Can the Concept of Integrative and Segregative Institutions Contribute to the Framing of Institutions of Sustainability?

Abstract

This paper begins with the question "What is special about those institutions that bring about sustainability"? In an attempt to answer this, I use the Institutions of Sustainability (IoS) framework, which structures sustainability analytically according to four main categories, namely: transactions, actors, institutions and governance structures. I then argue that sustainability has to do with balancing two sorts of costs an actor may face while being constrained by institutions. One is the costs from the integrative effects of institutions on his individual decision making. The other is the costs from the segregative effect of institutions. In this way, sustainability can be understood as societies' compromise between institutions that integrate individual actors' decisions in a wider system, holding them fully responsible for more or less all of the effects of their choices and those institutions that partly free individual decision makers from parts of such responsibilities. If a governance problem is characterized by a high degree of "decomposability", segregative rules may be sufficient. The more a governance problem is characterized by complexity due to low modularity and high functional interdependencies, the more accurate integrative rules may be. The paper concludes by identifying "sustainability area of institutional embedding" as a regulative idea in understanding sustainability.

Adapting as usual: integrative and segregative institutions shaping adaptation to climate change in local public administrations

“…Different characteristics will then be pertinent to different settings: many attempts have been made to provide suitable characterizations for different types of transactions (Birner and Wittmer, 2004; Hagedorn et al , 2002; McCann, 2013; Williamson, 1998), sometimes alternative to the ones above, sometimes complementing them (see Thiel et al , 2016 for an overview). Most relevant in our case is Hagedorn's focus on modularity and functional interdependence (Hagedorn, 2008; 2015) as discriminants between ‘integrative’ and ‘segregative’ institutions. While functional interdependence is a given among interdependent actors, the concept of modularity needs further articulation.…”

Rural Renewal of China in the Context of Rural-Urban Integration: Governance Fit and Performance Differences

“…All interconnections show the apparent nature-related attributes of rural renewal. In brief, one economic actor's choice to conduct a nature-related transaction may induce many other linked transactions and produce diverse effects that affect numerous other actors over spatial and temporal distances and via complex biophysical mechanisms [26]. Obviously, the case of rural renewal is not an exception.…”

Impact of Institutional Change on Irrigation Management: A Case Study from Southern Uzbekistan

“…Quinn et al [11] emphasized the importance of informal institutions in CPR management, particularly in developing countries, because many resource-use decisions are made on the basis of traditional norms, few of which are codified in law. Hagedorn, who argued that achieving sustainable resource use is primarily a question of institutional change [60], also noted that informal institutions have persisted due to social values and human capital [61]. He suggested that, while formal institutions can be suddenly changed by a society-altering event such as a revolution, informal institutions (such as social customs and norms) cannot be changed easily [61].…”