Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Laws, norms, and the Institutional Analysis and Development framework

  • DANIEL H. COLE (a1)

Elinor Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework has been described as ‘one of the most developed and sophisticated attempts to use institutional and stakeholder assessment in order to link theory and practice, analysis and policy’. But not all elements in the framework are sufficiently well developed. This paper focuses on one such element: the ‘rules-in-use’ (a.k.a. ‘rules’ or ‘working rules’). Specifically, it begins a long-overdue conversation about relations between formal legal rules and ‘working rules’ by offering a tentative and very simple typology of relations. Type 1: Some formal legal rules equal or approximate the working rules; Type 2: Some legal rules plus (or emended by) widely held social norms equal or approximate the working rules; and Type 3: Some legal rules bear no evident relation to the working rules. Several examples, including some previously used by Ostrom, are provided to illustrate each of the three types, which can be conceived of as nodes or ranges along a continuum. The paper concludes with a call for empirical research, especially case studies and meta-analyses, to determine the relevant scope of each of these types of relations, and to provide data for furthering our understanding of how different types of rules, from various sources, function (or not) as institutions.

Corresponding author
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

P. D. Aligica (2006), ‘Institutional and stakeholder mapping: frameworks for policy analysis and institutional change’, Public Organization Review 6: 7990.

P. Bohannan (1965), ‘The differing realms of the law’, American Anthropologist 67 (6): 3342.

G. Brennan , L. Eriksson , R. E. Goodin and N. Southwood . 2013. Explaining Norms, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S. E. S. Crawford and E. Ostrom (1995), ‘A grammar of institutions’, American Political Science Review 89 (3): 582600.

V. Lowndes and S. Leach (2004), Understanding Local Political Leadership: Constitutions, Contexts and Capabilities’, Local Government Studies 30 (4): 557–75.

M. D. McGinnis (2011a), ‘An Introduction to the IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework’, Policy Studies Journal 39 (1): 169–83.

S. J. Menell (1969), ‘Prohibition: A Sociological View’, Journal of American Studies 3 (2): 159–75.

E. Ostrom (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.

E. Ostrom (2007), ‘A Diagnostic Approach for Going beyond Panaceas’, Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences 104 (39): 15,181–7.

E. Ostrom (2010), ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems’, American Economic Review 100 (3): 641–72.

E. Ostrom and M. Cox (2010), ‘Moving beyond Panaceas: A Multi-tiered Diagnostic Approach for Social-ecological Analysis’, Environmental Conservation 37 (4): 451–63.

V. Ostrom (1976), ‘John R. Commons’ Foundations for Policy Analysis’, Journal of Economic Issues 10 (4): 839–57.

V. Ostrom and E. Ostrom (1972), ‘Legal and Political Conditions of Water Resource Development’, Land Economics 48 (1): 114.

E. Schlager and E. Ostrom (1992), ‘Property-rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis’, Land Economics 68 (3): 249–62.

I. Theesfeld (2004), ‘Constraints on Collective Action in a Transitional Economy: The Case of Bulgaria's Irrigation Sector’, World Development 32 (2): 251–71.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Institutional Economics
  • ISSN: 1744-1374
  • EISSN: 1744-1382
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 41 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 548 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 28th February 2017 - 22nd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.