Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 What Is Institutional Analysis? -- 1.1.1 Institutional Analysis by Discipline -- 1.1.1.1 Public Policy and Administration -- 1.1.1.2 Political Science -- 1.1.1.3 Economics -- 1.1.1.4 Sociology -- 1.1.1.5 Social Psychology -- 1.1.1.6 Law -- 1.1.1.7 Philosophy -- 1.1.1.8 Computer Science -- 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 -- 2 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 -- 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 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 -- 4.2.1.1 Attributes -- 4.2.1.2 Deontic -- 4.2.1.3 Aim -- 4.2.1.4 Object -- 4.2.1.5 Context -- 4.2.1.6 Or Else -- 4.2.1.7 Regulative Institutional Statement Structure -- 4.2.2 Statement Combinations (Horizontal Nesting) -- 4.2.3 Regulative Institution Types -- 4.2.3.1 Three Branches of Institutional Analysis -- 4.2.3.2 Mapping Institutions to Statements -- 4.2.3.3 Revisiting the Norm/Rule Distinction.

Chapter 1. Introduction -- Chapter 2. Review of Institutional Grammar Research: Overview, Opportunities, Challenges -- Chapter 3. Motivation for a New Institutional Grammar -- Chapter 4. Institutional Grammar 2.0: Conceptual Foundations and General Syntax -- Chapter 5. Institutional Grammar 2.0: Deep Structural Parsing and Hybrid Institutional Statements -- Chapter 6. Institutional Grammar 2.0: Semantic Features and Analytical Linkages -- Chapter 7. Methodological Guidance for Encoding Institutional Information -- Chapter 8. Institutional Analysis and Applications -- Chapter 9. Contextualization and Future Development of the Institutional Grammar.

ABSTRACTEffective cyber incident response and crisis management increasingly relies on the coordination of relevant actors at supranational levels. A polycentric governance structure is one of the institutional arrangements that can promote active participation of involved actors, an aspect decisive for the rapid and effective response to cyber incidents and crises. This research aims to dissect whether, and to what extent, a polycentric structure is manifested within the cyber crisis management framework of the European Union (EU) and assesses the extent to which these policies signal a balance between centralization and decentralization. By employing Institutional Grammar 2.0, we examine the roles and interactions among actors delineated within four key policies to identify the structural characteristics, institutional essentials, and prerequisites indicative of a polycentric governance system. Additionally, we apply network analysis to evaluate dyadic relationships of actors, further assessing the balance between centralization and decentralization in the EU's cyber crisis management framework. Our analysis reveals that the EU has adopted a polycentric governance model for cyber crisis management, characterized by a nuanced distribution of responsibilities and authorities. The findings highlight a tendency toward centralization, especially in the roles of Member States and the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), while maintaining a polycentric structure that blends centralization and decentralization. This balance can ensure structural integrity and coherence of the system, while theoretically providing the flexibility and resilience needed to adapt to the dynamic cyber threat landscape. The study contributes methodologically, offering a framework that can be applied to other domains, and provides insights into the effective coordination of cyber incident response and crisis management at supranational levels.

摘要本文介绍了一系列文章,这些文章研究了被称之为制度语法(IG)的制度分析方法。过去十年,学者已从不同方式并在不同领域中应用了制度语法,以研究决策过程的关键概念和不同方面,例如政策设计、政策变革和政策执行。在此期间,公共政策和不同其他领域的学者展示了制度语法如何能用于这类评估,以及制度语法如何能与不同方法相结合,进而应对不同的研究目的。本文(i)概述了制度语法;(ii)识别了近期《政策研究杂志》出版的一系列研究制度语法应用案例的文章中呈现的交叉主题;(iii)为基于此的未来研究以及其他近期发表的制度语法文章识别了研究机遇。

AbstractOver the last decade, there has been increased interest in understanding the design (i.e., content) of regulation as a basis for studying regulation formation, implementation, and outcomes. Within this line of research, scholars have been particularly interested in investigating regulatory dynamics relating to features and patterns of regulatory text and have engaged a variety of methodological approaches to support their assessments. One approach featured in this research is the Institutional Grammar (IG). The IG supports syntactic and semantic analyses of institutional statements (e.g., regulatory provisions) that embed within regulatory text. A recently revised version—called the IG 2.0—further supports robust analyses of regulatory text by offering an expanded feature set particularly well‐suited to extracting and classifying content relevant for the study of regulation. This paper (i) provides a brief introduction to the IG 2.0 and (ii) discusses theoretical and analytical advantages of using the IG 2.0 to study regulation.

AbstractThis Symposium features research that engages an institutional analysis approach, called the Institutional Grammar. Institutional analysis is the study of rules, norms, and strategies (e.g., public policies, organizational bylaws, social conventions) that govern social systems and organizations. The Institutional Grammar is an approach for comprehensively capturing the design of institutions; in particular, for describing the language of directives that comprise them. We posit that the engagement of the Institutional Grammar in public administration research can advance understanding of institutional dynamics of administrative settings and behaviors by lending conceptual and methodological clarity on the definition and measurement of institutions. In support of this position, we (i) provide a brief commentary on institutional analysis in public administration research; (ii) offer a brief overview of the Institutional Grammar; and (iii) highlight how methodological innovations presented in the Symposium articles advance the Institutional Grammar, and present opportunities for advancing institutional analysis in administrative settings.

AbstractPublic affairs scholars have contributed rich insights on the role and outcomes of institutions in policy and administrative settings. They have offered numerous empirical studies of these topics, alongside concepts and theories that can be leveraged in their assessment. But there remains a relative dearth in attention to approaches that can be used to support rigorous assessments of institutional design itself—those that support reliable and nuanced representations of institutional structure and meaning. The Institutional Grammar (IG) is one such approach that has gained in prominence over the last decade. Existing applications validate the IG's utility toward rigorous assessments of institutional design, and highlight the IG's value in operationalizing concepts relevant in policy and administration scholarship. We build on existing IG research by presenting a revised specification IG 2.0 for encoding and analyzing institutional design that responds to representational necessities and analytical opportunities within and beyond policy and administrative domains.

This work introduces a multiagent model for informal communication about cheating merchants among investing Genoese traders in the 12th century. The model builds on previous, game theory focused work of Avner Greif and extends it by enabling communication between Genoese traders. A trust-based cooperation model is tested across different network topologies as well as two different communication modes: (a) a reactive one representing Genoese trader interrelations and (b) a more proactive one that is based on accounts on the relationships among a North African traders collective, known as the medieval Maghribi Traders. The simulation shows that even for high levels of initial trust among Genoese, their mode of communication would not have sufficed to collectively identify cheating merchants and prevent them from future transactions. The results obtained from the tested network topologies are further discussed in the light of literature accounts of both historical societies.