埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆论选择、集体行动和理性:一个塞尼亚式的分析

IF 2.4 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Institutional Economics Pub Date : 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1017/s1744137423000255
Paul Lewis, Matias Petersen
{"title":"埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆论选择、集体行动和理性:一个塞尼亚式的分析","authors":"Paul Lewis, Matias Petersen","doi":"10.1017/s1744137423000255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper explores Elinor Ostrom's account of practical reason through the conceptual lens provided by a typology of dimensions of rational conduct advanced by Amartya Sen. On Sen's view, self-interested behaviour has three independent, and separable, features: self-centred welfare, self-welfare goal and self-goal choice. We suggest that Ostrom is committed to a version of rational choice theory that retains the assumptions of self-welfare goal and self-goal choice but, by acknowledging that people's welfare is affected by factors beyond their material consumption, departs from the assumption of self-welfare goal. We argue that this departure is not necessarily driven by an acknowledgement, along Senian lines, that people may have reasons for action other than the single-minded pursuit of their own goals, but rather by Ostrom's belief that the decision problem people face is so complex that maximising behaviour is rendered impossible. We illustrate this argument by analysing how Elinor Ostrom's position differs not only from Sen's but also from that of her husband and long-time collaborator Vincent Ostrom, who in his analysis of the covenantal aspects of rule-making seems to depart from the assumptions of instrumental rationality and preference-satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":47221,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Institutional Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Elinor Ostrom on choice, collective action and rationality: a Senian analysis\",\"authors\":\"Paul Lewis, Matias Petersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1744137423000255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper explores Elinor Ostrom's account of practical reason through the conceptual lens provided by a typology of dimensions of rational conduct advanced by Amartya Sen. On Sen's view, self-interested behaviour has three independent, and separable, features: self-centred welfare, self-welfare goal and self-goal choice. We suggest that Ostrom is committed to a version of rational choice theory that retains the assumptions of self-welfare goal and self-goal choice but, by acknowledging that people's welfare is affected by factors beyond their material consumption, departs from the assumption of self-welfare goal. We argue that this departure is not necessarily driven by an acknowledgement, along Senian lines, that people may have reasons for action other than the single-minded pursuit of their own goals, but rather by Ostrom's belief that the decision problem people face is so complex that maximising behaviour is rendered impossible. We illustrate this argument by analysing how Elinor Ostrom's position differs not only from Sen's but also from that of her husband and long-time collaborator Vincent Ostrom, who in his analysis of the covenantal aspects of rule-making seems to depart from the assumptions of instrumental rationality and preference-satisfaction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Institutional Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Institutional Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137423000255\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Institutional Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137423000255","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过阿马蒂亚·森(Amartya Sen)提出的理性行为维度类型学提供的概念视角,探讨了埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆(Elinor Ostrom)对实践理性的解释。在森的观点中,自利行为具有三个独立且可分离的特征:自我中心福利、自我福利目标和自我目标选择。我们认为,奥斯特罗姆致力于理性选择理论的一个版本,它保留了自我福利目标和自我目标选择的假设,但通过承认人们的福利受到物质消费以外的因素的影响,背离了自我福利目标的假设。我们认为,这种背离并不一定是因为人们承认,除了一心一意地追求自己的目标之外,人们可能有行动的理由,而是因为奥斯特罗姆认为,人们面临的决策问题是如此复杂,以至于行为最大化是不可能的。我们通过分析埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆的立场不仅与森的立场不同,而且与她的丈夫和长期合作伙伴文森特·奥斯特罗姆的立场不同来说明这一论点,文森特·奥斯特罗姆在分析规则制定的契约方面似乎偏离了工具理性和偏好满足的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Elinor Ostrom on choice, collective action and rationality: a Senian analysis
This paper explores Elinor Ostrom's account of practical reason through the conceptual lens provided by a typology of dimensions of rational conduct advanced by Amartya Sen. On Sen's view, self-interested behaviour has three independent, and separable, features: self-centred welfare, self-welfare goal and self-goal choice. We suggest that Ostrom is committed to a version of rational choice theory that retains the assumptions of self-welfare goal and self-goal choice but, by acknowledging that people's welfare is affected by factors beyond their material consumption, departs from the assumption of self-welfare goal. We argue that this departure is not necessarily driven by an acknowledgement, along Senian lines, that people may have reasons for action other than the single-minded pursuit of their own goals, but rather by Ostrom's belief that the decision problem people face is so complex that maximising behaviour is rendered impossible. We illustrate this argument by analysing how Elinor Ostrom's position differs not only from Sen's but also from that of her husband and long-time collaborator Vincent Ostrom, who in his analysis of the covenantal aspects of rule-making seems to depart from the assumptions of instrumental rationality and preference-satisfaction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
18.20%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
The role of political institutions in the Eurozone's economic convergence process Legal pluralism, ideology, and institutional change: the evolution of institutions for coastal resource governance in Ghana The economics of cognitive institutions: mapping debates, looking ahead Environmental enforcement, property rights, and violence: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon Economic freedom and academic freedom across nations
×
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