Figure 1:
Institutional levels and experimentation.
Vertical, upward arrows present legal build-up towards operational practice; horizontal arrows depict distinction between vertical legal arrangements (standard-experimental-towards new standard) and dotted diagonal arrows present flow of information about experiments to reconsideration of constitutional settings.
Table 1:
Connecting rules-in-form to rules-in-use.
| Rule-in form | Action situation | Rule-in-use |
|---|---|---|
| Rules with normative validityfollowing a legal system | Empirical evidence of rulesagreed upon in practice |
Table 2:
Levels as lawfully interconnected action arenas.
| Level of action arena | Interaction within (towards certain outcomes) | Rules structuring the action situation (for Interaction) |
|---|---|---|
| OS-level (Operational Action Situations) | Performance of factual activities, e.g.: • establish smart microgrid • manage a neighbourhood cooperative | Rules-in-use upon rules-of-conduct of CS-/CCS-level origin: • prohibitions, commands, permissions and dispensations |
| ᛏ CCS-level made rules-of-conduct for OS-level use ᛏ | ||
| CCS-level (Collective Choice Action Situations) | Introducing, altering, terminating (only) rules-of-conduct, e.g.: • licensing energy generators (rules-of-conduct for licensees at OS-level) • contracting between OS-level participants for implementation at OS-level) | Rules-in-use following rules-of-power of CS-level origin, about: • how to make/change rules-of-conduct at CCS-level, for OS-level rules-in-use |
| ᛏ CS-level made rules-of-power for CCS-level and rules-of-conduct for CCS and OS level use ᛏ | ||
| CS-level (Constitutional Action Situations) | Making, altering, terminating rules-in-form, e.g.: • rules-of-power for CCS-level (e.g. Civil Law Code; Electricity act, crown decree) experimentation • rules-of-conduct for CCS- and OS-level (ditto) | Rules-in-use following rules-of-recognition of MCS-level origin, with constitutional rules-of-power about: • how to make/change rules-of-power at CS-level, for rules-in-use at CCS-level • to make/change rules-of-conduct directly relevant to OS-level, upon rules-of-power at higher CS-level |
| ᛏ MS-level established rules-of-recognition for CS-level interactions ᛏ | ||
| MCS-level (Metaconstitutional Action Situations) | Making rules-in-form, e.g.: • constitutions and bills of rights • conventions, custom | Rules-in-use expressing rules-of-recognition about makingg rules-in-form (no prior Rules-in-forms exist at this point) |
All upward connections between rules-of-recognition to rules-of-power to rules-of-conduct and all translations of rules-in-form in rules-in-use are portrayed as lawful(ly consistent).
Table 3:
Three key basic types of institutional environments.
| Inst. Environment ➔ Characteristics ᛎ | Public hierarchy | Competitive market | Civil society |
|---|---|---|---|
| – Key relation type: | Command | Exchange | Cooperation |
| – Key interest type: | Public interest | Private interest | Community interest |
| – Key justification: | Voice | Exit | Loyalty |
| – Key legal regime: | Constitutional and administrative law | Competition and consumer protection law | Law of association and societal enterprise |
Figure 2:
Institutional choice.
Table 4:
Three institutional designs for experimentation.
| Expansion* | Hybrid | Democratisation* |
| Participation and sharing only in as much as efficient towards expansion** | Only input or only output legitimacy (as value in itself) | Input and output legitimacy (as value in itself): procedural and substantive justice is key |
*Of renewable energy use ** involve communities only to reduce local opposition.