Norms, institutions, and digital veils of uncertainty—Do network protocols need trust anyway?

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Regulation & Governance Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1111/rego.12628
Eric Alston
{"title":"Norms, institutions, and digital veils of uncertainty—Do network protocols need trust anyway?","authors":"Eric Alston","doi":"10.1111/rego.12628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In large and complex human groups, social rules reduce individuals' uncertainty about their own choice set, including through these rules' simultaneous influence on the choice set of other individuals. But uncertainty varies as to the extent to which it is knowable and quantifiable <i>ex ante</i>. Therefore, different classes of social rules deal with the future uncertainty of individuals' conduct in structurally distinct ways, with institutions and norms being the hallmark example of this distinction. Institutions, through their costly definition and enforcement by a known organization, require specific delineation of behavior and penalties <i>ex ante</i>, meaning they of necessity confront “known unknowns” (risk), or the conduct of members of an organization that can be predicted <i>ex ante</i>. Norms, in contrast, are only effective in shaping behavior if sufficiently shared within a community, which means their application is automatic in expectation to an individual ordering their conduct considering potential norms. This makes norms apply to <i>ex ante</i> known and unknown situations alike, relative to the precision that the articulation of institutions requires with respect to human behavior. Although digital governance carries the benefits (and costs) of considerable institutional “completeness,” governance by protocol is nonetheless incomplete in the face of the complex set of exogenous shocks and human actions that a given digital networked organization will experience. This means digital institutions need to mimic the adaptability of institutions more generally, through the institutional mechanisms of flexibility detailed in this analysis. More generally, though, the fact that norms can serve as a complementary gap-filler in contexts where institutions do not reach suggest that digital organization designers cannot avoid simultaneous consideration of the human community of network users that will define the norms that become crucial in periods of true uncertainty for any organization.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12628","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In large and complex human groups, social rules reduce individuals' uncertainty about their own choice set, including through these rules' simultaneous influence on the choice set of other individuals. But uncertainty varies as to the extent to which it is knowable and quantifiable ex ante. Therefore, different classes of social rules deal with the future uncertainty of individuals' conduct in structurally distinct ways, with institutions and norms being the hallmark example of this distinction. Institutions, through their costly definition and enforcement by a known organization, require specific delineation of behavior and penalties ex ante, meaning they of necessity confront “known unknowns” (risk), or the conduct of members of an organization that can be predicted ex ante. Norms, in contrast, are only effective in shaping behavior if sufficiently shared within a community, which means their application is automatic in expectation to an individual ordering their conduct considering potential norms. This makes norms apply to ex ante known and unknown situations alike, relative to the precision that the articulation of institutions requires with respect to human behavior. Although digital governance carries the benefits (and costs) of considerable institutional “completeness,” governance by protocol is nonetheless incomplete in the face of the complex set of exogenous shocks and human actions that a given digital networked organization will experience. This means digital institutions need to mimic the adaptability of institutions more generally, through the institutional mechanisms of flexibility detailed in this analysis. More generally, though, the fact that norms can serve as a complementary gap-filler in contexts where institutions do not reach suggest that digital organization designers cannot avoid simultaneous consideration of the human community of network users that will define the norms that become crucial in periods of true uncertainty for any organization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规范、制度和不确定性的数字面纱--网络协议到底需不需要信任?
在复杂的大型人类群体中,社会规则减少了个体对自身选择集的不确定性,包括通过这些规则同时影响其他个体的选择集。但不确定性在事前可知和可量化的程度上各不相同。因此,不同类别的社会规则以结构上不同的方式处理个人行为的未来不确定性,制度和规范就是这种区别的典型例子。制度通过已知组织的高成本定义和执行,要求事先对行为和惩罚做出具体规定,这意味着制度必须面对 "已知未知"(风险),或者说组织成员的行为可以事先预测。与此相反,规范只有在社区内得到充分共享的情况下才能有效地塑造行为,这就意味着规范的应用是自动的,个人可以根据潜在的规范来安排自己的行为。这就使得规范既适用于事前已知的情况,也适用于事前未知的情况,相对于制度的表述对人类行为所要求的精确性而言。尽管数字治理带来了相当大的制度 "完整性 "的好处(和代价),但面对特定数字网络组织将经历的一系列复杂的外生冲击和人类行为,协议治理仍然是不完整的。这就意味着,数字机构需要通过本分析中详述的灵活机构机制,模仿一般机构的适应性。不过,从更广泛的意义上讲,规范可以在制度无法触及的情况下起到补充作用,这表明数字组织的设计者不能不同时考虑网络用户这一人类群体,他们将制定规范,而这些规范在任何组织真正面临不确定性的时期都是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
期刊最新文献
The Political Influence of Proxy Advisors in Campaigns for Ethical Investment: Guiding the Invisible Hand Historical Foundations of Green Developmental Policies: Divergent Trajectories in United States and France Core funding and the performance of international organizations: Evidence from UNDP projects Integrating ecosocial policies through polycentric governance: A study of the green transformation of Danish vocational education and training Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1