calculated states are all possible state constellations captured by the institutional statement as a whole, taking into account all parameters considered in an institutional statement (e.g., environmental context, discretion, scopes of applicability, etc.); institutional states do not only correspond to intentional choices at the disposal of any one actor, or any actor at all. Inasmuch as this metric provides a quantitative assessment only, analysts may seek a qualitative characterization of the features that produce the complexity. More specifically, the analyst may be interested to learn where this complexity resides, and secondly, its characterizing effect in the regulation or parameterization that the statement represents.2 The original IG characterizes abstract purposes of statements with respect to the action situation they are embedded in based on distinctive Rule Types (Ostrom, 2005). However, the refined decompositional schema provides the basis to extract differentiated insights on the substatement level (e.g., quantifying different features and affordances that an institutional captures – such as discretion on the part of the actor, as well as scopes of applicability). For the analyst, this offers the opportunity to either retrace the emergent complexity, or to selectively focus on specific sub-statement metrics that respond to the analyst’s objectives. Reviewing the components individually provides the basis for such qualitative assessment. As discussed before, the initial variation on Level 0 essentially reflects different forms of sanctions that a Program Manager can impose in response to noncompliance, with two action alternatives, signaling a moderate form of discretion (XOR). Where the analyst is drawn to assess the conditions (and their variable necessity) that lead to the application of a statement, the statement may reflect the extent to which variable conditions apply – not only their presence, but their variable presence (with the strongest possible degree of variability in this case). Analytically, this can provide an indication of the specificity of the circumstances to which the statement applies, both indicated by the quantity of conditions, but more importantly, by their dependencies (e.g., whether all conditions need to be fulfilled, or any).3 2 For a quantitative differentiation of institutional states themselves (as opposed to component categories), the reader is referred to advanced analyses presented under Sect. 8.3.3.2. 3 Section 8.3.3.2 enhances this metric with a richer quantification of condition content.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

299

The analyst can similarly be focused on elements embedded in nested structures, such as the potential Activity State Variability, where the latter reflects the potential states the provoking actor can be situated in; this choice is not at the discretion of the responsible actor identified at the top level.4 Similarly to the Conditions Variability, the metric signals the exclusivity of either state either in terms of options (where those are ORcombined), or in terms of necessities (where those are AND-combined). Finally, the analyst may draw interest from analyzing contextual relationships, with particular focus on the specificity of contextual state qualifications based on the Execution C onstraints. Reflecting the elementary form of reporting, the decomposition of such assessment can occur on any level. Table 8.7 summarizes the Institutional Tree Metrics, both including the statement-level complexity metrics explored in the beginning of this section, as well as the component-level metrics introduced before. 8.2.1.3 Institutional State Regimentation By shifting from the aggregate perspective of State Complexity toward a differentiated treatment on component level, as shown in Table 8.7, we can not only analyze the institution from the perspective of possible states it can capture, but rather get a sense of the specificity of the component specification. For AND-combined activities, for instance, the variability in state is limited; any compliant actor is obliged to perform both activities – without any discretion; such linkage is captured as a single institutional statement. The number of options, however, offers relevant insight about the specificity of any component characterization, e.g., specificity about the activities involved, specificity about the constraints that apply, specificity about the conditions that lead to the activation of the statement. When reviewing the specificity of statements carefully, it is important to note that the number of options and their linkages interact: Where co-occurring (i.e., linked by AND operators), a higher number of component value options (e.g., three, four, five) increases the specificity of the institutional specification, thus introducing level of detail, and implicitly parameters that require explicit consideration whenever the statement is enacted (e.g., by actors subjected to the provision), or evaluated. If linked by operators that afford a great extent of discretion (e.g., OR), an increase 4 The conceptual counterpart on the constitutive side is the Constitutive Function State Variability.

300

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Table 8.7 Institutional Tree Metrics Metric

Value

Description

Institutional Tree Depth

3

Institutional States

24

Discretion Option Count Level 0

2

Indicates the maximum nesting depth, i.e., the maximum to which components are substituted by institutional state(ment)s Indicates the maximum number of institutional states described in the statement Counts the number of instances where actors have discretionary choices (per level) Activity Variability (per level)

Discretion Extent Level 0 Conditions Option Count Level 0 Conditions Variability Level 0 Activity State Option Count Level 1 Activity State Variability Level 1 Application Option Count Level 1 Level 2 Application Variability Level 1 Level 2

2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3

Indicates the number of activation conditions (per level) Indicates the State Variability of activation conditions (per level) Indicates the number of activity states (per level) Indicates the State Variability of activity states (per level) Indicates the number of application alternatives (per level) Indicates the State Variability of the application (here in the Object component) (per level)

in options signals the opposite effect, i.e., an increase in options increases State Variability, and inadvertently reduces operational constraints based on the flexible linkage of options (e.g., an increasing number of alternative activities implies greater discretion on the part of the actor). The Institutional State Regimentation metric captures this interaction of the Variability of Institutional State (i.e., the number of possible states a statement captures) with the extent to which these states are complex and thus implicitly constrain, or regiment, an entity subjected to the provision by dividing the number of options for any component-level variation (Option counts in Table 8.7) by the State Variability signaled by the logical operator (see Table 8.6), as shown in Table 8.8.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

301

Table 8.8 Institutional State Regimentation based on associated Logical Operators Logical operator

Regimentation

Description

AND

k 1

XOR

k k

OR

k 2k −1

Regimentation for AND-combined options are the number of options divided by the single state that AND-combined options reflect, effectively resolving the number of options Regimentation for XOR divides the number of options by the number of state variations, rendering a constant regimentation of 1 Regimentation in the OR case reduces with the number of options (due to the non-linear increase in state variability)

k represents the number of options for a given component

Whereas two AND-combined options lead to a regimentation of 2 (since both need to be taken into account), the XOR regimentation is constant, i.e., 1 (with the number of options, the flexibility to choose either of those increases to the same extent), and the OR linkage signals a reduction in regimentation (while a larger number of options exist, those lead to a disproportionate increase in state variation), here 0.6667. Introducing four options, for instance, the corresponding levels of regimentation are 4, 1, and 0.2667, indicating a high level of regimentation for complex AND-combined options, a constant level for XOR-linked options, and a considerable reduction in regimentation for OR-combined options. The aggregation of the Regimentation metric highlighted in Eq. (8.2) operates analogue to the aggregation applied for State Variability highlighted in the previous section, and offers a basis for the comparative assessment of individual statements or aggregates thereof (e.g., collections of statements, entire policies). I nstitutional State Regimentation =

k 

m 

level=0 level=0

optionCt DoV (operator (op I d x, optionCt)) (8.2)

Reflecting on the introduced metrics, whereas the State Variability metric introduced under the umbrella of Complexity Metrics focuses on

302

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

the identification of the total number of permissible states that an institutional statement captures, the second State Regimentation contextualizes this with a more accurate characterization of the degree to which these states are constrained, or regimented, allowing the analyst to extract differentiated insights such as identifying how broadly, or narrowly institutional state specifications are devised in the context of the analyzed institutional setting, and to what extent they impact the regulated actors or other entities subjected to those institutions. These objective metrics only operate on logical linkages as well as the general IG institutional statement structure, and can thus find general application without disciplinary considerations (e.g., knowledge about the domain or case). This dissociation from specific use cases implies an essential assumption: the metrics do not reflect the quality of the options they operate on; they are considering the number of options and their linkages, but do not consider whether activities or states are qualitatively different (e.g., harder to perform) from each other, or even whether one activity/state subsumes the other. A qualitatively richer characterization of components that draws on the application domain as an epistemological basis (e.g., to introduce weights for particular options) is discussed in Sect. 8.3.3.2. It is, however, valuable to motivate specific application cases at this stage. Focusing the assessment on activities, for instance, the logical linkages between action alternatives signal discretion on the part of the actor. Interpreted in context, the distinctive analysis may reveal the representation of graduated sanctioning based on the variable effect (e.g., payoffs), as well as the applied logical operator. This specifically applies to the XOR that signals exclusive applicability of distinctive action choices, in contrast to the arbitrary combination that the OR suggests (see Sects. 4.2.2 and 4.2.3). Central aspects of the operationalization highlighted above are generalizable. However, the choice of metrics, and the decision on which level reporting occurs, are subject to analytical objectives, contingent on the available data (see Chapter 7), and the employed level of expressiveness. As implied throughout this section, the extraction of structural information akin to that reported above requires encoding on the IG Extended level. Any complexity assessment performed based on IG Core-coded data is limited to the assessment of top-level component combinations,

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

303

as well as the metrics related to Activation Conditions. However, while the IG Extended coding lends itself well for detailed structural analysis, the statement-level data can be analyzed using the same metrics introduced in the context of IG Core. Without illustration at this stage, the complexity metrics can be aggregated across statements, and furthermore consider their linkages, selectively focusing on selected samples of the encoded sources, or the policy as a whole. Similarly, complexity can be captured in Policy Landscape Diagrams that draw out the State Variability or Regimentation for individual statements or components, alongside conventional distribution charts, the principles of which have been discussed in Sect. 8.1. 8.2.1.4 Systemic Analysis Beyond the micro-level complexity metrics introduced in the previous section, based on the comprehensive nesting characteristics on the one hand, and the focal emphasis on the interpretation of institutions as compositions of uniform patterns that atomic institutional statements and states represent, IG Extended affords a shift to a systemic perspective in analysis. To this end, the analyst can abstract from the composite institutional statement as a de facto boundary of the systemic structure, and instead, interpret the institutional setting entirely in terms of compositional structures that aggregate from the atomic structures identified in the encoding process, and explored exemplary in the previous section. To schematically visualize such compositional analysis, we can draw on the abstract compositional notation introduced in Chapter 5, the elementary patterns of which are shown in Fig. 8.7. Based on this visual notation, and drawing on the illustrative statement discussed earlier (and repeated below), Fig. 8.8 exemplifies the compositional structure. The linked elements are annotated with the type of

Fig. 8.7 IG Compositional Patterns Overview (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-figures)

304

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.8 IG Compositional Patterns for Illustrative Statement

state/ment structure they represent (e.g., statement, state, constitutive, regulative).

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex1

Instead of leveraging structural detail on statement level, compositional analysis focuses on the interaction of the different compositional elements. Following the structural analysis referenced above, the institutional statement (bounded by dashed lines) captures the selective features

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

305

of state/ment representations introduced in Sect. 5.1.2, here specifically Behavioral State and Regulative Statements, and makes the essential dependency patterns explicit. Central to this representation is not the exclusive focus on an individual statement, but rather the expression of compositional linkages of the provisions that statements capture. To motivate this approach, a second statement (annotated in IG Script Notation) is drawn into the analysis:

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex2

Explored semantically, the statement reflects an obligation on the part of the certifying agent. Taken on its own, this statement is regulative in kind, without showing any explicit linkages. Taken in context, however, the obligation to report is central to the role of the certifying agent, the violation of which may lead to the initiation of suspension or revocation proceedings against a certified operation. The interpretation of context here literally references the content of the Activation Conditions attached to the original illustrative statement (“when ... a certifying agent ... fails to enforce the Act or regulations in this part” ). While structurally distinct, in the context of the action situation both statements thus integrate based on an implied vertical linkage, with the original statement referencing the initiation of suspension or revocation proceedings acting as a de facto consequence of the noncompliance with the newly introduced statement. Compositionally, the statements thus exist in the configurational structure showcased in Fig. 8.9. Given the potentially vast scope of institutional information and the diverse tacit interlinkages, reliable inference of the semantics is facilitated by (a) decomposing of institutional statements in atomic forms, and, more specifically, by (b) systematic detection of statement or state patterns within components of institutional statements as afforded by IG Extended. Extending this compositional linkage of statements, the following statement introduces additional obligations on the part of the Program Manager:

306

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.9 IG Compositional Patterns for two statements (Vertical Linkage)

“When an inspection ... of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part, a written notification of noncompliance shall be sent to the certifying agent.”

Encoded in IG Extended form that affords the reconstruction of the activation condition part of the statement, the statement is encoded as:

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

307

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex3

Extending the compositional perspective further with the inferred consequence that foregoing the notification of the noncompliant actor implies a valid initiation of noncompliance proceedings, this can be represented as a constitutive institutional state encoded as follows:

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex4

Figure 8.10 visualizes the compositional integration of the referenced statements. While indicated in the schema for the sake of conceptual linkage of elements to underlying statements, the systemic positioning and organization of statements based on variable linkages essentially

Fig. 8.10 IG Compositional Patterns (Horizontal and Vertical Linkages) (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgr ammar.org/book-figures)

308

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

reflects the institutional structure of the action situation, composed of, but transcending the individual statements. Reflecting on the analytical opportunities associated with the compositional patterns presented as part of the systemic analysis, the analyst may ask a set of questions. Firstly, the systemic analysis provides a general overview that leverages the linkages that exist within institutional information encoded from documents, transcripts, etc. – seeking a general impression of the institutional features. To this end, the analyst may be interested in the nature of the linkages between individual state characterizations, establishing a sense of the general foci of the institution. Building on the discussion of analytical opportunities for IG Core-coded data on how different aggregate institutional information signal different institutional foci, drawing on institutional linkages captured under IG Extended provides the facilities to expose additional nuance associated with aforereferenced metrics. • What is the nature of linkage between individual state characterizations within and across statements, i.e., which statement types dominate the analyzed setting, and how are they configurally related (i.e., are regulative and constitutive statements linked, for example in complementary function)? • How is complexity (as determined as shown under Sect. 8.2.1.1) distributed across different parts of the analyzed setting? Which aspects of the action situation are central to the overall institutional function, and which ones are lateral? Which features of the action situation are more frequently visited (in analysis of institutions in use)? What implications does this have for the overall assessment of stringency? • To what extent does the action situation contain explicit or implied consequential features (potentially signaling primarily punitive or facilitative emphasis of the analyzed setting)? Can the analyst identify exceptional circumstances that are not governed by the institutions in place? Naturally, many of the observations intersect with the high-level analysis of component interactions on IG Core level (see Sect. 8.1); a key objective of the systemic analysis, however, is to draw an explicit linkage

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

309

between the institution as expressed in institutional information (independent of its source) and the institutional structure across arbitrary levels of organization, including individual statements, selective combinations, action situation, as well as institutional setting in its entirety. This provides the analyst with higher-level opportunities alluded to above, and further expanded here. A specific example of such analyses is the detection of structural holes in the institutional information. This may include the assessment of the density with which statements are interlinked. Based on the detection of isolated statements, or clusters thereof, the analyst may be motivated to explore the underlying reasons, which can, for instance, be characteristic for the specific institutional information of interest at large, or be an artifact of the sampling performed as part of the study (see Chapter 7), e.g., in terms of preconceived action situations. A further alternative consideration is the quality of the institution itself, including its completeness, cohesiveness, or extensive reliance on external institutional references that carry the complementary operational regulative information. While the compositional analysis, as introduced to this stage, eases the assessment by abstracting from details, the analyst may nevertheless be inclined to get a richer qualitative picture of the identified configuration, and selectively focus, or zoom in, on specific features of the individual atomic statements to provide an intuitive insight of the underlying operational semantics. Figure 8.11 exemplifies this by calling out the responsible actor (Attributes ) and activity (Aim) information, allowing the reader to reconstruct the essential principles of the original statement information alongside their configuration. Without illustration at this stage, and drawing toward an enriched quantitative assessment, the presentation can selectively be linked with complexity information introduced in Sect. 8.2.1.1. 8.2.1.5 Extracting Conceptual Organization Beyond the focus on the structural linkage between statements as a basis to afford a systemic reconstruction of the institutional setting, institutional information encoded on the refined IG Extended level provides additional structural information about the institutional system. As introduced throughout this book, the IG recognizes the presence of entities of general kind that are (ideally) captured in the dedicated constitutive statements that provide the basis to parameterize the institutional setting.

310

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.11 IG compositional patterns example with selected component information (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstit utionalgrammar.org/book-figures)

Examples of entities include actors, actions, objects, and artifacts as relevant in an action situation, or institutional setting more generally, but further extend to any form of entity originally discussed in the context of the constitutive syntax (see Sect. 4.2.5), including actors, actions, objects, artifacts, roles, infrastructure, status characterizations, etc. In practice, however, in addition to the well-defined role of constitutive statements, structural features pertaining to the conceptual organization of institutional statements are captured throughout all forms of institutional statements, most notably as part of Properties attached to individual components. Realizing the importance of the tacit characterizations, IG Extended draws on the Object-Property Hierarchy introduced in Chapter 5. Combined with the Property Typology introduced in Sect. 5.1.5, the analyst is able to categorize and extract the organizational skeleton that the explicit and tacit linkages expressed throughout statements, components, and Properties reflect. The Property Typology extracts diverse kinds of Properties based on various types, including the general distinction into Properties that are of quantitative and qualitative kind, and where qualitative information is identified, stratifies such into simple

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

311

and complex information. Simple information is generally expressed in adverbial form, whereas complex information essentially presumes an embedded structural linkage to other entities in the institutional setting. To illustrate this collation and organization of conceptual information, the following statement is revisited (under consideration of Property Type annotations):

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex5

This statement recognizes a set of different entities, including the actors and objects established in an institutional setting, but also their extended qualification based on properties. Actors identified as part of the statement include the Program Manager and certifying agent. As signaled based on the Properties annotation attached to individual entities, certifying agents can be accredited. Reviewing the qualification of the noncompliance (“any” ), this reflects an operational linkage to the statement the object is embedded in, as opposed to being a property that is conceptually attached to the object itself (i.e., conceptually or functionally dependent as discussed in Sect. 5.1.3). Contrasting this form of qualification, the notification of noncompliance indicates a specific form of notification that is conceptually linked to noncompliances observed in an institutional setting, but it furthermore does not reflect the only form of notification in statements, as evident from other statements such as the following example: When correction of a noncompliance is not possible, the notification of noncompliance and the proposed suspension or revocation may be combined in one notification.

Sampling across statements based on property and component type qualifications, let alone the explicit referencing of entities in all components, the analyst can reflect the conceptual organization of the entities, as exemplary showcased (for the statements referenced in this section) in Fig. 8.12.

312

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.12 Excerpt of Conceptual Entity Organization in Scenario (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/ book-figures)

An essential feature of the conceptual organization, or ontology of concepts referenced in the encoded data, is the isolation of institutionally relevant concepts on the one hand, and the implied semantic interlinkages on the other. Concepts prevalent in the referenced institutional setting are the referenced actors, as well as specific institutional acts available to an official, such as the certification and proceedings. As part of this specification, the sample makes reference to specific artifacts associated with any of such acts, as well as a distinctive set of policy references occurring across statements. The excerpt provided here, as indicated above, is selective in that it focuses on the categorization of individual entities. Beyond this, however, it offers insight into the interlinkages between the referenced entities based on the configuration of these entities expressed in institutional statements. The qualification by properties for actors, for instance, suggests their respective characterization as accredited (for certifying agents) and as either certified or uncertified (for operations). Specifically the latter state is linked to the activities associated with the institutional act performed by other actors, with the certification taking a focal role, since it is implicitly referenced by an operation’s property. As far as the structure suggests, certification can either be suspended or revoked; in the context of the institutional setting, suspensions or revocations exclusively associate with certifications. Other acts or artifacts may, however, be qualified in terms of the function they play. Signaling a suspension notification, for instance, highlights an implicit linkage between the notification and certification mediated via the suspension expressed as part of the notifications. The links in Fig. 8.12 reflect these implied conceptual linkages.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

313

Recognizing the general conceptual structure of entities, the analyst has an overview of the fixtures an institutional setting is comprised of. By making the implied linkages captured in the complex relationship characterizations expressed in the component annotations explicit, it provides the basis to establish the conceptual integration of constitutive and regulative statements, where the former define the structure, and latter regulate the actors embedded in this structure. From this perspective, the extraction of the conceptual organization of an institutional setting operates orthogonal to the compositional statement linkages highlighted in Sect. 8.2.1.4; instead of emphasizing the statement, and implicitly, institutional actor interdependencies, this structure offers an entity-centric organizational blueprint as a total view of the explicit and implicit organizational linkages. Complementing the analysis on the compositional side, the analyst may use this to draw insights about specification gaps in a given policy, sample, e.g., identifying in how far entities, actions, etc. are explicitly defined or merely referenced, let alone their relationships as implied by institutional statements. Specifically, the latter aspect can be realized by applying reasoning techniques that operate on the extracted conceptual structure and associated semantics (see e.g., Staab & Studer, 2009). This view on the organizational structure completes the sampling of static approaches to the systemic analysis as afforded by IG Extended features. The deep structural representation provides the basis to analyze individual statements on atomic level based on general complexity metrics that are further broken down to individual components in order to attach the semantics that meet the analyst’s objective. The compositional analysis builds on the structural decomposition based on the various nesting capabilities and provides a structural overview of the institutional patterns across various scopes, starting from individual statements, and generalizing to arbitrary levels of statement aggregation. The conceptual organization contextualizes the institutional linkages of statements. All of the analytical approaches highlighted in this section can be variably combined, but nevertheless focus on the static perspective of analysis. To draw a linkage to the analytical opportunities that specifically IG Extended affords for the study of institutions in simulated behavioral settings, the next section sketches methodological pathways toward such study, alongside exemplary research questions.

314

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

8.2.2

Institutional Modeling

Building on the extended insight sponsored by the deeper structural analysis that IG Extended affords, both with respect to the quantification of complexity and representation of institutional structure, a specific promise associated with IG coding related to the computational use of the encoded information is to move beyond a mere processing of the coded data. Instead, IG Extended data can further be leveraged to generate data based on computational representations that essentially reflect synthetic institutions in use, offering the opportunity to complementarily or supplementarily engage in experimental studies to leverage and derive institutional insight. The concept underlying the behavioral use of IG data (whether coded or generated) is Institutional Modeling, a brief background on which is provided in the following. 8.2.2.1 Background Institutional Modeling, as referenced here, captures approaches that emphasize the study of specific or systemic structure of institutions, with primary focus on the description and/or re/construction of institutional arrangements. Associated analyses may be static (i.e., focus on structure) or dynamic (i.e., focus on behavior and/or change in structure) in kind. With the primary emphasis on computational approaches, it builds on the traditions of electronic institutions (e.g., Noriega, 1997; RodríguezAguilar, 2001) that implement institutions in mechanistic form to afford automated enforcement, essentially reflecting the computational equivalent to mechanism design and implementation, which de facto guarantees regulatory compliance by design. Other approaches, such as the ones emphasizes in this context, include the self-governance based on social mechanisms built into computational models (e.g., Grossi et al., 2006; Savarimuthu & Cranefield, 2011) in order to respond to questions related to the socio-cognitive processes that lead to the emergence of institutions more generally (e.g., Frantz, 2015; Morales et al., 2015), apply to characteristic institutional arrangements (e.g., Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016), and cover the socio-institutional and legal-institutional perspective (Frantz & Pigozzi, 2018; Morris-Martin et al., 2019), respectively.5

5 A broader background on the computational modeling of institutions is provided in Chapter 1.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

315

8.2.2.2 Agent-Based Institutional Modeling With the focus on computational approaches to institutions, this section specifically references the computational modeling of artificial societies that conceptually represent the real-world institutional setting, referenced as Agent-based Institutional Modeling. Agent-based modeling, or more accurately Agent-based Modeling and Simulation (Epstein, 2007; Gilbert & Troitzsch, 2005), more generally, reflects an interactionist approach to modeling and aims at reconstruction of macro-level patterns (e.g., normative and institutional arrangements) based on micro-level interaction between the associated entities (e.g., enforcement, decisionmaking) (see e.g., Gilbert & Troitzsch, 2005) in a simulation setting. The principal approach of drawing analytical insight from micro-level information signals the paradigmatic compatibility of IG research with agent-based modeling (see preceding discussion). Naturally, such reconstruction requires the representation of agents as proxies for humans, organizations, or any other form of entity that exercises agency. Derived from richer representations in the area of multiagent systems (Shoham & Leyton-Brown, 2014), agents are generally characterized by the ability to show social behavior based on their action and reaction, potentially including the ability to communicate indirectly (mediated via the environment) or directly (via communication). They may further display a certain extent of autonomy in their decisionmaking (see e.g., Castelfranchi (1995), Ferber (1999), and Jennings and Wooldridge (2000)). In practice, the cognitive abilities of agents can vastly differ and generally exist in a trade-off with the representational necessities and computational bounds in terms of number of agents. An essential determinant is the contextually required level of cognitively plausible behavior displayed by an agent (see Epstein, 2014). In addition to the agent, models of artificial societies rely on the presence of an environment that can, similar to the agent concept, be more or less abstract, ranging from an accurate representation based on spatial models, realistic resource capacity, to the effective absence. In addition to agents and environment, scenarios are further characterized by the relationships that exist between agents (Ferber, 1999). An extension that is specific to the application of agent-based models in the context of institutional modeling is the representation of institutional concepts. While general applications to institutional analysis using ABMs have been broad (e.g., Janssen (2009) for an example; Smajgl and Barreteau (2017) for an overview), applications related to the IG

316

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

have been more limited. Models related to the IG more specifically have covered the full range of institution types of the IG (see Sect. 4.2.3) and may variably be represented external to the agents as part of the environment (e.g., Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016), represented in a dedicated agent representing a proxy for the institution (see e.g., Smajgl et al., 2010), or be distributed across agents (e.g., Frantz et al., 2015). Generative processes associated with institutions, decision-making, and enforcement mechanisms may exist in variable forms. Institutional models may further be general in kind, or respond to modeling needs with respect to specific forms of institutions. Notably, Ghorbani et al. (2013) propose a methodological process that specifically supports the formulation of common pool resource problems in terms of agent-based models. To this end, associated models build on a computational variant of the Institutional Analysis and Design Framework (IAD), termed IAD+, to generate templates of partially populated agent-based models based on rich preconfigured structures that accord to the IAD framework. 8.2.2.3 Analytical Opportunities This brief overview of the conceptual principles may leave the reader with an initial impression of the principal opportunity to “replay” human behavior in arbitrary scenarios that feature various forms of institutions, but should also leave the sense that agent-based models are inherently flexible, making them variably specific, or reflect institutional settings that are able to respond to open-ended sets of questions. This is in contrast to the structural analyses introduced for IG Core and IG Extended that primarily offer descriptive insights into institutional arrangements, independent of the source of the information (e.g., institutions in form, institutions in use, various types). Moreover, the analysis is static in kind in that it operates on fixed statements, or snapshots of institutional statements. Agent-based models, in contrast, assume a flexible dynamic approach that extends to the nature in which institutions are represented or introduced in the system, as well as the analytical opportunities based on the purposes they inherit from agent-based modeling more generally (see Edmonds and Meyer, (2017), J. Epstein (2008), and Gilbert (2004)). While use cases and applications are diverse (e.g., illustration, prediction), their value and orientation is contingent on objectives, as well as available theoretical foundation, and data used to parameterize such models. Targeted specifically at the institutional perspective, agent-based models offer the following relevant purposes:

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

317

• Replication/Validation – Agent-based models can be used to reconstruct institutional arrangements reported in the literature to lend support and suggest validity based on a different techniques complementary to the ones reported in the literature basis (e.g., qualitative study). • Hypothesis/Theory Testing – Relatedly, agent-based institutional models can be used to “replay” behavior, and by doing so, retrace or postulate processes of path dependence in institutional decisions, test hypotheses about the origin of the observed behavior (e.g., where factual information is missing, analyses are based on anecdotal accounts, or validation of analyses is sought). The ability to replay simulations arbitrarily often, and in varying constellations, provides the basis for iterative refinement of models in response to theoretical insights. • Theory Development – Alternatively, or complementary, modelers may look ahead, and postulate future realities in the form of “what if” studies that “fast forward” models of human societies to serve as a basis for prediction on the one hand, but, based on targeted experimentation, can support theory development based on observed phenomena. In addition to the establishment of reliability, falsifying hypotheses, ABMs can be used to develop explanatory accounts – an aspect showcased later – based on their dynamic execution principles, that can operate complementary to traditional static analyses offered by the previously introduced approaches, both to enhance the analysis, but also to populate agent-based models in the first place. A feature specific to agent-based models is the ability to flexibly combine theory and data (Tolk, 2015), thus providing the opportunity to compensate and complement theoretical features with data where existent, and conversely, fill gaps in data with model features derived from theory. This combined interactive use of theory and data provides an intuition of the principal flexibility that agent-based modeling affords, which has earned simulation as the associated method the label of the “third way of doing science” (Axelrod, 1997), complementing the dominating traditional deductive and inductive approaches.

318

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

8.2.2.4 Institutional Modeling Principles Turning to the practical use of agent-based institutional models in the research process, this section establishes a basic understanding of the process, provokes questions relevant in this process, and provides the reader with a sense of how IG data can be used to support this process. Building on the principal building blocks of agent-based models, agents, their organization, and the environment, alongside the representation of institutional structures, the modeler is initially tasked to derive the relevant information to variably support the design, parameterization, and analysis of output generated by institutional models. Methodological Considerations As with any research, the identification of analytical objectives is necessarily the primary concern. This is associated with the question of whether the model is parameterized with de facto exogenous institutional information, or variably produces, or generates, institutional arrangements as part of the model execution. Where input in the form of institution statements is sought, the structure of the resulting model critically relies on the presence of relevant data, as well as the level of detail at which data is available. Another aspect relates to the mapping of data to relevant entities that defines how the data is used. Implied in this consideration is that institutional information alone, as potentially collected based on encoded statements is insufficient to design and parameterize a model entirely. In fact, the modeler is challenged to identify which parts or elements in the model can be populated with institutional information (if any). While information captured in collected institutional statements is useful to characterize aspects of actor behavior, the extraction of this information depends on a set of principal questions related to the nature and quality of the data to guide the ensuing processing. • Which institutional features and domain(s) do the data represent? – This question is central to the model design, since it constrains the key features in the institutional setting to be analyzed. What domain is the setting associated with? Does the institutional setting include consideration of environmental characteristics

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

319

(e.g., resources, topology), or is the environment inherently abstract? • Is the representation complete? – Essential concern associated with this question is whether the provided information is partial, and thus requires complementary information derived from context, literature, or based on other information sources. It effectively signals the need for additional data collection. An alternative approach is the targeted exploration (e.g., based on assumed theorized institutions) to fill conceptual gaps. • Does the data describe “institutions in form” or “institutions in use”? – This question relates to the nature of the institutions, specifically, whether it reflects institutions in form or institutions in use. Institutions in form invite for the implementation of institutional statements within an institutionally parameterized environment, e.g., implementation through a dedicated actor that effectively reflects the governing authority. Institutions in use, in contrast, inform the structuring of agent behavior directly, generally represented in terms of execution cycles that agents enact, and in which institutional information is reflected. • Does the data include sanctioning information, and if so, of which quality? – While linked to the nature of the institution types (Sect. 4.2.3), a central concern is whether sanctioning mechanisms are present in the first place, and more importantly, what the intended effect is. Do they reflect economic sanctions, status moderation or include other forms of social, emotional, or even existential consequences? Aspects of such nature have fundamental impact on how an agent is structured, the cognitive makeup it needs to provide (e.g., an agent being able to feel emotions is of different nature than an agent experiencing economic sanctions), and what the agent is in the first place, including its type (e.g., human, organization, State), multitude, and diversity (homogeneous, heterogenous). Another consideration is the origin of sanctions or consequences: if originating

320

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

from the natural environment, such facility must be considered in the institutional model (how do agents sense the environment, or should the environment be represented as an agent in its own right?). Stratifying the discussion, and moving from the model design more generally to individual elements, modeling concerns center on the association of model elements and institutional information, notably asking the following questions: • Which actors are involved in the modeled setting, and what are their characteristics? • How are actors in an institutional setting organizationally/structurally related? • Which actions can those actors perform? Which entities or environmental features do or can they act upon (i.e., interact with, or react to)? • Which environmental characteristics are relevant in the institutional setting? With answers to those general questions, the modeler is in the position to link the institutional data with elements in the model. The mapping of information naturally depends on the nature of the model and the kinds of questions the modeler intends to seek responses to as part of the analytical process. As part of the design process, as indicated above, the modeler has to consider the central aspects that are part of the model, and establish which information can be sourced from institutional information alone, and which relies on contextual information derived or sourced otherwise (e.g., based on literature, qualitative studies, experimentation). Looking at institutional information captured in institutional statements more specifically, the modeler can draw on some natural mappings that derive from the component-level syntactic characterization, the statement-level classification, as well preliminary structural analyses, akin to the kinds mentioned above. Given the objective of the IG 2.0 on the IG Extended level to capture institutions comprehensively, the operationalization of collected institutional information is twofold, firstly contributing to the model structure

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

321

more generally, i.e., the identification of relevant environmental and institutional characteristics that institutional statements reference; the fixture of the institutional setting. The second aspect relates to the runtime parameterization with contextual information. Focusing on the model design initially, it is important to state that agent-based models implicitly reflect a closed environment (i.e., in simulation settings, unlike open multi-agent systems, agents generally interact within the system only in order to be able to develop deterministic models in which behavior can be replicated). The scope of this environment, however, is flexible. Naturally, it will provide the boundaries of the institutional setting in the wider sense, but it is at the designer’s discretion to determine the specific scope, e.g., whether a scenario entails multiple or only a single action situation. Where multiple action situations are reflected, their differentiated consideration is important to unambiguously identify and associate characteristics specific to the individual action situations (e.g., positions). Inasfar as the entities (e.g., actors, objects, actions, etc.) within the model are concerned, such structural information is primarily derived from individual component references captured in statements of both constitutive and regulative kind. Specifically agency-centric regulative statements bear a conceptual and structural commonality with agent behavior that has motivated the uptake of the IG for computational studies in the first place. This specifically includes the representation of actors in Attributes (in the contemporary interpretation of the IG), activities in Aim, and receiver of activities in the Object component variants. For other instances, the mapping may be less symmetric, including the specific objects that institutional statements can hold, which can, where annotated as animate, often assume the role of an actor, and conversely represent environmental features, alongside the Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints that reference environmental aspects of material (e.g., bio-physical environment) or non-material kind, as well as the potential institutional environment outside the analyzed setting (i.e., the one that embeds the analyzed institutional setting), let alone features of the institutional setting represented in the environment (as discussed above). Importantly, where components capture nested statements (e.g., based on component-level nesting (see Sect. 5.1.1)), those are linked equivalent to first-order components. Figure 8.13 offers a general overview of principal linkages between components in the IG and ABM constructs.

322

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.13 General conceptual mapping of IG components to agent-based models

Reviewing the primary associations between components and ABM constructs, regulative statements offer a more immediate linkage to agent-based concepts due to the explicitly actor-centrism, and the comparatively diverse characterization of systemic features by constitutive statements, including actor-centric entities, and institutional as well as environmental features. It is further important to note that this mapping is general, but should be operationalized with specific cases or domains in mind so as to generate an unambiguous structural linkage of institutional information and model. Turning to the use of institutional statements for the operational parameterization of behavior regulation, especially if directly injected into agent behavior (and thereby more closely associated with the dynamic runtime structure of the model), a set of considerations needs to be taken into account. To afford accessible modeling, institutional statements as compound units, require decomposition to a level that corresponds to the atomic unit of behavior agents can engage in (i.e., ideally in the form of linked atomic institutional statements), institutional information is still expressed in variable form, including stylistic preferences, writing traditions, forms of text, and other aspects discussed in Chapter 3. However, barring other forms of syntactic preprocessing (e.g., stemming of concepts

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

323

where an automated mapping is considered), the representation in institutional models requires very specific methodological considerations pertaining to the embedded or implied semantic information: • Statements may be expressed in passive form, requiring a reconstruction in active tense, an aspect of principal relevance in the context of the encoding of statements more generally (see Chapter 7). • Statements may variably express sanctions in terms of conditional statements, as opposed to the Or else structure assumed for institutional statements, demanding for a reconstruction in inconsistent form that separates environmental circumstances as activators of behavioral regulation from consequences of noncompliances.6 • Individual statements are necessarily expressed from the perspective of one actor (i.e., the entity captured in the Attributes component), but may carry implications for multiple actors (e.g., actors referenced in the Object or Context components). Such statements require corresponding reconstruction based on the principles of Perspective Extrapolation, to be discussed in the upcoming Sect. 8.3. • Properties associated with individual components have particular operational relevance, since they, a) hold information that offers a substantive characterization of the actor (e.g., nature of the actor), b) express content that can be reconstructed in condition terms (e.g., beliefs), and c) may capture quantitative information that offer a qualification of regulative content of an institutional statement itself (e.g., “no actor,” “some actors,” “all actors” ) that is relevant for the compliance assessment in the model (independent of how monitoring and enforcement are implemented). • Finally, semantic annotations associated with individual components (e.g., role characterizations), inform about the semantic linkages that a model needs to afford (e.g., the ability to transmit objects between entities, identification of parties affected by any transaction), or context characterizations that are of institutional relevance (e.g., temporal, spatial representations, distinctive states/transitions, or other forms of circumstances), or offer enhanced characterization of activities (e.g., contextual references to methods or tools that the

6 Relevant encoding practices are discussed in Chapter 7, and the logical treatment is offered in Sect. 6.1.4.

324

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

modeler may consider representing). As indicated in Sect. 6.1.2, in preparation for (or accommodation of) the modeling task, annotations may be enhanced to afford a customized mapping in response to analytical objectives or characteristics of the modeled setting, or the modeling activity (e.g., reflecting distinctive functional roles of agents, or accommodating concepts specific to the employed modeling platform). Naturally, the resolution of such challenges depends on the level of expressiveness at which information is encoded. Specifically for the resolution of interactive linkages, the representation in the form of IG Extended is important. However, the modeler can, as implied above, selectively draw on features derived from higher levels of expressiveness. Beyond the focus on the individual statements, the structure of entities and their relationships modeled at design time, i.e., before the execution of the model as part of a simulation, can be derived based on the structural analyses introduced earlier in this section. For instance, the conceptual organization of entities (see Sect. 8.2.1.5) provides a conceptual blueprint of the relationships and the nature of the entities relevant in an institutional setting, and can inform the selection of relevant elements for a modeling exercise, and afford a specific mapping beyond the general mapping presented above. Moving closer to the design of agent behavior, the recognition of action interdependencies is of relevance to model behavioral cycles that agents engage in. Whereas institutional statements may express behavioral guidance, in this context the primary focus is the presence and interdependencies of activities more generally, aspects that are captured in the compositional patterns introduced as part of the Systemic Analysis (see Sect. 8.2.1.4), and support the design of general execution models that describe agent behavior, specifically with respect to co-occurring activity, alternatives, and consequential linkages. A further aspect relates to the actual implementation of institutional features in the system, including the consideration of the representation of institutions in the first place (e.g., centralized, decentralized), as well as the cognitive abilities that agents have with respect to the institutions, signaling the diversity of capabilities captured in agent-based models more generally:

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

325

• Do agents rationalize institutions explicitly, can they potentially modify those representations, or reason about those (e.g., develop attitudes toward those, or merely execute the rules)? • Are agents able to violate institutionally prescribed behavior? How are the consequences represented (an aspect discussed above)? Does the model reflect graduated sanctioning? • How (and by whom) is the violation of behavior assessed? How is the observation of violations and the enforcement of sanctions implemented (performed by independent entities (see Sect. 4.2.3), centralized or decentralized)? Responses to these questions will help the modeler decide on the complexity of the agent model, alongside potential reasoning capabilities (Balke & Gilbert, 2014), and the representation of relevant concepts (e.g., affective behavior, economic principles, etc.), as well as central system design decisions (e.g., presence of monitors, enforcers), which may, similar to the considerations of agents earlier, be built into the environment, as opposed to being represented as agents themselves (e.g., dedicated or distributed enforcement). Central here is the flexibility that the modeler has with respect to the detail and comprehensiveness of representation, leading variably to models that abstractly focus on particular types of institutions more generally (e.g., Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016), the analysis of specific institutional arrangements that draws on concrete environmental features (e.g., Smajgl et al., 2008), or emphasizing an inherently internal representation of institutions and foregoing an explicit representation of the environment entirely (e.g., Frantz et al., 2015). While previously only theoretically explored by Crawford and Ostrom in the context of their original game-theoretical operationalization, the notion of Delta parameters (see Sect. 4.2.4) is a potential candidate to operationalize institutional conformance based on environmental or internal factors. Central in the context of modeling, however, is the appropriate parameterization of associated payoffs in the institutional setting. In contrast to game-theoretical applications, however, ABMs in principle allow for the dynamic adjustment of payoff structures, enhancing the operational value of delta parameter in ABMs specifically. Agent concepts are furthermore often enriched with learning capabilities (e.g., based on reinforcement learning [Watkins, 1989]) to resemble more plausible human behavior.

326

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Having briefly highlighted the opportunities associated with ABMs, this flexibility comes at the risk of developing models that offer insufficient grounding based on compatible theory and empirical evidence (potentially leading to validity problems), and more immediate risks associated with the complexity of the programmed simulation model itself (making verification, i.e., assessing the correctness of the implemented model itself, more challenging). An extended range of problems, alongside mitigation strategies, is discussed by Edmonds and Meyer (2017). Exemplifying aspects of the modeling process, agents are designed in terms of distinctive execution cycles specific to each actor in the system. The execution cycle is parameterized based on contextual information that describes empirically, theoretically, or hypothetically, how typical entities of a particular kind, including the strategies and choices they make based on individual (ir-)rational operation, learning, social influence, or whichever concept a modeler wishes to see implemented. It is this flexibility that makes agent-based models, in principle, amenable to address questions in any of the domains referenced in Chapter 1. To illustrate a principal structure of a decision-making process an agent engages in, Fig. 8.14 describes the internal process of a farmer in an Organic Farming setting, who can choose to apply for organic farming certifications, can decide to behave (non-)compliantly based on individual preferences, and, on similar bases, engage in social monitoring. Illustrated here conceptually, such behavior would then be implemented, typically using a general-purpose agent-based modeling platform, such as NetLogo (Wilensky, 1999), MASON (Luke et al., 2005), alongside numerous others,7 or implemented directly using a general-purpose (e.g., Python, Java) or specialized programming languages (e.g., Julia). Analytical Considerations Based on parameterization, the instantiated (i.e., running) model then recreates a network structure of the agent society (artificial society) in which the agents behave according to the implemented behavior, potentially reflecting complex social interrelationships based on organizational features (agent relationships) embedded in the model. This is visualized in Fig. 8.15 for different types of agents in the illustrative Organic Farming 7 See Abar et al. (2017) for an overview of various agent-based modeling and simulation platforms.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

327

Fig. 8.14 Exemplary Execution Cycle of a farmer in the Organic Farming Scenario

328

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.15 Generated Agent Society

scenario, which is comprised of few certifiers (in red color), the inspectors (blue) endowed with monitoring tasks, and the large number of organic farming operations they monitor (green). Analysis of such models generally occurs based on the produced output, and generally in aggregated form and as time series, e.g., to reflect dominant behavior, formed structural groupings (akin to the figure above) that can be analyzed using social network metrics, or environmental characteristics, such as resource levels, economic outcomes, etc.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

329

Fig. 8.16 Exemplary Institutional Statement Output

on various levels of aggregation. The temporal dimension highlights the dynamics of such aspects over time, allowing the experimenter to observe convergence towards stable (or unstable) states that generally form the basis for further analysis (e.g., equilibria as indicators of effective institutions in use). Robustness of simulation results is established by sensitivity analyses across relevant parameter ranges and repeated runs.8 Specific to the discussion in the context of the IG, however, the output can occur in the form of traces represented in the structure of institutional statements. Interpreted in a dynamic system such as a social simulation setting, such statements thus reflect the “institutions in use,” capturing the institutional reality within the artificial society, while reflecting a considerable level of complexity. Drawing on the key features introduced as part of the IG 2.0, Fig. 8.16 highlights a set of institutional traces that exploit the structural features of IG Extended and illustrate 8 For further introduction to social simulation principles see Gilbert and Troitzsch (2005) and Railsback and Grimm (2011), for advanced methodological considerations refer to Edmonds and Meyer (2017).

330

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

the opportunities associated with the direct use of institutional statements in ABMs to parameterize as well as to generate institutional information using the same structural representation. Providing intuitive guidance on the interpretation, transcribed directly, the first statement suggests that “Farmers must apply for certification, or else farmers will earn profit of less then 500,” signaling the rationalization that the principal application for certification is attractive based on observations and experience. The second statement is more complex and suggests that “certified farmers must not violate organic farming rules once their certification has been approved, or else certifiers will revoke the certification.” While pragmatically expressed here, the Activation Condition (Cac) in this statement essentially retraces the principal activities involved in the certification process, signaling the interdependence of the individual activities that lead to approval of certification as a precondition for compliance expectations in the first place. Made explicit, the statement has the following structure:

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

331

The third statement contextualizes and suggests that certified farmers themselves should engage in peer monitoring once they received certification, while laying out a more complex justification for such behavior based on the unfolding dynamics (i.e., because of observed enhanced violation behavior, or increasingly observed suspensions of certifications following their approval). The fourth statement highlights, for instance, an effect of learning. Unless explicitly injected as part of the model design, agents do not have any priors about compliance expectations, and may learn that compliance with organic rules only applies if they are actually certified (i.e., they may

332

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

violate if they are not certified). The fifth statement exemplifies potential notions of cognitive dissonance that agents can express, since it signals motivations not to apply for certification, which is balanced by the leading first statement that captures the motivation to apply. Aggregated across both statements (note the numeric representation of the Deontic), the agent can thus develop a differentiated and complex picture of the motivations for compliance. Conceptually, the principles discussed here mirror the principle of Delta parameters (see Sect. 4.2.4), an aspect that is further discussed in Frantz et al. (2015) and Frantz (2020). The final statement highlights potential observational capabilities across entities captured in agent-based models, here, for instance, relating to the certifier. Summarizing this exposition of the stylized application, the reader may appreciate the principles of agent-based institutional modeling more generally, but also get an impression of how the IG can be integrated in this process, both to inform the representation of characteristics of the environment, agents and their relationships, and, of course, institutional characteristics, whether used as parameters for a model (i.e., exogenous to the model), or as institutions in use (i.e., endogenously generated). Naturally, institutional information alone offers only partial information for the model generation. Centrally, the underlying research question should guide the modeling process, which informs how and where institutional information is injected in the modeling process. The design and parameterization of agent-based models necessarily relies on extended contextual scenario information, including, for instance, information about the number of agents in the simulated physical system, behavioral characteristics not captured in institutional information (e.g., underlying motivational bases, assuming cognitive makeup), including lifecycle patterns of agents (e.g., daytime structure, lifetime), frequencies of interaction, duration of the simulation, aspects sourced from complementary information as indicated above, or plausibly established. Concluding this overview of the potential use of the IG in Agentbased institutional models, both the IG and the principles of ABMs exhibit compatibilities that makes their complementary use attractive. Both ABMs and IG information, specifically with the refined structure described in this book, are inherently flexible in the degree to which they capture and express complexity. Institutional statements, as compositional

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

333

patterns based on uniform statement units, focus on the representation of essential institutional information captured in the well-defined units of institutional statements (with additional specificity sponsored by annotation features). For the analyst, this offers conveniences to use agent-based models as synthetic alternatives to human societies, affording broader experimental opportunities, de facto unlimited opportunities to “replay” the experiments, as well as drawing direct insights from the running model. Central to analytical approaches that embed agent-based modeling is the ability to integrate institutional concepts in variable form as discussed above, i.e., either to exogenously parameterize the simulated institutional environments (as motivated in the discussion of methodological considerations highlighted before), or to interpret “institution as the output” of such models, signaling the institutions that emerge either in response, or independent of institutional information that served as input. In addition to the principal flexibility to include institutional information either for the input or output of models, a central difference to the previous methods is the inherently dynamic nature that, on the one hand, allows the observation of dynamics over time, identifying the conditions under which (and for how long) stability emerges. While the indication of convergence of a dependent variable is common for many agentbased models, institutional models specifically draw on the (in)stability of institutional arrangements over time as an important reported variable. From the perspective of the institutional analyst specifically, complex social models are able to represent not only a wide range of institutional facets, but are also able to integrate disciplinary perspectives that have previously been represented distinctly in Chapter 1, for example, affording the integrated consideration of economic, social-psychological, and legal aspects in a model, and produce emergent results based on the employed interactionist metaphor, an aspect that is mirrored in the IG. In addition to being agnostic to specific disciplinary perspectives, the structural homogeneity offered by the IG makes it a candidate to serve as input, i.e., to parameterize agents and/or environment, or as output (as shown above). Summarizing, agent-based institutional modeling drawing on the IG as representational means:

334

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

• can capture dynamics over time, potentially including runtime dynamics, • can apply the complexity metrics introduced throughout this chapter, depending on the complexity of the output (detail of component representation, statement interlinkage of atomic statements), • can be aggregated on arbitrary levels of social organization, variably representing individual agents (micro level), groups thereof (meso level), or the society at large (macro level), • can represent formal institutions, i.e., rules devised in a collective action setting (e.g., Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016), or informal institutions, based on norms that groups of individuals or the society adopt over time (e.g., Frantz et al., 2015). Contextualizing the analytical value of ABMs in contrast to real-world societies, computational models allow for the controlled replay of experiments, which can expose institutional information of arbitrary complexity and accuracy at levels of detail that may be hard to establish in real-world settings in the first place (see Watkins & Westphal, 2016). In addition to making institutional information apparent to the experimenter, agentbased models in principle allow for the linkage to the structures (e.g., agents, environmental preconditions) that caused them in the first place, giving them explanatory power (Frantz, 2020), beyond the primarily descriptive foci of other approaches. The reader should, however, be left with the impression that, unlike people, agents can in fact “talk in institutional statements,” affording artificial societies a special role in the empirical study of behavior using the Institutional Grammar. 8.2.3

Discussion of Structural and Behavioral Analytical Approaches

Inasmuch as the previous discussion focuses on dynamic approaches to use or generate institutional information in terms of the IG, similar to the static analysis principles highlighted before, approaches in this section

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

335

focus on the deep structural analysis that builds on a fine-grained parsing of statement features. On this basis, the structural analysis approaches introduced in Sect. 8.2.1 provide fine-grained metrics of institutional statements that can leverage the features of the IG to quantify institutional complexity in a differentiated way that makes distinctive complexity features accessible to the analyst. At the same time, the deep parsing that operates on the fundamental institutional structures motivated in Sects. 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 exposes the linkages between individual statements in order to facilitate a systemic analysis that enables an abstract assessment of the structural linkages based on compositional representations, as well as a general organizational view on the entities embedded in the institutional setting. Building off the perspective on institutions as systems of institutional statements, Institutional Modeling, and more specifically Agent-based Institutional Modeling, was introduced as representative of a wider range of dynamic approaches to institutional analysis, such as System Dynamics (Forrester, 1971), alongside methodological considerations linked to the processing of institutional information. Where static analyses focus on institutional statements as input for assessment (e.g., to establish complexity metrics), dynamic approaches provide the potential to produce, or generate institutional statements as output (e.g., reflecting emerging or evolving institutional arrangements). More specifically, the dynamic analysis allows for novel analytical opportunities by emulating behavioral assessments (e.g., based on simulated societies) that are repeatable, and can be used to test hypotheticals impossible or unknown in real systems. Dynamic approaches can thereby draw on and be applied in concert with static analytical approaches, e.g., to evaluate snapshots of institutional system constellations. Central to the approaches introduced in this section is the principal applicability on arbitrary levels of aggregation, ranging from the analysis of individual statements’ complexity to the composite structural representation of institutions. Central difference, however, lies in the primarily descriptive perspective of static analysis of existing arrangements and the generative perspective of institutional models that responds to a broader range of additional objectives (e.g., replication, hypothesis testing, etc.).

336

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

The exposition of approaches to structural and behavioral analysis in this section has been organized with primary focus on the exploitation of features introduced as part of IG Extended, i.e., deep structural information. However, despite this extended structural focus aiming at more comprehensive institutional analyses, most of the metrics, approaches, and techniques are general in kind, and put limited emphasis on epistemological integration with theories or frameworks linked to the analyst’s domain. The upcoming section addresses this by introducing a semantic perspective on institutional information that draws on general institutionally relevant concepts, but further offers the analyst the opportunity to tailor their analytical approaches. Important to note, however, is that the introduced concepts do not inherently depart from the techniques proposed in this section, but can selectively extend analytical opportunities or supplement methodological features, or be applied independently, especially where the application is tailored toward objectives that focus on explanatory accounts related to specific institutional statement content (or collections thereof), and less on the reconstruction of structural complexity at large.

8.3

IG Logico---Semantic Analyses

The final section of this chapter concentrates on the semantic perspective imposed on institutional statements. Most notably, motivations for analysis on this level are opportunities to respond to research questions that speak to the conceptual integrity of the encoded institutional information itself, and attempts to evaluate and explain the meaning of the institutional content captured in individual statements. While the previous section initiated the extraction of features based on a systemic perspective, primary emphasis lay on structural features. This section complements this perspective by overlaying the structural with a semantic perspective, initially to further abstract from linguistic representations by exposing biases embedded in structure and alleviating those by transforming statements accordingly. An initial approach in this direction is the extrapolation of actor perspectives (referenced throughout earlier sections of the book) that are not immediately overt in institutional statements, followed by opportunities to draw out semantic features of

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

337

institutional statements more explicitly to allow for explanatory accounts by developing conceptual and theoretical links to the analyst’s domain. 8.3.1

Perspective Extrapolation in Institutional Statements

Whether in policy, language, or generated by agents (see Fig. 8.16), statements are necessarily formulated with a particular entity in focus (e.g., the actor), and the effects that this actor has on its environment as communicated via the activity it can perform, and, of course, the target of such activity (i.e., the object). If attempting to work toward the reconstruction of the institutional setting under consideration of all involved and directly or indirectly affected actors, it becomes prudent to provide mechanisms that cannot only capture language abstractly in compositions of uniform structural patterns as discussed throughout this book, but to flexibly reconstruct these statements themselves to explicitly characterize the effect each statement has on all involved actors. To this end, a central feature introduced under the label IG Logico is the logical characterization of the IG, and an associated set of transformation rules (see Sect. 6.1.4) that enable the extraction and reconstruction of statements in variable form. The approach introduced in this section builds on these basic transformations and highlights how their combined use can yield more complex operations of distinctive analytical value, beyond the reconstruction to establish consistent representations of statements (as discussed in Sect. 6.1.4 and Chapter 7). We explore this borrowing a variant of the running example explored in the context of the structural analysis under IG Extended (see Sect. 8.2.1), expressed in IG Script format below.

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex6

Structurally, this corresponds to the following institutional tree structure:

338

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

This compound statement consists, as discussed earlier, of a range of atomic states and a leading statement. Notably, this statement is constructed from the perspective of the Program Manager as the focal entity. Institutionally, however, this statement invites for select observations. Firstly, this leading statement is conceptually a consequential statement, since it specifies a sanctioning provision targeted against noncompliant entities (certified operation & certifying agent ). Secondly, it implies obligations on the part of all three actors referenced in this

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

339

statement. In order to reconstruct the statement from the perspective of all involved actors (Perspective Extrapolation), the logical transformations introduced as part of IG Logico provide a basis for the extraction and reconstruction of three distinct statements that reflect the specific provision from individual perspectives. Essential hereby is the implied representation of institutional consequences (e.g., behavioral or existential consequences as a response to the nonfulfillment or violation of provisions). The basic algorithm to facilitate Perspective Extrapolation includes the following steps:

340

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Exemplifying this for the referenced statement, the leaf statements are “certified operation has violated the Act ” “certifying agent fails to enforce the Act ”

Following the reconstruction principles outlined above, the first statement is constructed as follows (with inferences highlighted in bold font):

As illustrated in the reconstruction, linguistic adjustments (e.g., to accommodate the reconstructed (linguistic) grammatical sentence structure), are explicitly tolerated; essential for the application of the IG is that the institutional meaning associated with the individual components and their composite form is not affected (as elaborated in Sect. 5.1). While this flexibility of abstracting from linguistic structure highlights a central feature of the New IG, it is important to ensure that methodological aspects or assumptions do not prohibit any deviation from the original structural form of language.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

341

Reconstructed in an analogous way, the second statement reads:

Combined with the original statement that had the Program Manager in focus, the semantics associated with the original institutional statement have been transformed to capture all inferred associated obligations on the part of all referenced actors. While applied specifically to a statement that displays diverse actors, the extrapolation equally applies to nested statements that reference the same actor as the leading statement. The value of the principle highlighted above is both of methodological and analytical nature. The methodological value lies in the ability to make institutional text written from a specific perspective useful to operationalize institutional models that assume a multi-actor perspective, an aspect relevant for the construction of agent-based models as discussed as part of the methodological considerations highlighted in Sect. 8.2.2.4. Applied analytically, the extrapolation of provisions from multiple perspectives offers a range of potentials, including the facility to identify or remove intentional or unintentional bias embedded in the text itself. Independent from intentional biases based on the application domain (e.g., regulation addressed at enforcement), the emphasis on enforcement and monitoring personnel, for instance, could be hypothesized to signal a primarily punitive perspective, whereas the perspective of policy subjects may signal enabling function and assume a more facilitative perspective. Similarly, the reconstruction may expose broader systemic biases not evident at first sight, such as an over- or underregulation of specific parties referenced in a regulatory document. The reconstruction could,

342

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

for instance, indicate the complete lack of oversight for any given party referenced in the document, and thereby capture power disparity not overtly captured in the text. Finally, in the design process, the reconstruction could aid the assessment of policy quality by seeking validation for a consistent representation from the perspective of all policy targets. Fundamentally, however, the logical treatment provides the basis to afford an extreme abstraction from the underlying linguistic form still captured in the structure of statements encoded to IG Extended. IG Logico-based analysis facilitates the analytical concentration on semantic interpretation only, whereas the logical operations afford the abstraction from the underlying structure extracted as part of the deep parsing afforded by IG Extended. 8.3.2

Chaining Transformation Rules

Beyond the specific reconstruction highlighted above, the extraction of tacit actor perspective for the purpose of analysis, the chained application of the various transformation rules introduced under Sect. 6.1.4 enable the realization of complex reconstructions of institutions for diverse analytical needs. An example of such chained application of transformation rules is the conversion of hybrid, and in the extreme case, polymorphic institutional statements into their corresponding regulative or constitutive forms, albeit with the potential necessity to infer missing component information. To illustrate this approach, the reader may consider the following statement: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex7

Reflecting the structural form of a constitutive statement, it can undergo a set of transformations to be represented in the consequential form. As a first step, the Properties associated with the Constituted Entity can conceivably be reconstructed as Activation Conditions based

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

343

on the Properties-Conditions Transformation (see Eq. (6.8)), rendering the coding as: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex8

Parsing the Activation Conditions component deeply (i.e., according to IG Extended), the statement can be expanded to: To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex9

At this stage, conditional features previously embedded in the statement are overt. In addition, given the structural patterns embedded in the Activation Condition, a possible reconstruction in existential terms is possible by invoking the Conditions-Consequence Transformation:

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex10

Moreover, if the contextual reinterpretation of this statement as regulative is possible (based on contextual knowledge of the institution) and admissible (e.g., to accommodate specific analytical use), the following interpretation as a regulative-constitutive hybrid statement is conceivable:

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex11

Note, however, that this reconstruction leads to an inference of a responsible actor, i.e., the assumption that Councils themselves are responsible for soliciting minority representation, a characterization that may not necessarily be justifiable without further contextualization of the original statements. However, beyond the discussion of the contextual

344

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

permissiveness of this specific reconstruction, the example highlights the principal possibility to combine different transformations to accommodate specific methodological requirements (e.g., reconstruction for the use in institutional models), or to widen analytical objectives based on the extraction of the variable representations of coded statements. Naturally, any application of transformation rules, especially where involving the inference of elements relies on the permissiveness of such transformations on methodological grounds, an aspect that should be established and specified as part of the study design process. Moving beyond the systematic reconstruction of statements that offers distinct methodological and analytical opportunities, IG Logico further introduces features that can be combined to establish novel macro-level analyses grounded in the analyst’s domain or discipline, an example of which is featured in the following. 8.3.3

Epistemological Linkage Through Institutional Functions Analysis

The fundamental reconstruction facilities and the introduction of semantic annotations as part of IG Logico provide the basis for the customized application of the IG to respond to domain- or disciplinespecific analytical objectives. While IG Logico introduces features that are of particular value when encoding has occurred on detailed levels, the IG is devised to support flexible composition of feature sets (see discussion in Sect. 6.2, and with more detail, in Frantz and Siddiki (2020)). If, for example, only annotations of functions of statements, i.e., their Aim and Constitutive Function, are of analytical value (while, for instance, foregoing the deep structural parsing introduced under IG Extended), the semantics captured in the selective annotation of Aim and Constitutive Function can nevertheless be made accessible for downstream analysis. 8.3.3.1 Epistemological Linkage A central focus of the analysis under IG Logico is the embedding or linkage of institutional information to theoretical foundations, frameworks, or other applications of interest to the analyst. IG Logico introduces various taxonomies, most of which have general value. Notably, however, Institutional Functions reflect the special role of drawing in

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

345

concepts from the analyst’s domain, theories, or frameworks and linking those to individual statements, or specific components such as Aim or Constitutive Function, and thereby introducing the epistemological linkage between the Grammar and the theory/domain of interest. This mechanism of IG Logico thus implicitly affords the IG the role of a theory integrator, firstly by drawing the linkage in the first place, but in extension, affording the potential conceptual linkage between theories inasfar as the different theoretical linkages overlap; extending beyond the mere application of the IG for a distinctive analysis, but rather involving it for the purpose of Theory Building. Offering a practical display of the principles of drawing conceptual linkages based on the taxonomies introduced under Sect. 6.1.2, this discussion draws on a variant of the running complex example introduced in Sect. 8.2.1.4, alongside the transformation exemplified in the previous section, and further augments those with coding annotations associated with IG Logico. Central in this encoding is the application of regulative functions. As indicated in Sect. 6.1.2.4, the central purpose of regulative functions is to annotate activities and functions with analytically relevant functional characterizations sponsored by disciplinary epistemological frameworks, constructs (e.g., in qualitative studies), or other mapping that best responds to analytical necessities, whether abstract theoretical, or concrete operational. The annotation exemplified here operationalizes the regulative functions to reflect features relevant in the context of regulatory compliance, notably identifying activities that signal violation, enforcement activities, as well as potential monitoring and responses to enforcement. In the example, two annotation types are used: regulative functions as well as statement references.9

9 Details about coding conventions are discussed at greater detail in Frantz and Siddiki (2020).

346

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

To explore the coded statement in the IG Parser, please navigate to the URL: https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-examples#ed1ch8ex12

Both the regulative functions and the statement references are further annotated to signal the substantive differences in componentlevel combinations (e.g., “has violated [OR] is not in compliance” as severe and moderate forms of violation, respectively, i.e., “I[regfunc=violate[severe,moderate]] ...” ). Analytically, such annotation is able to introduce abstractions that map the linguistic expression onto concepts of analytical value, while retaining the nuanced secondorder characterization associated with the respective variations. A second example is the annotation of “initiate” as a sanctioning activity based on contextual interpretation. Given the implicit specification of the alternative activities in the Direct Object Properties (i.e., “suspension [XOR] revocation” ), the second-order qualification as “mild” or “severe” sanctions is applied on this component. This example highlights the operationalization of the encoding based on semantic principles informed by the epistemological lens of the analyst. Drawing on those values the analyst can now engage in advanced analyses that augment the structural perspective (if of relevance) with a semantic one, for instance exclusively concentrating the analysis on the function and interaction of activities that carry some form of regulative function, as conceptualized in Fig. 8.17. The schema highlights the focal treatment of atomic statements with emphasis on the associated regulative function (i.e., violate, sanction), making the interaction between those activities explicit.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

347

Fig. 8.17 Systemic Interlinkage of Institutional Function Annotations

This level of semantic analysis allows for the tracing of interaction within an action situation, but also supports movement toward the systemic perspective that no longer emphasizes interaction of statements within an action situation, but further captures transitions between distinctive action situations as effectuated by activities of interest. Exemplifying such transition, assuming the noncompliance and ensuing sanctioning activity, the sanctioned entity (certified operation) may conceivably appeal, provoking a transition to a novel action situation centered around dispute resolution (see Fig. 8.18), which is distinct from the original action situation focused on compliance. Any subsequent statement may hence involve a different set of actors, positions, actions, and further features not relevant in the original action situation. This focal shift on a primarily semantic perspective on activities, actors (e.g., role characterizations), or other entities of interest highlights the analytical value of IG Logico even for cases in which institutional information is not comprehensively annotated – showcasing the selectively dissociated feature sets of the different levels of expressiveness (e.g., if only macro-level systemic analysis of regulative functions is of concern).

348

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.18 Systemic Interlinkage of Action Situations

8.3.3.2 Semantic Systemic Analysis Contrasting this abstract application of regulative functions, the use of features of IG Logico on highly structured institutional information encoded according to IG Extended offers extended analytical opportunities that build on the analyses highlighted in Sect. 8.2.1.1. An example for such augmentation is the quantification of the categories captured in the second-order labels attached to combinations of activities and states. Exemplifying this on the previously reconstructed statement, the focus lies on the quantification of variable activities or scope references, essentially the effect, in addition to capturing the state variability itself (see Sect. 8.2.1.1). As implied in the qualifications of the regulative function annotations, the varying options can carry different semantic strengths, such as the differentiated characterization of different forms of violation as either severe or moderate. Operationally, this provides the basis for a systematic quantification not only of the extent of choice, but also the effect that either choice can have. Figure 8.19 explicitly highlights this for the annotated alternatives, with a simple mapping based on numeric values illustrating quantification of severity and scope for different component alternatives, respectively.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

349

Fig. 8.19 Systemic decomposition with effect quantification (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/ book-figures)

350

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

While the quantification exemplified here is illustrative, any such quantification should be empirically or theoretically grounded, and factor in features of relevance for the purpose of analysis (e.g., payoffs, external effects). Moreover, any value association should be calibrated across the institutional setting so as to provide the operational basis for the comparative treatment and quantification across statements. This supports the key premise of IG Logico to link the operationalization to concepts and evidence drawn from the analyst’s domain and use case, signaling the tailored use of the IG. Use cases for this quantification are manifold. A more immediate value is the use in parameterizing computational simulations, especially if operationalized in conjunction with the Delta parameter (see Sect. 4.2.4) as a proxy for the integrated calculation of payoffs. In such models, the quantified effect of activities can reflect the feedback an agent experiences in response to a performed activity (e.g., violation). However, for static models the quantification bears extended opportunities beyond the State Variability and Regimentation metrics introduced in Sect. 8.2.1.1 by qualifying not only the linkage between alternatives, but the options themselves. This moves the analysis of institutional regimes beyond commonplace stringency assessments based on Deontic values alone (as discussed in Sect. 8.1). Rather, it enables the comparative evaluation of sanctioning regimes under consideration of graduated sanctioning specifically, providing the basis to operationalize the associated discipline-sponsored epistemology.10 However, such assessment is not limited to activities, or sanctioning. Instead, it applies to any set of semantic annotations that follows ordinal or higher-order scaling (e.g., interval scaling), or the corresponding second-order qualification of the annotation labels as illustrated above. A second example that highlights opportunities to develop metrics of statement dependency in terms of linkages to other statements is the annotation “Bdir[ref =[act,part]]((with the Act [OR] regulations in this part))” referenced as Scope of Reference, which variably references parts of the Act the statement is embedded in, or the Act in its entirety. Here, the varying scope of both references is apparent, leading to a differentiated assessment of this alternative. This characterization can be of 10 The fact that actions are OR-combined does, by itself, not provide any information about the relative strengths or effects of sanctions.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

351

particular use in contexts where external references are numerous or a granular treatment of the varying scopes of references is of value due to implications for the interpretation of the analytical outcome. Beyond extending the principal quantification of effect to other components, it enables their integrated assessment in generalized form, e.g., combining the assessment of Deontics (e.g., may vs. must) with potential sanctioning alternatives (e.g., fine vs. imprisonment) and their scopes of applicability (e.g., per violation vs. for any violation). Given the operationalization based on domain-specific information, the quantification of individual component values allows for a differentiated comparative treatment of statements (e.g., identifying high levels of stringency signaled by the Deontic with narrow scope of applicability signaled by the Context, or conversely moderating stringency levels across wider scopes). This integrated quantitative treatment establishes the basis for a comprehensive analysis of institutions in terms of their systemic interlinkages and interactions by reflecting the effect of the individual components contained in an institutional statement, while at the same time, seeking epistemological embedding in the analyst’s domain, or addressing methodological requirements or techniques. Such integrated treatment is particularly valuable for components that themselves embed complex institutional structures. An example of those are Activation Conditions, since those reflect the variable applicability of provisions under specific provisions, both in quantity (i.e., number of conditions under which particular provisions apply) and their specificity (i.e., the broad vs. narrow nature of the condition based on the circumstances it describes, e.g., general applicability vs. specific times and places). Execution Constraints can similarly embed complex context characterizations (e.g., signaling scopes of applicability, instrumental characterizations, etc.) that qualify the applicability and execution of activities or functions captured in the statement. Irrespective of the specific instances highlighted in this example, the quantification based on second-order qualification of semantic annotation (as afforded by IG Logico) is a general principle that allows for customized operationalization of parsed institutional statement content, especially if parsed at greater levels of expressiveness (i.e., IG Extended).

352

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

8.3.4

Additional Analytical Opportunities

This overview of different analytical applications that specifically draw on features offered by IG Logico is, as any of the preceding sections, illustrative and selective. The breadth of the exposed features, including semantic annotations of various kinds, as well as the exemplified statement transformations allows for richer analyses that further combine these features. However, other overt opportunities include the reconstruction of statement reference networks based on the external linkages of statements, alongside the scoping information as motivated in the previous section, drawing on techniques highlighted in Sect. 8.1. Central to the use of IG Logico for analytical purposes is the breadth of customization opportunities that can respond to field studies that rely on the mapping of carefully designed constructs onto the structure of institutional statements. Similarly, institutional modelers can draw on taxonomies that respond to specific model structures or model domains (e.g., CPR models) in order to link entities operationally to encoded institutional information. Conversely, institutional models can themselves produce additional annotations as part of their own output to facilitate a richer contextualization of their analysis by drawing immediate epistemological relationships generated from within the model. The annotations of IG Logico further provide the basis for analyzing semantic gaps hinting at institutional quality concerns. A more central application is the detection of disparities in accountability and oversight as reflected in the reconstructed institutional statements reflecting an arbitrary actor position that makes not only structural, but also semantic gaps in any set of specifications overt based on absent consequential statements. Further examples of richer semantic treatment of encoded information include the identification of incongruent specifications of jural correlatives (Hohfeld, 1913), such as detecting the presence of rights as annotated based on the Constitutive Function taxonomy, and the linking of the associated duties potentially represented in the form of regulative statements. Naturally, such mapping requires semantic references that operate across the distinctive institutional statement type annotations. Documenting this linkage, however, can be afforded using the provided customizable semantic annotation mechanics, especially under consideration of the second-order qualifications illustrated above.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

353

In addition to richer sets of taxonomies and ontologies for the annotation of particular components, the development of higher-level ontologies (Staab & Studer, 2009) can offer contextual integrations of the semantics currently captured in isolation, and thus provide the basis for semantic reasoning across institutional statements and the entities linked therein, developing the IG further to support explanatory accounts of institutional analysis. Applying this perspective, conceptual aspects such as the extracted entity structure based on constitutive statements and Object-Property relationships, as well as behavioral aspects that link those concepts, are integrated via general or domain-specific ontologies that draw on the semantic annotation principles introduced under IG Logico (see Sect. 6.1.2). These can provide the basis to query institutional information based on complex logical criteria that operate on the encoded and semantically annotated institutional structure and the implied linkages. By introducing stricter hierarchical organization of concepts, their interrelationships, associated rules and underlying axioms, ontological classification schemes close the gap to perform legal reasoning (or logical reasoning, such as consistency assessments) on the encoded institutions and institutional setting more generally, an aspect centrally linked to wellestablished techniques in the area of Legal Informatics (Barabucci et al., 2010; Katz et al., 2021).

8.4 Summary of Analytical Approaches and Opportunities This chapter provided an overview of different approaches to institutional analysis using IG-coded data. The chapter intentionally abstracted from the explicit reference to analytical frameworks, but rather attempted to develop an exposition of analytical directions as well as techniques that can draw on the features of the Institutional Grammar. More specifically, the overview provided in this chapter responds to the variable objectives and trade-offs associated with the different levels of expressiveness introduced as part of the Institutional Grammar and reiterated in Fig. 8.20. The initial section Sect. 8.1 built off contemporary analytical approaches that draw on the original IG, with specific focus on the descriptive analysis of component value distributions (e.g., dominant actors, actions), as well as combinations thereof (e.g., dominant actoraction associations). Drawing on the nesting features introduced under

354

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Fig. 8.20 Analytical Applications by Levels of Expressiveness

the IG 2.0 specifically, basic analyses further provide the novel opportunity of drawing out a basic Policy Landscape that provides a sense of the complexity embedded in different parts of documents or datasets. As a final aspect, this section works toward the reconstruction of the institutional network based on involved actors, objects, artifacts, and their interactions, or in fact statements more broadly (moving toward structural analysis). Beyond providing a broader overview of the institutional setting, this representation draws out implicit hierarchical linkages based on the directionality of activity. The generated networks can further be described based on conventional network metrics. Moving beyond basic analytical approaches to institutions as offered based on IG Core coding, analysis of institutional information encoded based on IG Extended works toward developing a comprehensive understanding of institutions as systems of interlinked statements. The analysis specifically draws on the structural features of institutional statements exposed via deep structural parsing. This includes leveraging extended complexity metrics that operate on interlinked atomic institutional statements, as well as on component level, in order to extract institutional detail not accessible by a coarse-grained statement-level encoding. This

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

355

includes the detailed assessment of potential institutional states captured by a given institutional statement as a proxy for the complexity and regimentation of a statement. Beyond the micro-level assessment of statement-level complexity, the compositional analyses introduced in this section motivate the resolution of inter-statement linkages in order to reconstruct institutions in the form of systems – exposing the overall structure of an institution. Complementing this systemic view on institutions, conceptual organization diagrams are introduced to make the fixtures, or elements, of an institutional setting accessible. These static forms of analysis provide the basis for dynamic assessment in agent-based institutional models. Specifically, the nature of research questions and objectives associated with institutional models, such as replication of reported scenarios, and the testing of hypotheticals, is of concern. An essential aspect of this illustration is to draw attention to methodological considerations as far as relevant and applicable to IG information. Concluding this explanation, exemplary results in the form of institutional statement output is discussed to seed intuitions about the opportunities underlying institutional modeling approaches. A specific feature that links the coding on IG Extended level and agent-based institutional modeling specifically is the systemic perspective and the selective focus of analysis operating across arbitrary levels of aggregation. A central objective of analyses under the label of IG Extended is the detailed representation of institutional structure, providing the basis for comprehensive institutional analyses that can draw on arbitrary structural features, on various levels of aggregation (micro, meso, macro) and further augment the static analysis with a dynamic perspective, e.g., in the form of behavioral models to help understand existing systems, or explore hypothetical futures. The final Sect. 8.3 focuses on the features introduced by IG Logico, with particular focus on the semantic transformations of statements to afford a differentiated perspective based on various involved actors using the principle of Perspective Extrapolation. Underlying motivations include the methodological support for the development of institutional models, as well as distinctive analytical opportunities associated with the exposure of bias as expressed in institutional information. At the same time, the transformations introduced in this section provide the basis for advanced systemic analyses that build on the structural analyses established in Sect. 8.2. However, they extend those by introducing semantic annotations that not only capture the semantic categories associated with the

356

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

distinctive associated taxonomies, but moreover, operationalize the analysis quantitatively to extend the assessment of variability or discretion as established under IG Extended. This notion of transformations specifically broadens the pathway toward to date unknown comparative analyses that can apply within and across sets of statements, or across policies more generally, by facilitating their transformation and reconstruction to establish semantic compatibility as a starting point for comparative analyses in the first place. Central to the analysis under Sect. 8.3 is the explicit focus on the semantic perspective, and thereby provides a twofold purpose. On the one hand, the abstract treatment of institutional information permits complex reconstruction of institutional statements to accommodate analytical and methodological needs. On the other hand, it draws in the epistemological perspective of the analyst based on disciplinary framing, mapping of theoretical constructs, as well as accommodation of methodological concerns. A practical example of the second aspect is the linkage of the IG to concepts from the area of Legal Informatics (Katz et al., 2021), affording legal reasoning based on legal-theoretical constructions superimposed on the analyzed institutional setting and domain-specific features. Hence, IG Logico not only completes the levels of expressiveness by providing the semantic perspective to augment and contextualize the structural detail offered by the lower levels, but also offers an open disciplinary interface that is targeting researchers of any disciplinary background, whether primarily studying institutions in form, in use, whether applying formal or empirical techniques, whether focusing on a microscopic or macroscopic analysis, whether approaching the study from an academic or practitioner perspective. Figure 8.21 organizes the introduced metrics and analytical techniques based on the degree to which they facilitate a general analysis or more comprehensive analysis of institutions, and furthermore differentiates between the static, dynamic, or formal approaches and techniques to institutional analysis as discussed in this chapter or envisioned for future adoption in the context of IG research (with the left side featuring fundamental analyses based on IG Core, moving toward progressively more complex ones toward the right side). The characterization is not absolute, but rather offers orientation with respect to the recommended level of institutional detail (in terms of levels of expressiveness) when applying

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

357

Fig. 8.21 Summary of analytical approaches and metrics based on analytical focus

these techniques. As set out in the beginning of this chapter, IG Core provides the basis to measure institutional design that advanced techniques can leverage to establish structural understanding of this very design (using features from IG Extended). IG Logico takes the final step toward explanation of institutional design at any scope (e.g., individual statements, institutional system at large) and through various theoretical lenses and varying degrees of formality. Whereas metrics directly operate on encoded information, specific techniques generally require methodological accommodations in the form of preprocessing or transformation to make the data analytically accessible. Inasfar as structurally and conceptually compatible, the introduced metrics and techniques are then combined as part of the analysis. Looking ahead, rather than reading the discussed approaches as finite or comprehensive on their own, the illustrations and expositions in this chapter highlight opportunities for the richer analysis of institutional information, and aim at stimulating novel analytical applications that may draw and move beyond the introduced metrics and techniques to develop novel perspectives on the rich institutional information encoded using the refined Institutional Grammar – treating the IG as a interdisciplinary interface amenable to diverse perspectives and objectives.

358

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

References Abar, S., Theodoropoulos, G. K., Lemarinier, P., & O’Hare, G. M. P. (2017). Agent based modelling and simulation tools: A review of the state-of-art software. Computer Science Review, 24, 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cos rev.2017.03.001 Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity, 3(2), 16–22. Balke, T., & Gilbert, N. (2014). How do agents make decisions? A survey. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17 (4), 13. https://doi. org/10.18564/jasss.2687 Barabucci, G., Cervone, L., Palmirani, M., Peroni, S., & Vitali, F. (2010). Multilayer markup and ontological structures in Akoma Ntoso. In P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, & G. Ajani, (Eds.), AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems. complex systems, the semantic web, ontologies, argumentation, and dialogue. AICOL 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6237. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64216524-5_9 Basurto, X., Kingsley, G., McQueen, K., Smith, M., & Weible, C. M. (2010). A systematic approach to institutional analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 523–537. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1065912909334430 Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Guarantees for autonomy in cognitive agent architecture. In M. J. Wooldridge & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on agent theories, architectures and languages, ATAL’94 (pp. 56–70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58855-8_3 Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Vol. 15(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui001 Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 Edmonds, B., & Meyer, R. (2017). Simulating social complexity - A Handbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-93813-2 Epstein, J. (2008). Why model? Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html Epstein, J. M. (2007). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press. Epstein, J. M. (2014). Agent_Zero: Toward neurocognitive foundations for generative social science. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/ princeton/9780691158884.001.0001 Ferber, J. (1999). Multi-agent systems - An introduction to distributed artificial intelligence. Addison-Wesley.

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

359

Forrester, J. W. (1971). Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Theory and Decision, 2, 109–140. Frantz, C. K. (2020). Unleashing the agents: From a descriptive to an explanatory perspective in agent-based modelling. In H. Verhagen, M. Borit, G. Bravo, & N. Wijermans (Eds.), Advances in social simulation. Springer proceedings in complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-34127-5_16 Frantz, C. K., & Pigozzi, G. (2018). Modeling norm dynamics in multi-agent systems. IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 5(2), 491–563. Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Nowostawski, M. (2015). Modelling dynamic normative understanding in agent societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v16i4.1128 Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2020). Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08937 Frantz, C. K. (2015). Agent-based institutional modelling: Novel techniques for deriving structure from behaviour (Doctoral dissertation). University of Otago. Dunedin, New Zealand. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/ 10523/5906 Gerber, B. J., & Teske, P. (2000). Regulatory policymaking in the American States: A review of theories and evidence. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300408 Ghorbani, A., Bots, P., Dignum, V., & Dijkema, G. (2013). MAIA: A framework for developing agent-based social simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2166 Ghorbani, A., & Bravo, G. (2016). Managing the commons: A simple model of the emergence of institutions through collective action. International Journal of the Commons, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.606 Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. G. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press. Gilbert, N. (2004). Agent-based social simulation: Dealing with complexity. The Complex Systems Network of Excellence, 9(25), 1–14. Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., & Dignum, F. (2006). Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena: Designing norm enforcement in e-institutions. In P. Noriega, J. VázquezSalceda, G. Boella, O. Boissier, V. Dignum, N. Fornara, & E. Matson (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems ii (pp. 107–120). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74459-7_7 Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/ 785533 Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion? Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511804915

360

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Janssen, M. A. (2009). Understanding artificial Anasazi. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4). Jennings, N. R. (2000). On agent-oriented software engineering. Artificial Intelligence, 117 (2), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(99)001 07-1 Katz, D. M., Dolin, R., & Bommarito, M. J. (Eds.). (2021). Legal informatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316529683 Luke, S., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Panait, L., Sullivan, K., & Balan, G. (2005). MASON: A multiagent simulation environment. Simulation, 81(7), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549705058073 Morales, J., López-Sánchez, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., Vasconcelos, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2015). Online automated synthesis of compact normative systems. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 10(1), 2:1– 2:33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2720024 Morris-Martin, A., De Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2019). Norm emergence in multiagent systems: A viewpoint paper. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 33(6), 706–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-019-09422-0 Noriega, P. (1997). Agent-mediated auctions: The fishmarket metaphor (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Barcelona Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Railsback, S. F., & Grimm, V. (2011). Agent-based and individual-based modeling: A practical introduction. Princeton University Press. Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2001). On the design and construction of agentmediated electronic institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Barcelona. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon; Schuster. Savarimuthu, B. T. R., & Cranefield, S. (2011). Norm creation, spreading and emergence: A survey of simulation models of norms in multi-agent systems. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 7 (1), 21–54. Shaffer, R. (2021). Power in text: Implementing networks and institutional complexity in American Law. The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10. 1086/714933 Shoham, Y., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2014). Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, gametheoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press. Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the Institutional Grammar Tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.003 97.x Smajgl, A., & Barreteau, O. (2017). Framing options for characterising and parameterising human agents in empirical ABM. Environmental Modelling and Software, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.011

8

INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS

361

Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L., & Huigen, M. G. A. (2010). Rules, knowledge and complexity: How agents shape their institutional environment. Journal of Modelling and Simulation of Systems, 1(2), 98–107. http://www.hyperscie nces.org/JMSS/Iss.2-2010/JMSS-3-2-2010.pdf Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L. R., & Huigen, M. (2008). Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO sequence. Advances in Complex Systems, 2(11), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1142/S02195259080 0157X Staab, S., & Studer, R. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook on ontologies. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3 Tolk, A. (2015). Learning something right from models that are wrong: Epistemology of simulation. In L. Yilmaz (Ed.), Concepts and methodologies for modeling and simulation: A tribute to Tuncer Ören (pp. 87–106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-150963_5 Watkins, C. (1989). Learning from delayed rewards (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge University. Cambridge (UK). Watkins, C., & Westphal, L. M. (2016). People Don’t Talk in Institutional Statements: A Methodological Case Study of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 44, 98–122. https://doi. org/10.1111/psj.12139 Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

CHAPTER 9

Contextualization and Future Development of the Institutional Grammar

9.1

The Institutional Grammar: An Analytical Paradigm for Institutional Analysis

Institutional analysts from public policy, political science, law, philosophy, computer science, among other disciplines, have engaged institutional analysis extensively to generate understanding of the institutions that govern social, natural, and/or artificial domains. Three perspectives predominantly guide institutional analysis as conducted by scholars from different disciplines – rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism. Associated with each of these three perspectives are assumptions regarding what institutions are, how institutions function within communities in which they embed, and how institutions change. These different perspectives have been embraced by scholars from various disciplines, such that while the disciplinespecific theories and frameworks with which they are integrated may reflect field-specific foci, they tend to be motivated by common research questions. Among the questions that scholars commonly explore, are: What are the qualities of institutions used to govern behavior within social systems? How do institutions emerge? When and how do institutions change? Among the aspects that differentiate research engaging these questions that is conducted by scholars with different disciplinary backgrounds is how they go about responding to these questions – i.e., © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2_9

363

364

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

the methods undertaken to investigate them. This trend is reflected in contemporary IG research. Whereas policy scholars have engaged content analysis of policy text (leveraging manual extraction of institutional information according with the IG syntax) to study institutional change, computer scientists and computational social scientists have studied the same through agent-based modeling (using the IG to characterize model parameterizing institutions or emergent institutions). Recent IG research highlights an integration of disciplines in institutional analysis, as evidenced by kinds of methodological crossovers that are novel in this line of research. More specifically, scholars appear to be expanding the array of analytical techniques they are using, leveraging methods linked with various disciplines to augment their assessment of institutional data. Instances of this include the engagement of computational approaches for the coding of public policy text (Rice et al., 2021), the engagement of manually coded policy content in agent-based modeling exercises (Siddiki & Frantz, 2019), and the usage of network analysis to reflect interlinkages among various kinds of institutional information. These examples essentially highlight one of the draws to the IG, which is that its structure makes it amenable to address diverse questions, concepts, and methods. They also then highlight how analysts have exploited this opportunity, by leveraging techniques that may have been to date uncommon in IG research, and even variably common in their own disciplines. Against this backdrop, the IG attains the function of an integrator to produce novel insights that can draw on expertise no longer within but across domains, marrying the theoretical foundations and methodological rigor established in empirical domains with the formal approaches to reasoning and representation of artificial societies found in legal and computational domains. To this end, the “Grammar” may no longer just be a “tool,” but rather an interdisciplinary interface that has to reflect linkages to diverse analytical objectives, and be open to diverse methodological approaches at the same time. At the core of such accommodation, however, lies an unambiguous and consistent characterization of the concept that all such approaches build upon, a representation of institutions with broad conceptual validity, whether looking at institutions as legalistic or socio-normative concepts, approaching the analysis formally or empirically, basing the analysis on individual statements (or collections thereof), or selectively favoring a systemic institutional perspective. Offering a

9

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT …

365

basis for such integrated IG Concept, this book introduces the Institutional Grammar based on a refined perspective that departs from the original primarily linguistically motivated view on institutions, to one that progressively abstracts from linguistic structure and captures institutions by reconstructing institutional structure based on semantic features (see Chapter 3). At the same time, conceptual integration requires the recognition of abstractions that expose analytically essential features, but without being overly prescriptive, and hence constraining. Navigating diverse analytical needs, the IG, in its refined form as IG 2.0, is built on three premises, namely establishing ontological consistency of the syntactic form, capturing institutional information comprehensively, and finally, accommodating novel analytical applications by making the IG computationally tractable. To tailor it to use cases, the IG introduces distinctive levels of expressiveness that capture features that incrementally expose structural and semantic detail responding to these premises. Whereas the basic level, IG Core, introduced in Chapter 4, primarily focuses on retaining compatibility to the original IG, it resolves selected ontological inconsistencies observed in literature (e.g., Schlüter & Theesfeld, 2010) or practice (e.g., Frantz & Siddiki, 2021), while establishing a baseline of informational detail accessible for analyses based on the atomic institutional statement. At the same time, the revised regulative structure derived from Crawford and Ostrom’s original IG is complemented with a constitutive structure, which accommodates the representation of the observed variation in institutional statement function that is also reflected in structure. More plainly, the IG 2.0 is explicitly acknowledging that institutional statement form follows from statement function. Notably, however, recall that in the IG 2.0, the regulative and constitutive statement syntaxes are not treated as entirely separable, but rather part of an integrated syntax to reflect interdependence among the functions of regulative and constitutive statements within an institutional setting. Whereas the latter parameterizes, the former describes opportunities and constraints within those parameters. IG Extended (introduced in Chapter 5) builds on this feature set by advising the deep structural parsing of institutional information, providing a fine-granular representation of institutions focused not only on individual statements, but moreover interpreting institutions as systemically linked patterns of institutional states and statements, alongside conceptual information that defines the structure of the institutional setting more generally. In addition to exposing the setting, IG Extended further

366

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

establishes the semantic embedding of statements in this institutional setting based on taxonomic context characterizations. The comprehensive capturing of structural detail in IG Extended necessitates methodological adjustments in the way in which institutional information is interpreted and represented, which includes the potential reconstruction of language to complete the shift of representing institutional information in terms of uniform institutional patterns (as opposed to linguistic patterns) that are accessible to algorithmic treatment. With the established structural detail, IG Logico (introduced in Chapter 6) completes the abstraction of institutional information expressed in terms of the IG from its underlying linguistic origin by not only extracting structural information, but complementing it with an unambiguous semantic specification of institutional statements that enables a treatment independent from the original structural representation. Establishing the basis for an algorithmic treatment of institutional statements, IG Logico introduces a set of general structural transformations applicable to encoded institutional information. On the basis of these concepts, IG 2.0 establishes a consistent ontological basis in the form of a composable feature set grounded in institutional theory and philosophy, from which analysts can draw based on their varying methodological and analytical foci. Beyond the conceptual perspective, as an analytical paradigm, the IG 2.0 also provides methodological guidance by systematizing the encoding of institutional information by identifying the central design parameters relevant for any study, including choice of feature sets of relevance, corresponding preprocessing steps, as well as conventions to enhance reliability in the encoding process (see Chapter 7). This is complemented by operational facilities that include a dedicated encoding notation, IG Script, that is format-agnostic (i.e., is not linked to a particular output format such as tabular output), both human- and machine-readable, and supports the variable use of features associated with different levels of expressiveness (i.e., being permissive about selective feature use). Associated with the methodological development are calls for a consistent documentation of encoded information based on the recorded study design parameters and dataset description (an aspect that is further elaborated in Sect. 9.2.3). Beyond the encoding, methodological guidance extends to the analysis, which includes the choice of relevant IG features as well as their linkage to constructs central for distinctive analyses, a selection of which was

9

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT …

367

discussed in Chapter 8, without being prescriptive in analytical objectives or choice of specific techniques. With the shared conceptual basis for any analysis that the IG sponsors, the methodological adaptation (specific forms and extent of data collection, analytical approaches and associated techniques) opens the IG for broad disciplinary adoption. To support the latter, the semantic annotation scheme in IG 2.0, and IG Logico specifically, broadens applicability of the IG by providing the infrastructure to establish an epistemological grounding of encoded institutional information by linking it to theories, frameworks, and concepts drawn from specific disciplines, or superimposing constructs specific to the analysis at hand. Figure 9.1 presents the levels of expressiveness, alongside envisioned primary foci of coder and analyst, as well as concepts and analytical applications associated with the specific levels. Combined, (i) the ontological basis of the IG based on the original structure and refinements introduced in this book, (ii) the methodological principles for both the encoding of institutional information and analysis that provide the parameters for capturing diverse and situationally tailored applications of the Institutional Grammar, and (iii) the linkage to knowledge and concepts anchored in the analyst’s domain, position the

Fig. 9.1 Institutional Grammar 2.0 by Levels of Expressiveness and associated Perspectives, Concepts and Analytical Applications (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-figures)

368

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Institutional Grammar as an analytical paradigm. Generally, an analytical paradigm is a shared ontology that guides conceptualization, design, and application of the analysis, while being informed by and compatible to varying epistemological and disciplinary orientations, and associated methodological preferences. The IG as introduced here is thus characterized as an analytical paradigm. Fundamentally, while offering a shared conceptual and representational basis for viewing institutions, the IG also accommodates diverse analytical techniques and applications rooted in different disciplines and domains (see Chapter 1), ability to link to diverse institutional theories and frameworks (including and beyond the IAD), and types of institutional data (e.g., regulative, constitutive; institutions in form, institutions in use). The collation of features and principles is thereby equally looking back at the history of IG research as well as looking at opportunities lying ahead. The IG concept introduced here builds on extant IG research introduced in Chapters 1–2, including theoretical developments and empirical insights, diverse analytical branches and techniques. The background discussion further reflects the broader interpretation of institutions and institutional analysis in diverse disciplines, including ones the IG has found limited attention in to date. Chapters 3–6 describe the conceptual foundations of the IG, including its original form as well as the refinements introduced to meet the aforementioned analytical flexibility, alongside associated theoretical justifications (e.g., statement reconstruction based on conceptual reification, institutional states vs. statements, hybrid institutional statements). Completing the conceptual Foundations part of the book, the second Applications part that spans across Chapters 7 and 8 operationalizes the analytical versatility of the Institutional Grammar by providing methodological guidance for study design that is specifically focused on the collection and encoding of data, before shifting to the illustration of application cases and novel analytical opportunities linked to the conceptual innovations introduced as part of the IG. However, instead of guiding, or prescribing specific forms of analyses, the latter chapter initially exposes extensions to statistical applications of the IG, before traversing diverse techniques such as network analysis, as well as institutional modeling. Drawing on the extended feature set, this chapter further introduces substantively novel complexity metrics (State Complexity, Regimentation) pertaining to the structural assessment of institutions.

9

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT …

369

It finally turns to algorithmic opportunities associated with institutional information encoded at high level of detail (e.g., transformations, reasoning on ontologically embedded information), and principles of the epistemological anchoring of institutional information. With the integrative perspective of concept, method, and analysis, a paradigmatic view on the IG signals a coherent perspective that aims at being inclusive of all extant IG research (and researchers), while providing a conceptual basis of the Grammar on which novel (and potentially not yet identified) analytical directions can orient. By doing so, it more immediately positions the Grammar as an interdisciplinary interface that has the potential to foster novel synergistic directions in institutional analysis (including and beyond ongoing efforts), with the possibility of establishing a transdisciplinary perspective on institutional analysis that more systematically draws on and unites disciplinary views on institutions.

9.2 Future Directions in Institutional Grammar Research Concluding the conceptual introduction of the Institutional Grammar as an analytical paradigm and a conceptual bridge between disciplines, what remains is to look ahead. What is presented in this book conveys an evolution of the original IG as presented by Crawford and Ostrom (1995), not a substitution. The original IG presented a syntactic structure – a container for institutional language – initially operationalized in the context of game theory. It, however, took institutional analysts thirteen years to find analytical use of the original IG as a vehicle to capture institutional meaning, initially in agent-based models, and more prominently in policy studies. At first glance, these applications are distinct; distinct enough to raise the question of how they relate to a common approach. But, this variable application signaled an early illustration of the interdisciplinary potential of the Grammar. The IG 2.0 is poised to exhibit similar opportunity. It refines the original Grammar to drive its conceptual integrity based on empirical observations, but more importantly, aims at offering greater validity by extracting essential institutional features without concessions to the way in which they are expressed. With this aspiration (moderated by different levels of expressiveness, or rigidity), the rich set of novel features position it as an integrator that harmonizes areas of institutional analysis observed

370

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

so far, as well as an enabler to invite novel applications from fields not considered as of yet. Living up to such promise necessarily requires cognizance about the current state of affairs and challenges associated with use of the IG, as well as the need to glance ahead. The consequential next steps pertain to: (i) addressing concerns related to the IG concept and its applicability; (ii) attending to the disciplinary adoption of the IG more generally and the contextualization of the IG with institutional theory such as the IAD more specifically; and (iii) entertaining opportunities leveraged for institutional analysis as a whole. 9.2.1

Conceptual Directions

Turning to the first, the IG concept as presented in this work integrates methodological and representational needs of applications we observe today in a set of conceptual extensions that are integrated across levels of expressiveness. While empirical application will have to show the conceptual value of these refinements (or a subset thereof), we can see early instances of the transpiring value recognition of select features within the community. The distinction of Activation Conditions and Execution Constraints (see Sect. 4.2.1.5), for example, is a basis to afford a meaningful behavioral operationalization of the IG in computational models. While policy studies have attended to the ontological distinction to a limited extent, the first studies leverage those for the representation of statement dependencies (e.g., network studies). Aspects observed on the data collection side include the conceptual clarity and reliability sponsored by select feature innovations, such as the stratified Object concept (see Sect. 4.2.1.4). A byproduct of the conceptual refinements is the necessity for methodological and operational adjustments. The extraction of complexity of institutional statements (e.g., statement combinations) leaves the coder with the same – challenging reliable manual coding. Alleviations are proposed as part of this book (IG Script), and are supported by ongoing developments in the form of supplementary software and operational guidance. Similarly, machine coding efforts currently concentrated on the original IG require revision to accommodate the structural refinements of IG 2.0. Features of the IG 2.0 that require incremental accommodation of empirical necessity and observation are the provided taxonomies. Devised

9

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT …

371

with a balance of generality and usability in mind, i.e., introducing concepts that are useful across a wide range of domains without “overfitting” a particular domain, the practical use will drive their further refinement, let alone novel contributions. An example of a general variant is the Context Taxonomy. In many instances, however, the introduced taxonomies invite for refinement to establish sufficient analytical value for specific studies and domains. In other instances, the specification of taxonomies explicitly rests with the analyst (e.g., Regulative Functions Taxonomy). 9.2.2

Disciplinary Directions

Interdisciplinary approaches elicit a variety of considerations, some of which are described below. An initial consideration is the value of the IG for field research. Scholars (Watkins & Westphal, 2016) have outlined the challenges of encoding interviews in terms of institutional statements, pointing to methodological concerns, as well as highlighting features specifically related to institutions-in-use (e.g., natural consequences as sanctions). The refined IG integrates these aspects in the refined characterization of institution types that – structurally speaking – puts norms and rules on “eye level,” inviting for richer studies in real-world settings. This includes both traditional physical field studies, as well as online studies drawing on the internet as data source for social studies. Given the overt motivation for the IG 2.0 to be accessible to the study of institutions of any kind, the exemplary focus on policy in this book warrants some qualification. The examples and themes discussed throughout this book largely draw on policy text, i.e., institutions-inform. While this exemplification and thematic focus are intentional, their inclusion is not meant to suggest that the IG is not applicable to different forms of institutions. In fact, this book draws on policy characterizations specifically, since (a) this approach recognizes language as a central means to communicate institutions, and (b) it does so in complex and highly structured form. Developing a robust structural representation based on complex (legal) language, it is presumed that other institutions can usefully be captured in the same general structure, albeit with supplementary accommodations. Challenges related to the encoding of spoken language in particular, and outside the scope of this discussion, naturally urge specific methodological accommodations.

372

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

A second important aspect related to the value proposition of the IG as applicable across disciplines is the linkage to institutional theory. The original IG is embedded in the Institutional Analysis and Design (IAD) Framework. The principled extension of the original IG by IG 2.0 as a structural representation of institutional information, and the institutional statement as a basic unit of analysis, maintains this compatibility, and particularly on the IG Core level. Without further contextualization at this stage, promising empirical questions revolve around the linkage between different forms of institutional statements (i.e., regulative and constitutive) and rule types that position individual statements in the action situation (Ostrom, 2005). Important to note here is the differentiated treatment of the concept of rules between the IAD framework generally and the IG specifically. Typically within discussions of the IAD framework, the term is used interchangeably with the term institutions, and thus for example, the rule typology (Ostrom & Crawford, 2005) is leveraged for classification of institutions/institutional configurations conveying particular kinds of information. As explained in Sect. 4.2.3, rules in the IG have a more specific meaning. Nevertheless, institutional analysts can map rule types (e.g., information, choice, aggregation, etc.) to institutional statements of different types (i.e., strategies, norms, rules). There may also be value in ascertaining if and how semantic annotations of parts of institutional statements as introduced in the IG 2.0 aid in mapping them to different types of rules. This could be semantic annotations drawing on the taxonomic or ontological classifications (e.g., Context Taxonomy, Function Taxonomy) or semantic annotations drawing on theory that accords with the analyst’s research aims. Yet still, the institutional analyst can assess to what extent reliable representation of vertical nesting allows for the rigorous evaluation of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in IAD studies; when monitoring and enforcement activates, who carries out each, complementary activities, among other aspects of monitoring and enforcement. This may be of particular interest to institutional analysts which draw on the IAD framework affiliated Common Pool Resource theory and associated design principles (Ostrom, 1990). On the assessment of design principles specifically, application of the IG to study these can lend measurement clarity insofar as IAD scholars typically operationalize design principles through evaluation of rule configurations while not always clarifying the

9

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT …

373

unit of observation upon which rule configurations are measured. The IG can aid in the measurement of configurations as explained in the book, and thereby even aid in construct development. Additional aspects that invite for exploration are the conceptual linkages between elements of the IAD and the systemic perspective of capturing institutional information introduced as part of IG Extended. While referencing the linkage between the IG and the IAD framework, it is also useful to differentiate levels of action in the IAD framework (Kiser & Ostrom, 1982; Ostrom, 2005) and levels of expressiveness under the IG 2.0. Under the IAD framework, the levels of action framing is used as another way of delineating types of rules, essentially by their functional properties. Whereas the IAD’s rule typology offers a basis for classifying the different types of rules of action situations, the levels of action typology differentiates between rules of operational, collective choice, and (meta-)constitutive sort. Those forms are inherently independent. Level of actions distinguish hierarchically embedded forums of distinctive purpose (e.g., decision-making vs. defining rules for decisionmaking), within which the IAD rule type characterizations (e.g., choice, position, boundary) apply. Institutional statements of different types – strategies, norms, rules – can be characterized as different types of rules that situate at different levels of action. Contextualizing this discussion of the IG-IAD linkage, this section merely highlights existing and possible linkages among concepts of the IG and concepts and taxa of the IAD. However, the discussed features are inherently opportunities for the development of the IG in relationship to the IAD. Broader reconciliation of IG with IAD concepts is a separate matter, and issues related to this are best addressed by scholars seeking to apply and develop the IAD framework. Instead of seeking reintegration into any specific theoretical framework, the IG, as presented here, shows compatibility, while at the same time displaying independence. In fact, it seeks interaction with existing and novel theoretical frameworks, making the IG a potential catalyst not only for the linkage to diverse theory, but also a sponsor of theoretical integration across disciplines, as far as they are able to respond to the granularity of institutional information that the IG exposes (i.e., are able to introduce or link theoretical constructs to taxonomies, let alone statement or component characterizations).

374

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

9.2.3

Catalyzing Theory and Framework Development

The flexibility of the IG opens the opportunity to look ahead and foster novel research opportunities that move beyond realizing the usage across disciplines by happenstance. Rather, interdisciplinary linkages in IG studies can now occur by design, with an aim toward explicitly identifying conceptual and methodological compatibility (or lack thereof) in concepts, theories, and methods linked to different disciplines. This is critical for contextualizing and retaining understanding of scientific findings within and across fields of study. Essentially, what is being suggested here is a call to more explicitly reference how diverse concepts, theories, and methods are being flexibly integrated within the context of IG analyses to provide institutional analysts with a full appreciation of the interdisciplinary and discipline-specific contributions being offered. This point relates more broadly to considerations endemic to integrative science generally; that is, the need to clarify how integrative science advances knowledge on the integrated as well on what is being integrated. The perspective shift to understand the IG as an analytical paradigm is not only an observation of empirical trends, but it urges for methodological rigor in application. The reasons for this are multiple: as with any research field, the trust endowed into the findings of any study rely on the trust in method, and essentially rigor, associated with data collection and analysis. One challenge, or variably opportunity, in this context is to drive community practices around the documentation of the data collection and coding process. As evident from the methodological discussion around data collection presented in Chapter 7, any study design requires a rich set of considerations, some of which apply across different projects, and others that may diverge across discipline, teams, etc. While present in previous IG research, the extended feature set of IG 2.0 makes it all the more pertinent to make such choices explicit to establish a reproducible research process,1 and to make studies in the field as a whole more robust. Beyond the focus on methodological rigor as disciplinary credential, operationally, robust data collection and processing facilitate the use of data across domains and techniques. This can apply on data structure level (e.g., different encoding), relate to semantic variation (e.g., varying

1 The IG 2.0 Codebook (Frantz & Siddiki, 2020) includes a guide that highlights essential considerations in the study design process, alongside further conceptual resources and instructive resources under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org.

9

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT …

375

interpretation of components), let alone data processing (e.g., exclusion criteria for statements, selective use of IG features). The IG speaks to those concerns by affording the corresponding descriptive facilities (see Sect. 6.2 and Frantz & Siddiki, 2020). However, the value does not lie in the concept, but in practice. Establishing reliable specifications of the form in which data are represented, alongside data descriptions that capture the features of the data, will enable synergy effects in broadening the opportunity to perform large-scale comparative studies on the one hand, but also provide the basis to make institutional information interoperable across techniques, or at least reliably signal whether they are not. Taken together, the different directions highlighted above need to work in concert to ensure the conceptual integrity based on the established ontological consistency, broad epistemological applicability, and scientific credibility based on methodological rigor, constituting the value of the IG as a reliable yet flexible means to analyze institutions. And, with the extent to which the Institutional Grammar has evolved over the past decades, and in its revised form reflecting a New Institutional Grammar, there is the opportunity to transform research in the area of institutional analysis for decades to come. This is supported by the increasingly diverse set of disciplines and researchers attracted to the IG, all of which are united in one aspect, their interest for the analysis of institutions. Accommodating these disciplines’ and communities’ varied needs and objectives moves the IG closer to what it aspires to be: a lingua franca of institutions. The Institutional Grammar exposes institutions as what they are: sets of institutional statements that systemically interlink and embed to govern social systems at any level of organization, or put more generally, the lowest common denominator of society.

References Crawford, S. E. S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A Grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/208 2975 Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. (2021). Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration, 99, 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12719

376

C. K. FRANTZ AND S. SIDDIKI

Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. N. (2020). Institutional Grammar 2.0 Codebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08937 Kiser, L. L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A meta-theoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 179–222). Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., & Crawford, S. E. (2005). Classifying rules. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Understanding institutional diversity (pp. 186–216). Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Rice, D., Siddiki, S., Frey, S., Kwon, J. H., & Sawyer, A. (2021). Machine coding of policy texts with the Institutional Grammar. Public Administration, 99, 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12711 Schlüter, A., & Theesfeld, I. (2010). The Grammar of institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 445–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463110377299 Siddiki, S., & Frantz, C. (2019). Understanding the effects of social value orientations in shaping regulatory outcomes through agent based modeling: An application to organic farming. Presented at the Workshop on the Workshop (WOW) 6 Conference. Watkins, C., & Westphal, L. M. (2016). People don’t talk in institutional statements: A methodological case study of the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 44, 98–122. https://doi.org/10. 1111/psj.12139

Appendix A: Institutional Statement Structure

The following Fig. A.1 offers a semi-formal characterization of institutional statements in the Institutional Grammar 2.0 in the form of an UML class diagram which highlights the possible representational forms and kinds of institutional statements. Institutional statement forms include atomic statements and combinations thereof (i.e., different types of nesting), whereas atomic statements can be of regulative or constitutive kind (and where combined, hybrid). The structure supports combinations of statements of either kind (horizontal nesting), features consequential linkages of statements of either form and kind (vertical nesting), as well as supporting component-level nesting on selected components and properties. Note that statements (i.e., atomic and combinations) can be negated, and be logically linked based on logical operators. A highresolution version of the statement structure is available via the book website (https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2

377

Fig. A.1 Institutional Statement Structure in the Institutional Grammar 2.0 (An enlarged version of this figure can be found under https://newinstitutionalgrammar.org/book-figures)

378 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT STRUCTURE

Appendix B: National Organic Program Regulation

The following information is an excerpt of the United States Department of Agriculture National Organic Program Regulation,1 specifically pertaining to compliance. This excerpt forms the basis of the coded data used in the analysis in Chapter 8.

1 Source: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2

379

U.S. National Organic Program Regulation

Compliance § 205.660 General (a) The National Organic Program’s Program Manager, on behalf of the Secretary, may inspect and review certified production and handling operations and accredited certifying agents for compliance with the Act or regulations in this part. (b) The Program Manager may initiate suspension or revocation proceedings against a certified operation: (1) When the Program Manager has reason to believe that a certified operation has violated or is not in compliance with the Act or regulations in this part; or (2) When a certifying agent or a State organic program’s governing State official fails to take appropriate action to enforce the Act or regulations in this part. (c) The Program Manager may initiate suspension or revocation of a certifying agent’s accreditation if the certifying agent fails to meet, conduct, or maintain accreditation requirements pursuant to the Act or this part. (d) Each notification of noncompliance, rejection of mediation, noncompliance resolution, proposed suspension or revocation, and suspension or revocation issued pursuant to §205.662, §205.663, © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2

381

382

U.S. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATION

and §205.665 and each response to such notification must be sent to the recipient’s place of business via a delivery service which provides dated return receipts. § 205.661 Investigation of Certified Operations (a) A certifying agent may investigate complaints of noncompliance with the Act or regulations of this part concerning production and handling operations certified as organic by the certifying agent. A certifying agent must notify the Program Manager of all compliance proceedings and actions taken pursuant to this part. (b) A State organic program’s governing State official may investigate complaints of noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part concerning organic production or handling operations operating in the State. § 205.662 Noncompliance Procedure for Certified Operations (a) Notification. When an inspection, review, or investigation of a certified operation by a certifying agent or a State organic program’s governing State official reveals any noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part, a written notification of noncompliance shall be sent to the certified operation. Such notification shall provide: (1) A description of each noncompliance; (2) The facts upon which the notification of noncompliance is based; and (3) The date by which the certified operation must rebut or correct each noncompliance and submit supporting documentation of each such correction when correction is possible. (b) Resolution. When a certified operation demonstrates that each noncompliance has been resolved, the certifying agent or the State organic program’s governing State official, as applicable, shall send the certified operation a written notification of noncompliance resolution. (c) Proposed suspension or revocation. When rebuttal is unsuccessful or correction of the noncompliance is not completed within the prescribed time period, the certifying agent or State organic

U.S. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATION

383

program’s governing State official shall send the certified operation a written notification of proposed suspension or revocation of certification of the entire operation or a portion of the operation, as applicable to the noncompliance. When correction of a noncompliance is not possible, the notification of noncompliance and the proposed suspension or revocation of certification may be combined in one notification. The notification of proposed suspension or revocation of certification shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed suspension or revocation; (2) The proposed effective date of such suspension or revocation; (3) The impact of a suspension or revocation on future eligibility for certification; and (4) The right to request mediation pursuant to §205.663 or to file an appeal pursuant to §205.681 (d) Willful violations. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if a certifying agent or State organic program’s governing State official has reason to believe that a certified operation has willfully violated the Act or regulations in this part, the certifying agent or State organic program’s governing State official shall send the certified operation a notification of proposed suspension or revocation of certification of the entire operation or a portion of the operation, as applicable to the noncompliance. (e) Suspension or revocation. (1) If the certified operation fails to correct the noncompliance, to resolve the issue through rebuttal or mediation, or to file an appeal of the proposed suspension or revocation of certification, the certifying agent or State organic program’s governing State official shall send the certified operation a written notification of suspension or revocation. (2) A certifying agent or State organic program’s governing State official must not send a notification of suspension or revocation to a certified operation that has requested mediation pursuant to §205.663 or filed an appeal pursuant to §205.681, while final resolution of either is pending. (f) Eligibility. (1) A certified operation whose certification has been suspended under this section may at any time, unless otherwise stated in the notification of suspension, submit a request to the Secretary for reinstatement of its certification. The request must

384

U.S. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATION

be accompanied by evidence demonstrating correction of each noncompliance and corrective actions taken to comply with and remain in compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part. (2) A certified operation or a person responsibly connected with an operation whose certification has been revoked will be ineligible to receive certification for a period of 5 years following the date of such revocation, except, that, the Secretary may, when in the best interest of the certification program, reduce or eliminate the period of ineligibility. (g) Violations of Act. In addition to suspension or revocation, any certified operation that: (1) Knowingly sells or labels a product as organic, except in accordance with the Act, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the amount specified in §3.91(b)(1)(xxxvii) of this title per violation. (2) Makes a false statement under the Act to the organic program’s governing State official, or shall be subject to the provisions of Section. United States Code. [65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended Apr. 7, 2010]

Secretary, a State a certifying agent 1001 of title 18, by 75 FR 17560,

§ 205.663 Mediation Any dispute with respect to denial of certification or proposed suspension or revocation of certification under this part may be mediated at the request of the applicant for certification or certified operation and with acceptance by the certifying agent. Mediation shall be requested in writing to the applicable certifying agent. If the certifying agent rejects the request for mediation, the certifying agent shall provide written notification to the applicant for certification or certified operation. The written notification shall advise the applicant for certification or certified operation of the right to request an appeal, pursuant to §205.681, within 30 days of the date of the written notification of rejection of the request for mediation. If mediation is accepted by the certifying agent, such mediation shall be conducted by a qualified mediator mutually agreed upon by the parties to the mediation. If a State organic program is in effect, the mediation procedures established in the State organic program, as

U.S. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATION

385

approved by the Secretary, will be followed. The parties to the mediation shall have no more than 30 days to reach an agreement following a mediation session. If mediation is unsuccessful, the applicant for certification or certified operation shall have 30 days from termination of mediation to appeal the certifying agent’s decision pursuant to §205.681. Any agreement reached during or as a result of the mediation process shall be in compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part. The Secretary may review any mediated agreement for conformity to the Act and the regulations in this part and may reject any agreement or provision not in conformance with the Act or the regulations in this part. § 205.664 [Reserved] § 205.665 Noncompliance Procedure for Certifying Agents (a) Notification. When an inspection, review, or investigation of an accredited certifying agent by the Program Manager reveals any noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part, a written notification of noncompliance shall be sent to the certifying agent. Such notification shall provide: (1) A description of each noncompliance; (2) The facts upon which the notification of noncompliance is based; and (3) The date by which the certifying agent must rebut or correct each noncompliance and submit supporting documentation of each correction when correction is possible. (b) Resolution. When the certifying agent demonstrates that each noncompliance has been resolved, the Program Manager shall send the certifying agent a written notification of noncompliance resolution. (c) Proposed suspension or revocation. When rebuttal is unsuccessful or correction of the noncompliance is not completed within the prescribed time period, the Program Manager shall send a written notification of proposed suspension or revocation of accreditation to the certifying agent. The notification of proposed suspension or revocation shall state whether the certifying agent’s accreditation or specified areas of accreditation are to be suspended or revoked. When correction of a noncompliance is not possible, the notification of noncompliance and the proposed suspension or revocation

386

U.S. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATION

may be combined in one notification. The notification of proposed suspension or revocation of accreditation shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed suspension or revocation; (2) The proposed effective date of the suspension or revocation; (3) The impact of a suspension or revocation on future eligibility for accreditation; and (4) The right to file an appeal pursuant to §205.681. (d) Willful violations. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if the Program Manager has reason to believe that a certifying agent has willfully violated the Act or regulations in this part, the Program Manager shall send a written notification of proposed suspension or revocation of accreditation to the certifying agent. (e) Suspension or revocation. When the accredited certifying agent fails to file an appeal of the proposed suspension or revocation of accreditation, the Program Manager shall send a written notice of suspension or revocation of accreditation to the certifying agent. (f) Cessation of certification activities. A certifying agent whose accreditation is suspended or revoked must: (1) Cease all certification activities in each area of accreditation and in each State for which its accreditation is suspended or revoked. (2) Transfer to the Secretary and make available to any applicable State organic program’s governing State official all records concerning its certification activities that were suspended or revoked. (g) Eligibility. (1) A certifying agent whose accreditation is suspended by the Secretary under this section may at any time, unless otherwise stated in the notification of suspension, submit a request to the Secretary for reinstatement of its accreditation. The request must be accompanied by evidence demonstrating correction of each noncompliance and corrective actions taken to comply with and remain in compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part. (2) A certifying agent whose accreditation is revoked by the Secretary shall be ineligible to be accredited as a certifying agent under the Act and the regulations in this part for a period of not less than 3 years following the date of such revocation.

U.S. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATION

387

§§ 205.666–205.667 [Reserved] § 205.668 Noncompliance Procedures Under State Organic Programs (a) A State organic program’s governing State official must promptly notify the Secretary of commencement of any noncompliance proceeding against a certified operation and forward to the Secretary a copy of each notice issued. (b) A noncompliance proceeding, brought by a State organic program’s governing State official against a certified operation, shall be appealable pursuant to the appeal procedures of the State organic program. There shall be no subsequent rights of appeal to the Secretary. Final decisions of a State may be appealed to the United States District Court for the district in which such certified operation is located. (c) A State organic program’s governing State official may review and investigate complaints of noncompliance with the Act or regulations concerning accreditation of certifying agents operating in the State. When such review or investigation reveals any noncompliance, the State organic program’s governing State official shall send a written report of noncompliance to the Program Manager. The report shall provide a description of each noncompliance and the facts upon which the noncompliance is based.

Glossary

Action Situation An Action Situation is defined as a setting in which two or more actors “are faced with a set of potential actions that jointly produce outcomes” (Ostrom, 2005, p. 32). Activation Condition An Activation Condition is the condition under which the non-Context part of an institutional statement applies. Institutional statements can contain one or more logically linked activation conditions. Analytical Paradigm An Analytical Paradigm is a shared ontological basis that guides conceptualization, design, and application of analysis, where the latter is also informed by epistemological and disciplinary orientations, as well as methodological preferences or necessities. Atomic Institutional Statement An Atomic Institutional Statement is an institutional statement that only contains one of each necessary and (where applicable) optional components, where none of these components is further decomposed into, or substituted by, nested institutional statements. Coding Coding, or Encoding, as referenced in this book, is the parsing of institutional data corresponding to different syntactic components, relying on interpretation and meaning of institutional data (including explication or inference).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2

389

390

GLOSSARY

Components Components are syntactic elements of an institutional statement that capture abstract and generalizable units of language. Individual types of components convey distinctive kinds of institutionally relevant meaning. Composite Institutional Statements A Composite Institutional Statement is an institutional statement that features any nesting facility, including horizontal, vertical and component-level nesting. Conceptual Reification Conceptual Reification is the expression of actions, mental constructs (e.g., beliefs) and other nonphysical concepts in nominalized, or “thingified” form. Constitutive Statement Constitutive Statements parameterize features of an institutional system within particular contexts. Constitutive institutional statements may also describe possibility and consequences associated with the referenced constitution. Deep Structure Deep Structure reflects the lowest-level composition of units of language (e.g., components) that capture institutional content, i.e., structural features of components, rather than structural features of statements only. Execution Constraints Execution Constraints reference the qualification of activities during execution, thus imposing constraints on the enacted Aim or Constitutive Function. Formal Institutions Formal Institutions are institutions that result from institutional decision-making processes engaged by recognized authorities appointed in a legitimized forum (e.g., a public policy that results from a policy making process engaged by an appointed legislature). Hybrid Institutional Statement Hybrid Institutional Statements are statements that are variably comprised of configurations of regulative and constitutive institutional statements. IAD Framework The Institutional Analysis and Design Framework is an analytical approach for studying institutional design, development, and outcomes. Informal Institutions Informal Institutions are those that emerge from social processes and are represented, for example, in social norms and conventions, and rely on internal and decentralized social enforcement. Institution Institutions are rules, norms, and strategies that govern social systems. Institutional Analysis Institutional Analysis refers to the study of institutions that govern social systems.

GLOSSARY

391

Institutional Configuration An Institutional Configuration is a set of institutional statements that are directly, or indirectly linked (e.g., based on implied reference) to the institutional setting, and can be analyzed at different scales (e.g., component, statement, set of statements). Institutional Data Institutional Data are those captured in institutions as they normally exist in their respective domains. Institutional Features Institutional Features are institutional concepts, their relationships and interaction within the institutional setting that may be identified on component (e.g., actors, actions referenced in components), statement (e.g., function/effects of statements), or system level (e.g., function of interlinked statements). Institutional Grammar The Institutional Grammar is a theoretically grounded analytical approach for the characterization of structure and meaning of institutions of diverse forms and kinds, including institutions-in-form, in-use, and covering strategies (or conventions), norms, and rules as different institution types. The Institutional Grammar is distinct from a linguistic grammar in that the units of language captured in components associate with institutional meaning and functions, which are structurally combined to potentially interlinked institutional statements. Analysis can occur on variable levels of aggregation. Institutional Information Institutional Information is institutional data which have been processed and coded in accordance with the Institutional Grammar. Institutional Modeling Institutional Modeling captures approaches that emphasize the study of specific or systemic structure of institutions, with primary focus on the description and/or re/construction of institutional settings and arrangements. Associated analyses can be static (i.e., focus on structure) or dynamic (i.e., focus on behavior and/or change in structure) in kind. Institutional Semantics Semantics, as pertaining to the IG, refers to meaning conveyed in institutional statements that reflects understanding of the institutional setting in which statements are observed. Institutional Setting An Institutional Setting is an institutionally governed domain. Institutional State An Institutional State refers to a state of affairs in the form of behavior (e.g., observed behavior) or environmental

392

GLOSSARY

circumstances. These may condition the applicability of an institutional statement or otherwise be referenced as part of such. Institutional Statement Institutional Statements describe actions for actors within particular contexts, or parameterize features of an institutional system within particular contexts. Institutional statements are comprised of components and take the form of atomic institutional statements (i.e., statements that do not display any form of nesting) or composite institutional statements (i.e., statements displaying any form of nesting). Institutional Structure Institutional Structure refers to arrangements of units of language organized in components that individually and configurally convey institutional meaning (Semantics) and which can be analyzed at different levels. Institutional Syntax Syntax, as pertaining to the IG, refers to the rules that govern the configuration of syntactic components that are the structural units of which institutional statements are comprised. Institutions-in-Form Institutions-in-form are institutions as embodied in form (e.g., as written text), independent of the specific process by which they came about. Institutions-in-Use Institutions-in-use are institutions as embodied in practice, irrespective of their formal or informal origin. Intercoder Reliability Intercoder Reliability (ICR) is a numerical measure of the agreement between different coders regarding how the same data should be coded (Connor & Joffe, 2020). Levels of Expressiveness Levels of Expressiveness in the Institutional Grammar 2.0 reflect distinctive levels of conceptual richness and focus that respond to the levels of representational detail and complexity linked to specific analytical foci. Levels of expressiveness are backwardcompatible, i.e., information encoded at higher levels of expressiveness is accessible to analysis at lower levels. Nested Institutional Statement Nested Institutional Statements are institutional statements that are logically combined via conjunction, in/exclusive disjunction (horizontal nesting), in a consequential relationship, with one statement (or combination thereof) being the monitored, and the other one (or combination thereof) the consequential statement (vertical nesting), or are structurally embedded within components of higher-level institutional statements (component-level nesting).

GLOSSARY

393

Ontological Consistency Ontological Consistency is defined as the clear, logically consistent and coherent characterization of syntactic components, where conceptual characterizations, their relationships and (inter-)dependencies are explicit and unambiguous so as to avoid variable interpretation of encoded information. Ontologies Ontologies are explicit specifications of relationships of different qualities (e.g., hierarchical) between classes of concepts exhibiting different qualities, associated rules, and underlying axioms on which formal reasoning can operate. Polymorphic Institutional Statement Polymorphic Institutional Statements are statements that can be represented as both constitutive and regulative statements (subject to analytical objectives), i.e., characterize along the components associated with the corresponding syntactic form. Regulative Statement Regulative Statements describe actions for actors within particular contexts. Regulative institutional statements may also indicate prescription and consequences related to the referenced action.

Index

A Action situation, 18 Activation Conditions (Component), 57, 87, 125 Activation Conditions (Component)–constitutive discussion, 125 Activation Conditions (Component)–regulative discussion, 87 Agent-based Institutional Modeling, 315, 335 Agent-based Modeling, 45 Agent-based Modeling and Simulation, 40 AIC pattern, 146 Aim (Component), 21, 85 Akoma Ntoso, 223 Animacy taxonomy, 202 Artificial society, 40 Aspirational context, 168 Assessment (Coding phase), 273 Atomic institutional statement, 101 Attributes (Component), 21, 82

C Codebook, 38 Coding ‘Institutions in Use’, 41 Coding process, 153 Cognitive Grammar, 65 Cognitive linguistics, 157 Combination-level component transformation, 225 Common Pool Resource Theory, 36 Complexity analysis, 292 Complexity metrics, 285, 294 Component-level combinations, 94, 253 Component-level combination transformation, 226 Component-level nesting, 294 Composite Institutional Statement, 101 Composition, 76 Computer science, 15 Concept measurement, 285 Conceptual organization analysis, 309 Conceptual reification, 68, 158 Conditions (Component), 21

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. K. Frantz and S. Siddiki, Institutional Grammar, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86372-2

395

396

INDEX

Conditions-Consequence Transformation, 226 Consequence annotations, 214 Consequential statements, 22, 213 Constituted Entity (Component), 119 Constituting Properties (Component), 123 Constitutive Function (Component), 122 Constitutive functions (Institutional functions), 210 Constitutive Functions Taxonomy, 211, 212 Constitutive rules, 131 Constitutive statements, 48, 79 Constitutive strategies, 133 Constitutive syntax, 116 Construction Grammar, 65, 158 Context (Component), 87, 125 Context (Component)–constitutive discussion, 125 Context (Component)–regulative discussion, 87 Context taxonomy, 166, 169, 201 Crawford, S.E.S. and Ostrom, E., 21 D Data collection, 244 Data processing (Coding), 250 Deep structural analysis, 151 Degrees of State Variability (Logical operators), 295 Delta parameter, 114 Deontic (Component), 21, 83 Direct Object (Component), 86 Dynamic institutional analysis, 115 E Economics, 10 EFC pattern, 146 Endogenous institutions, 17

Epistemological linkage, 344, 375 Equilibrium, 104 Execution (Coding phase), 251 Execution Constraints (Component), 57, 87, 125, 291 Execution Constraints (Component)–constitutive discussion, 125 Execution Constraints (Component)–regulative discussion, 87 Exogenous institutions, 17

F Formal institutions, 6 Formal reasoning, 353 Formal rules, 103 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), 223

G Game theory, 102 Generative Grammar, 65 Generative Institutional Analysis, 335

H Heuristics for feature selection, 248 Historical institutionalism, 8 Horizontal nesting, 94, 150, 197, 294 Hybrid institutional statements, 133, 172, 178

I IG IG IG IG IG

Core features, 134 Extended features, 189 feature customization, 247 Logico features, 193 Script, 256

INDEX

Indirect Object (Component), 86 Informal institutions, 7 Institutional analysis, 6 Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD), 18 Institutional complexity metrics (Complexity metrics), 294 Institutional configuration, 75 Institutional design, 36 Institutional development, 36 Institutional features, 54 Institutional functions, 206 Institutional functions analysis, 344 Institutional Grammar (IG), 2, 19, 21, 53, 69, 75 Institutional Grammar 2.0, 53, 75 Institutional meaning, 61, 151 Institutional modeling, 314 Institutional nesting principles, 100 Institutional patterns, 151 Institutional semantics, 24 Institutional setting, 79 Institutional state, 143 Institutional State Complexity (Complexity metric), 297, 298 Institutional statement, 20, 79, 100 Institutional statement coding, 260 Institutional statement coding (Hybrid institutional statements), 267 Institutional statement coding (IG Core), 261 Institutional statement coding (IG Extended), 270 Institutional statement coding (IG Logico), 272 Institutional statement trees, 153 Institutional State Regimentation (Complexity metric), 299, 301 Institutional state vs. statement, 143 Institutional structure, 24

397

Institutional Tree Metrics (Complexity metrics), 300 Institutions, 1, 375 Institutions as equilibria, 101 Institutions as norms, 102 Institutions as rules, 103 Institutions-in-form, 76 Institutions-in-use, 76 Institution types, 101, 133 Institution types (constitutive), 130 Institution types (regulative), 101, 114 Intercoder reliability, 274 Interpretational scope (wide and narrow), 184

L Law, 13 Legal informatics, 13, 16 Levels of expressiveness, 76 Linguistic grammar, 65, 70 Logical operators, 95, 295

M Machine learning, 16 Metatype taxonomy, 203 Methodology (Agent-based modeling), 318 Methodology (Coding), 243 Modal (Component), 120 Monitored statements, 22, 213 Monitoring statements, 213

N Natural language, 69 Nested ADICO (nADICO), 22 Nested institutional statements, 22, 82, 90, 101, 147, 218, 229, 234 Nesting levels, 294 Network analysis, 287

398

INDEX

New Institutional Economics, 10 New Institutional Grammar, 48, 53, 233, 375 Normative Multi-Agent Systems, 15 Norms, 63, 104, 107 Norm vs. rule distinction, 107 O Object (Component), 21, 39, 45, 86 Objectives (Institutional Grammar 2.0), 76 Object-Property Hierarchy, 160, 162 Ontological consistency, 54 Ontological inconsistency, 46 Ontology, 217, 353 Or else (Component), 21, 89, 126 Or else (Component)–constitutive discussion, 126 Or else (Component)–regulative discussion, 89 P Perspective extrapolation, 337 Philosophy, 14 Planning (Coding phase), 244 Policy complexity metrics (Complexity metrics), 285 Policy Implementation Framework, 37 Political science, 10 Polymorphic institutional statements, 183 Pre-processing institutional data, 252 Procedural context, 167 Properties-Conditions Transformation, 231 Property types, 164 Public policy and administration, 8 R Rational choice institutionalism, 8, 101

Reference dataset, 279 Regulative functions (Institutional functions), 206 Regulative statements, 79 Regulative statement structure, 94 Regulative syntax, 82 Relational ambiguity, 58 Research questions, 33 Role taxonomy, 204 Rules, 104, 108, 133 Rule typology (IAD), 18

S Scoping institutional data, 244 Semantic annotations, 201 Semantics, 24 Semantic specification (Institutional Grammar 2.0), 194 Semantic systemic analysis, 348 Shared strategies, 102 Situational context, 168 Social-Ecological Systems Framework, 37 Social network analysis, 45 Social psychology, 12 Sociological institutionalism, 101 Sociology, 11 Spreadsheet software, 245 Statement references, 221 Statement transformation rules, 224, 342 Strategies, 105, 133 Structural analysis, 291 Structural consistency, 69 Structural incongruence, 59 Substantive ambiguity, 58 Substantive context, 167 Syntax, 23 Systemic analysis, 303

INDEX

T Text annotation software, 245

399

U Unidirectional referencing (Institutional statements), 62 Unit of analysis, 101

Theory integration, 345, 374 Tool support, 245 Transformation rules, 224, 342

V Vertical nesting, 91, 151, 198, 213 Vertical nesting annotations, 213