Table 1
The Institutional Grammar version 1.0.
| A – Attribute | The actor who carries out the action specified in the aIm |
| D – Deontic | May, must, must not, should, should not |
| I – aIm | The action to be taken (or not) by the attribute |
| B– oBject | The receiver of the action |
| C – Condition | The where, when, and how conditioning the aIm |
| O – Or Else | The consequence for noncompliance |
[i] (For more detailed discussions of these elements, see Siddiki et al. 2022.)
Table 2
Content review categories for coding articles.
| ARTICLE CONTENT REVIEW CATEGORY | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| Publication outlet | Name of journal publishing the article |
| Location of study | Geographic area where study and data are focused |
| Jurisdiction | Governing system level associated with the data, i.e. local, national, organizational |
| Research question(s) | Policy or methodological question(s) motivating the article |
| Hypotheses | Research expectations derived from research question(s) |
| Variables | Concepts analyzed, measured, or created using IG 1.0 |
| Coding scheme | Description of how IG 1.0 was applied in the article |
| Methods of analysis | Description of how variables were analyzed in the article |
| Analysis approach | Design of the study, i.e. single case, comparative, longitudinal |
| Purpose of analysis | Motivation for the research question, i.e. policy analysis, developing new methods |
| Data source | Source material IG 1.0 was applied to, text or otherwise |
Figure 1
IG 1.0 journal articles by country of study.
Note: Six of the 51 articles were not included on the map: 3 articles studied multiple countries and 3 used modeling simulations.
Table 3
Jurisdictional scales of IG 1.0-based analyses.
| POLICY SCALE | NUMBER OF ARTICLES |
|---|---|
| Organizational | 3 |
| Local | 15 |
| Sub-national | 14 |
| National | 12 |
| Regional | 2 |
| International | 2 |
| No level | 3 |
| Total | 51 |
Figure 2
Journal articles by purpose of analysis.
Figure 3
IG Literature organized by analytic approach.
Table 4
Areas of empirical contributions and operationalizations by the IG.
| EMPIRICAL CONTRIBUTIONS | EXAMPLES OF CONCEPTS OPERATIONALIZED |
|---|---|
| Comparative institutional analysis | Policy coerciveness (Siddiki, 2014) Rule performance (Abebe et al., 2019) |
| Interactions among actors | Networks of Prescribed Interactions (NPIs) (Olivier, 2019) Polycentricity (Heikkila and Weible, 2018) |
| Actors and prescribed actions | Information sharing (Weibleet al., 2017) Discretion (Turner and Stiller, 2020) |
| Compliance and non-compliance | Legitimacy of regulations (Siddiki et al., 2012) Self-reported rule compliance (Tschopp et al., 2018) |
| Grammar development | Links between actors, through the oBject (Siddiki et al., 2011) Rule classification, through machine coding (Rice et al., 2021) |