Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Use of the Institutional Grammar 1.0 for Institutional Analysis: A Literature Review Cover

The Use of the Institutional Grammar 1.0 for Institutional Analysis: A Literature Review

International Journal of the Commons
Volume 17 (2023): Issue 1
By: Leah Pieper,  Santiago Virgüez,  Edella Schlager and  Charlie Schweik  
Open Access
|Aug 2023

References

  1. 1Abdullah, D., Abd Aziz, M. I., & Mohd Ibrahim, A. L. (2017). The stories they tell: Understanding international student mobility through higher education policy. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(5), 450–466. DOI: 10.1177/1028315317720766
    Back to article
  2. 2Abebe, Y. A., Ghorbani, A., Nikolic, I., Vojinovic, Z., & Sanchez, A. (2019). A coupled flood-agent-institution modelling (CLAIM) framework for urban flood risk management. Environ. Model. Softw., 111, 483–492. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.10.015
    Back to article
  3. 3Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance, 25(2), 237–262. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01550.x
    Back to article
  4. 4Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy sciences, 41(1), 71–93. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6
    Back to article
  5. 5Angulo-Cázares, R. (2018). Agency problems in basic education in Mexico: an institutional diagnosis. Convergencia, 25(77), 149–173. DOI: 10.29101/crcs.v25i77.9224
    Back to article
  6. 6Basurto, X., Kingsley, G., McQueen, K., Smith, M., & Weible, C. M. (2010). A systematic approach to institutional analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s grammar. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 523–537. DOI: 10.1177/1065912909334430
    Back to article
  7. 7Bushouse, B., Schweik, C. M., Siddiki, S., Rice, D., & Wolfson, I. (2023). The Institutional Grammar: A Method for Coding Institutions and its Potential for Advancing Third Sector Research. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 76–83. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-021-00423-w
    Back to article
  8. 8Carter, D. P., Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N., & Basurto, X. (2016). Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28(1), 159–185. DOI: 10.1177/0951629815603494
    Back to article
  9. 9Carter, D. P., Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N., Brett, J., & Chonaiew, S. M. (2015). Assessing policy divergence: How to investigate the differences between a law and a corresponding regulation. Public Administration, 93(1), 159–176. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12120
    Back to article
  10. 10Clement, S., Moore, S. A., & Lockwood, M. (2015). Authority, responsibility and process in Australian biodiversity policy. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 32(2), 93–114.
    Back to article
  11. 11Crawford, S. E., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American political science review, 89(3), 582–600. DOI: 10.2307/2082975
    Back to article
  12. 12Dörrenbächer, N., & Mastenbroek, E. (2019). Passing the buck? Analyzing the delegation of discretion after transposition of European Union law. Regulation & Governance, 13(1), 70–85. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12153
    Back to article
  13. 13Dunajevas, E., & Skučienė, D. (2016). Mandatory pension system and redistribution: The comparative analysis of institutions in Baltic states. Central European journal of public policy, 10(2), 16–29. DOI: 10.1515/cejpp-2016-0025
    Back to article
  14. 14Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J. C., & Radaelli, C. M. (2019). A sleeping giant awakes? The rise of the Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT) in policy research. Journal of Chinese Governance, 4(2), 163–180. DOI: 10.1080/23812346.2019.1575502
    Back to article
  15. 15Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J., Radaelli, C. M., Taffoni, G., & Wagemann, C. (2020). Does consultation count for corruption? The causal relations in the EU-28. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(11), 1718–1741. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2020.1784984
    Back to article
  16. 16Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J. C., Radaelli, C. M., & Taffoni, G. (2021). Measuring design diversity: A new application of Ostrom’s rule types. Policy Studies Journal. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12440
    Back to article
  17. 17Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J. C., Radaelli, C. M., & Taffoni, G. (2021). The Institutional Grammar Tool meets the Narrative Policy Framework: Narrating institutional statements in consultation. European Policy Analysis. DOI: 10.1002/epa2.1126
    Back to article
  18. 18Espinosa, S. (2015). Unveiling the features of a regulatory system: The institutional grammar of tobacco legislation in Mexico. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 616–631. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2014.952822
    Back to article
  19. 19Feiock, R. C., Weible, C. M., Carter, D. P., Curley, C., Deslatte, A., & Heikkila, T. (2016). Capturing structural and functional diversity through institutional analysis: The mayor position in city charters. Urban Affairs Review, 52(1), 129–150. DOI: 10.1177/1078087414555999
    Back to article
  20. 20Frantz, C. K., Purvis, M. K., Savarimuthu, B. T. R. & Nowostawski, M. (2015). Modelling Dynamic Normative Understanding in Agent Societies. Scalable Computing, 16(4): 355–80. DOI: 10.12694/scpe.v16i4.1128
    Back to article
  21. 21Frantz, C. K., & Siddiki, S. (2021). Institutional Grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration, 99(2), 222–247. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12719
    Back to article
  22. 22Garcia, M., Koebele, E., Deslatte, A., Ernst, K., Manago, K. F., & Treuer, G. (2019). Towards urban water sustainability: Analyzing management transitions in Miami, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101967. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101967
    Back to article
  23. 23Geary, J., Reay, T., & Bubela, T. (2019). The Impact of Heterogeneity in a Global Knowledge Commons: Implications for Governance of the DNA Barcode Commons. International Journal of the Commons, 13(2). DOI: 10.5334/ijc.861
    Back to article
  24. 24Ghorbani, A., & Bravo, G. (2016). Managing the commons: a simple model of the emergence of institutions through collective action. International Journal of the Commons, 10(1). DOI: 10.18352/ijc.606
    Back to article
  25. 25Hanlon, J., Olivier, T., & Schlager, E. (2019). Suspicious Collaborators: How Governments in Polycentric Systems Monitor Behavior and Enforce Public Good Provision Rules Against One Another. International Journal of the Commons, 13(2). DOI: 10.5334/ijc.924
    Back to article
  26. 26Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2018). A semiautomated approach to analyzing polycentricity. Environmental policy and governance, 28(4), 308–318. DOI: 10.1002/eet.1817
    Back to article
  27. 27Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., Olofsson, K. L., Kagan, J. A., You, J., & Yordy, J. (2021). The structure of environmental governance: How public policies connect and partition California’s oil and gas policy landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 284, 112069. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112069
    Back to article
  28. 28Kamran, M. A., & Shivakoti, G. P. 2013. Comparative institutional analysis of customary rights and colonial law in spate irrigation systems of Pakistani Punjab. Water international, 38(5), 601–619. DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2013.828584
    Back to article
  29. 29Lien, A., Schlager, E., & Lona, A. (2018). Using the Institutional Grammar to improve understanding of the form and function of payment for ecosystem services programs. Ecosystem Services, 31, 21–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.011
    Back to article
  30. 30Molenveld, A., & van Buuren, A. (2019). Flood risk and resilience in the Netherlands: In search of an adaptive governance approach. Water, 11(12), 2563. DOI: 10.3390/w11122563
    Back to article
  31. 31Noori, S., Korevaar, G., & Ramirez Ramirez, A. (2020). Institutional Lens upon Industrial Symbiosis Dynamics: The Case of Persian Gulf Mining and Metal Industries Special Economic Zone. Sustainability, 12(15), 6192. DOI: 10.3390/su12156192
    Back to article
  32. 32Novo, P., & Garrido, A. 2014. From policy design to implementation: an institutional analysis of the new Nicaraguan Water Law. Water Policy, 16(6), 1009–1030. DOI: 10.2166/wp.2014.188
    Back to article
  33. 33Olivier, T. (2019). How do institutions address collective-action problems? Bridging and bonding in institutional design. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1), 162–176. DOI: 10.1177/1065912918784199
    Back to article
  34. 34Olivier, T., & Schlager, E. (2022). Rules and the ruled: Understanding joint patterns of institutional design and behavior in complex governing arrangements. Policy Studies Journal, 50(2), 340–365. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12429
    Back to article
  35. 35Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400831739
    Back to article
  36. 36Ostrom, E. (2010). Institutional Analysis and Development: Elements of the Framework in Historical Perspective. Historical developments and theoretical approaches in sociology, 2, 261–88.
    Back to article
  37. 37Pacheco-Vega, R. (2020). Governing Urban Water Conflict through Watershed Councils—A Public Policy Analysis Approach and Critique. Water, 12(7), 1849. DOI: 10.3390/w12071849
    Back to article
  38. 38Prior, J. (2016). The norms, rules and motivational values driving sustainable remediation of contaminated environments: a study of implementation. Science of the Total Environment, 544, 824–836. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.045
    Back to article
  39. 39Prior, J. (2018). Factors influencing residents’ acceptance (support) of remediation technologies. Science of the Total Environment, 624, 1369–1386. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.133
    Back to article
  40. 40Prior, J. (2020). Chapter 15 – Understanding the diverse norms and rules driving sustainable remediation: a study of positioning, aggregation, and scoping. Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. (pp. 405–431). Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-817982-6.00015-X
    Back to article
  41. 41Rice, D., Siddiki, S., Frey, S., Kwon, J. H., & Sawyer, A. (2021). Machine coding of policy texts with the Institutional Grammar. Public Administration, 99(2), 248–262. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12711
    Back to article
  42. 42Roditis, M. L., Wang, D., Glantz, S. A., & Fallin, A. (2015). Evaluating California campus tobacco policies using the American college health association guidelines and the institutional grammar tool. Journal of American College Health, 63(1), 57–67. DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2014.963108
    Back to article
  43. 43Schlager, E. C., Bakkensen, L. A., Olivier, T., & Hanlon, J. (2021). Institutional design for a complex commons: variations in the design of credible commitments and the provision of public goods. Public Administration, 99(2), 263–289. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12715
    Back to article
  44. 44Schlager, E., & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2023). The IAD Framework and Its Tools for Policy and Institutional Analysis. In C. Weible (Ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. (pp. 196–229). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003308201-8
    Back to article
  45. 45Schlüter, A., & Theesfeld, I. (2010). The grammar of institutions: The challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Rationality and Society, 22(4), 445–475. DOI: 10.1177/1043463110377299
    Back to article
  46. 46Siddiki, S. (2014). Assessing Policy Design and Interpretation: An Institutions-Based Analysis in the Context of Aquaculture in Florida and Virginia, United States. Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 281–303. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12075
    Back to article
  47. 47Siddiki, S., & Lupton, S. (2016). Assessing nonprofit rule interpretation and compliance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4_suppl), 156S–174S. DOI: 10.1177/0899764016643608
    Back to article
  48. 48Siddiki, S., Basurto, X., & Weible, C. M. (2012). Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: The case of Colorado aquaculture. Regulation & Governance, 6(2), 167–188. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01132.x
    Back to article
  49. 49Siddiki, S., & Frantz, C. (2022). Institutional Grammar: Foundations and Applications for Institutional Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
    Back to article
  50. 50Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., Pacheco-Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., … & Bennett, A. (2022). Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal, 50(2), 315–339. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12361
    Back to article
  51. 51Siddiki, S., Weible, C. M., Basurto, X., & Calanni, J. (2011). Dissecting policy designs: An application of the institutional grammar tool. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 79–103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00397.x
    Back to article
  52. 52Stupak, N. (2020). The anatomy of institutions: diagnosing the formation of legal rules. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(3), 343–352. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1726175
    Back to article
  53. 53Treuer, G., Koebele, E., Deslatte, A., Ernst, K., Garcia, M., & Manago, K. (2017). A narrative method for analyzing transitions in urban water management: The case of the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. Water Resources Research, 53(1), 891–908. DOI: 10.1002/2016WR019658
    Back to article
  54. 54Tschopp, M., Bieri, S., & Rist, S. (2018). Quinoa and production rules: how are cooperatives contributing to governance of natural resources? International Journal of the Commons, 12(1). DOI: 10.18352/ijc.826
    Back to article
  55. 55Turner, V. K., & Stiller, M. (2020). How do homeowners associations regulate residential landscapes? An analysis of rule structure and content in Maricopa County (AZ). Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(1), 25–38. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2019.1665474
    Back to article
  56. 56Vannoni, M. (2022). A Political Economy Approach to the Grammar of Institutions: Theory and Methods. Policy Studies Journal, 50(2), 453–471. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12427
    Back to article
  57. 57Vázquez, I. (2020). Toward an Integrated History to Govern the Commons: Using the Archive to Enhance Local Knowledge. International Journal of the Commons, 14(1). DOI: 10.5334/ijc.989
    Back to article
  58. 58Watkins, C., & Westphal, L. M. (2016). People don’t talk in institutional statements: A methodological case study of the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 44(S1), S98–S122. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12139
    Back to article
  59. 59Watkins, C., Westphal, L., Gobster, P., Vining, J., Wali, A., & Tudor, M. (2015). Shared Principles of Restoration Practice in the Chicago Wilderness Region. Human Ecology Review, 21(1), 155–178. DOI: 10.22459/HER.21.01.2015.07
    Back to article
  60. 60Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii–xxiii.
    Back to article
  61. 61Weible, C. M., & Carter, D. P. (2015). The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans. Policy Sciences, 48(2), 207–231. DOI: 10.1007/s11077-015-9217-x
    Back to article
  62. 62Weible, C. M., Heikkila, T., & Carter, D. P. (2017). An institutional and opinion analysis of Colorado’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(2), 115–134. DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1150776
    Back to article
  63. 63Weible, C. M., Yordy, J., Heikkila, T., Yi, H., Berardo, R., Kagan, J., & Chen, C. (2020). Portraying the Structure and Evolution of Polycentricity via Policymaking Venues. International Journal of the Commons, 14(1). DOI: 10.5334/ijc.1021
    Back to article
  64. 64Witting, A. (2017). Ruling out learning and change? Lessons from urban flood mitigation. Policy and Society, 36(2), 251–269. DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1322772
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1214 | Journal eISSN: 1875-0281
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Sep 2, 2022
Accepted on: Jul 17, 2023
Published on: Aug 8, 2023
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
institutional analysis and development,
institutional design,
policy analysis,
institutional grammar,
text analysis

© 2023 Leah Pieper, Santiago Virgüez, Edella Schlager, Charlie Schweik, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 17 (2023): Issue 1Next article