Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development

A. Matei
{"title":"Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development","authors":"A. Matei","doi":"10.4324/9780203876282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paul Dragos Aligica and Peter J. Boettke (2009). Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development. The Bloomington School. London and New-York: Routledge.ReviewThe recent passing of distinguished professors Elinor and Vincent Ostrom has bereaved the academic community of the guidance of two prominent scholars. Their intellectual generosity was at the heart of a novel way of doing research: in a collaborative manner, professors and apprentices working side by side, across disciplinary barriers and bringing together diverse research methods and tools, exactly like in a Workshop. This is how the institution they have created at Indiana University was called, a Workshop. While this may sound for some as a very familiar way of doing research nowadays, this was not at all the case when the workshop was founded in 1973. Moreover, they set the foundations for a complex and novel way of building social theory and for connecting it to its practical facet, institutional development and policy analysis.An overview of their legacy and their fundamental contribution to the advancement of research in social sciences is only natural in such circumstances. To achieve this, I am using Paul Dragos Aligica's and Petter Boettke's book \"Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development. The Bloomington School\" as a vehicle. The book undertakes a careful consideration of the essential contributions to social science Elinor and Vincent Ostrom have brought.The purpose of the above mentioned work is to present in a systematic and comprehensive manner the foundations of the Bloomington School to social science scholars, students and researchers. In the authors' own words, the book is an attempt to \"explore, reconstruct and outline the elements of the basic vision of the Bloomington research program in institutional analysis and development - the assumptions, themes and basic philosophy that frame the research activity and theory building done by the scholars associated with this School\" (Aligica & Boettke, 2009, p. 4). While the work on common-pool resources and on federalism is better known, this is an outline of the larger context in which this type of research was developed, its history, main premises and concepts.The book is structured in three parts and six chapters, to which the conclusions and a postscript are to be added. The first part presents the theory of governance systems as a natural outgrowth of the 1960s and 1970s debates on metropolitan reform. These chapters introduce the main concepts on which the institutional analysis theoretical framework was built: policentricity and monocentricity, public economy and industry, co-production, the nature of goods and services, and public entrepreneurship. The second part illuminates the reader with regard to the social philosophy developed by Vincent Ostrom, a philosophy that integrates reflections on the \"nature of social order, the tension between freedom and organization, the nature and functions of social rules, the role of ideas and belief systems in institutional order and change, and the methodological implications of all of the above\" (p. 3). The third part places the Bloomington School in its larger intellectual context as a paradigm that, while being highly connected to the state-of-the-art developments in social sciences and contributing to the emergence of Public Choice, brings back in the picture the way of analysis of classical authors such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, or John Locke. In the conclusions, the Bloomington School is presented as advancing a \"science of association\", \"a science of citizenship\", and a \"science of liberty\". The two interviews in the postscript give the reader the opportunity to get acquainted with the way the founders of the School present themselves, their main theoretical and practical innovations.Further, I will introduce the main concept and proposition on which this theory is built on, and the main implications for the way we are currently doing social research and policy analysis. …","PeriodicalId":30129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology","volume":"3 1","pages":"149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4324/9780203876282","citationCount":"67","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 67

Abstract

Paul Dragos Aligica and Peter J. Boettke (2009). Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development. The Bloomington School. London and New-York: Routledge.ReviewThe recent passing of distinguished professors Elinor and Vincent Ostrom has bereaved the academic community of the guidance of two prominent scholars. Their intellectual generosity was at the heart of a novel way of doing research: in a collaborative manner, professors and apprentices working side by side, across disciplinary barriers and bringing together diverse research methods and tools, exactly like in a Workshop. This is how the institution they have created at Indiana University was called, a Workshop. While this may sound for some as a very familiar way of doing research nowadays, this was not at all the case when the workshop was founded in 1973. Moreover, they set the foundations for a complex and novel way of building social theory and for connecting it to its practical facet, institutional development and policy analysis.An overview of their legacy and their fundamental contribution to the advancement of research in social sciences is only natural in such circumstances. To achieve this, I am using Paul Dragos Aligica's and Petter Boettke's book "Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development. The Bloomington School" as a vehicle. The book undertakes a careful consideration of the essential contributions to social science Elinor and Vincent Ostrom have brought.The purpose of the above mentioned work is to present in a systematic and comprehensive manner the foundations of the Bloomington School to social science scholars, students and researchers. In the authors' own words, the book is an attempt to "explore, reconstruct and outline the elements of the basic vision of the Bloomington research program in institutional analysis and development - the assumptions, themes and basic philosophy that frame the research activity and theory building done by the scholars associated with this School" (Aligica & Boettke, 2009, p. 4). While the work on common-pool resources and on federalism is better known, this is an outline of the larger context in which this type of research was developed, its history, main premises and concepts.The book is structured in three parts and six chapters, to which the conclusions and a postscript are to be added. The first part presents the theory of governance systems as a natural outgrowth of the 1960s and 1970s debates on metropolitan reform. These chapters introduce the main concepts on which the institutional analysis theoretical framework was built: policentricity and monocentricity, public economy and industry, co-production, the nature of goods and services, and public entrepreneurship. The second part illuminates the reader with regard to the social philosophy developed by Vincent Ostrom, a philosophy that integrates reflections on the "nature of social order, the tension between freedom and organization, the nature and functions of social rules, the role of ideas and belief systems in institutional order and change, and the methodological implications of all of the above" (p. 3). The third part places the Bloomington School in its larger intellectual context as a paradigm that, while being highly connected to the state-of-the-art developments in social sciences and contributing to the emergence of Public Choice, brings back in the picture the way of analysis of classical authors such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, or John Locke. In the conclusions, the Bloomington School is presented as advancing a "science of association", "a science of citizenship", and a "science of liberty". The two interviews in the postscript give the reader the opportunity to get acquainted with the way the founders of the School present themselves, their main theoretical and practical innovations.Further, I will introduce the main concept and proposition on which this theory is built on, and the main implications for the way we are currently doing social research and policy analysis. …
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
挑战制度分析与发展
Paul Dragos Aligica和Peter J. Boettke(2009)。挑战制度分析与发展。布卢明顿学校。伦敦和纽约:劳特利奇出版社。最近,著名教授埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆和文森特·奥斯特罗姆去世,学术界失去了两位杰出学者的指导。他们在智力上的慷慨是一种新颖研究方式的核心:以合作的方式,教授和学徒并肩工作,跨越学科障碍,汇集各种研究方法和工具,就像在研讨会上一样。这就是他们在印第安纳大学创建的机构被称为“工作坊”的原因。虽然对一些人来说,这听起来是一种非常熟悉的研究方式,但在1973年讲习班成立时,情况并非如此。此外,它们为建立社会理论并将其与实践方面、体制发展和政策分析联系起来的复杂而新颖的方式奠定了基础。在这种情况下,对他们的遗产和他们对社会科学研究进步的根本贡献进行概述是很自然的。为了达到这个目的,我引用了Paul Dragos Aligica和Petter Boettke的书《挑战制度分析和发展》。布卢明顿学校”作为载体。这本书认真考虑了埃莉诺和文森特·奥斯特罗姆对社会科学的重要贡献。上述工作的目的是以系统和全面的方式向社会科学学者、学生和研究人员介绍布卢明顿学派的基础。用作者自己的话说,这本书试图“探索、重建和概述布卢明顿研究项目在制度分析和发展方面的基本愿景的要素——假设、主题和基本哲学,这些假设、主题和基本哲学构成了与该学院有关的学者的研究活动和理论建设”(Aligica & Boettke, 2009,第4页)。这是一个更大的背景下,这类研究的发展,它的历史,主要前提和概念的大纲。本书分为三部分和六章,并在此基础上加上结论和附言。第一部分将治理体系理论作为20世纪60年代和70年代都市改革辩论的自然产物。这些章节介绍了建立制度分析理论框架的主要概念:政策中心和单中心、公共经济和工业、合作生产、商品和服务的性质以及公共企业家精神。第二部分向读者介绍文森特·奥斯特罗姆(Vincent Ostrom)发展的社会哲学,这种哲学整合了对“社会秩序的本质、自由与组织之间的紧张关系、社会规则的本质和功能、思想和信仰体系在制度秩序和变革中的作用”的反思。第三部分将布卢明顿学派置于其更大的知识背景中,作为一种范式,它与社会科学的最新发展密切相关,并为公共选择的出现做出了贡献,同时又带回了托克维尔、亚当·斯密、亚历山大·汉密尔顿、詹姆斯·麦迪逊或约翰·洛克等古典作家的分析方式。在结论中,布卢明顿学派被认为是在推进“结社科学”、“公民科学”和“自由科学”。后记中的两次采访让读者有机会了解商学院创始人的自我介绍方式,以及他们的主要理论和实践创新。此外,我将介绍这一理论所基于的主要概念和命题,以及对我们目前进行社会研究和政策分析的方式的主要影响。…
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Undersea Network Linking Social Capital, Cultural Capital and Heterotopia at the Folk Festival Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development
×
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