Volledige Samenvatting Social and Institutional Change (incl. artikelen)

SAMENVATTING SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE



Hoorcollege 1: Introduction

DOUGLAS NORTH; Institutions are the rules in the game in a society, the humanly devised
constrains that shape human interaction. (a) Institutions are rules, (b) devised by
humans, (c) create constrains for individual’s decision making.

2 forms of institutions:

 INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS: behavioral regularity based on socially shared rules,
unwritten and enforced outside of officially sanctioning channels (norms).
 FORMAL INSTITUTIONS: official rules, written down in a law or contract, typically
enforced by a state.




Hoorcollege 3: The micro-macro problem

(Hoorcollege 2 was een werkcollege)

ÉMILE DURKHEIM defines sociology as the field that studies SOCIAL-FACTS (macro-
phenomena). Social fact  A social fact is any way of acting, whether fixed or not,
capable of exerting over the individual an external constraint. According to Durkheim
sociology is important because the whole is not simply the sum of its parts. This means
that simply understanding individuals is not enough.

STRUCTURAL SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH: macro-phenomena can only be explained by other
micro-phenomena.

makes it possible to explain
THE STRUCTURAL INDIVIDUALISTIC RESEARCH PROGRAM (SIP)
macro-phenomena from the micro-level (Coleman’s boat)

COLEMAN’S BOAT has been criticized over the years:

1. Criticism of the representative-agent approach
a. The model suggests that all individuals behave and decide in the same way
b. There is no interaction between the different actors, actors would decide in
isolation
2. Individuals influence each other in their behaviour
3. Durkheim states that there is a lot of interaction between individuals

Collective phenomena which are unintended in that sensa that individuals do not seek to
create them are called ‘EMERGENT PHENOMENA’.

EMERGENCE has two main characteristics:

 The system has a macro-micro structure
 The entities at the micro-micro level are interdependent

There are different forms of emergence. The core of these definitions is that the interplay
of individual behavior can create patterns which cannot be directly inferred from the
motives of the individuals.

,Durkheim’s claim that macro-phenomena can only be explained by other collective
phenomena is not correct. There are also theories that explain collective phenomena
from individual behavior.




Hoorcollege 4: Theories of institutional change
 COLLECTIVE-CHOICE THEORIES

 Group decisions; these theories show how groups make decisions to change or
adapt their rules and institutions
 Evolving over time; as new challenges arise, people work together to decide how
to govern themselves
 Collective-choice theories focus on how groups adapt their rules based on evolving
needs and situations

Key concepts are:

1. COLLABORATION; people work together towards shared goals
2. NEGOTIATION; the process of reaching agreements or compromises
3. COLLECTIVE ACTION; when a group works together to achieve a common goal
Collective action and conflict: Individuals and organizations work together, sometimes
trough conflict and negotiation, to change rules in ways that benefit them.

LIBECAP’S CONCEPT OF ‘CONTRACTING’: Libecap looks at how property rights – rules about
who owns and controls resources – are created. ‘Contracting’ is the process of changing
these rules, influenced by political decisions at higher levels.

OSTROM’S MULTI-LAYER HIERARCHY OF RULES : Ostrom explains that rules are organized into
different layers:

1. OPERATIONAL RULES: day-to-day rules for how things work
2. COLLECTIVE-CHOICE RULES: rules about who gets to make or change the operational
rules
3. CONSTITUTIONAL RULES: rules for deciding how collective-choice rules are made
4. META CONSTITUTIONAL RULES: there can even be rules about how constitutional
rules are made, but we don’t often look at those unless we’re really digging deep
Determinants of Institutional Change:
o Individual’s calculation of expected cost & benefits
o Perception of decision-makers of impacts
Causes of Institutional Change:
o Libecap: external factors —> institutional change
o Ostrom: external factors / internal factors —> institutional change
Path-dependent process (Libecap):
o Institutional change is path-dependent
o Responses to new challenges shaped by past responses
o Existing institutions may have interest in maintaining status quo


CRITICISMS:

,  Collective-choice models cannot explain why formal rules are ignored or do not
work as planned
 Informal rules, like social norms or tradition, often develop naturally and are not
always covered by these models

 EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES

 Institutions evolve periodically  decentralized selection progress against
alternative institutions
 Spontaneous & uncoordinated
 Institutional change is like an evolutionary process driven by variation, selection
and inheritance
 Deliberate human actions ultimate drivers of institutional change
 No central coordination

HAYEK’S THEORY: Shared expectations and successful group practices shape how rules and
institutions evolve over time.

o Coordination of individual’s intentions & expectations, rather than explicit rules,
leads to social order
o Exogenous parameter changes lead to institutional change
o External factors influence how institutions evolve
o Changes lead to pressure on existing institutions to adopt
o SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST RULES: societies with better rules or institutions thrive and
continue, while those with less effective ones decline or disappear. This process is
like evolution, where only the most effective systems survive.
o SPONTANEOUS ORDER: social order often develops naturally through the
coordination of individuals expectations, rather than though explicit rules. When
people have common expectations, they tend to interact and behave in ways that
create stable and orderly society.