The institutional grammar in policy process research

Abstract

摘要 本文介绍了一系列文章，这些文章研究了被称之为制度语法(IG)的制度分析方法。过去十年，学者已从不同方式并在不同领域中应用了制度语法，以研究决策过程的关键概念和不同方面，例如政策设计、政策变革和政策执行。在此期间，公共政策和不同其他领域的学者展示了制度语法如何能用于这类评估，以及制度语法如何能与不同方法相结合，进而应对不同的研究目的。本文(i)概述了制度语法；(ii)识别了近期《政策研究杂志》出版的一系列研究制度语法应用案例的文章中呈现的交叉主题；(iii)为基于此的未来研究以及其他近期发表的制度语法文章识别了研究机遇。

Understanding the Emergence of Computational Institutional Science: A Review of Computational Modeling of Institutions and Institutional Dynamics

“…We find that intellectual siloing is not readily observed as current CIS literature would suggest (Pieper et al 2023;Siddiki and Frantz 2022). Furthermore, the amount of intellectual siloing appears to vary across research topics with respect to the institutional scale (i.e., the ABM's domain, context, or means) emphasized in each paper in our sample (Miller and Page, 2009).…”

“…Recently, researchers have retrospectively begun to aggregate a diffuse set of computationally-driven institutional analysis research constituting CIS, noting the potential for development of intellectual silos within such scholarship (Pieper et al 2023;Siddiki and Frantz 2022).…”

“…Furthermore, from this disciplinary and theoretical intersection, CIS research explores different social phenomena (e.g., cooperation, compliance) in a variety of topical domains (e.g., ecosystem management, economic markets) while leveraging multiple computational tools. Scholars have often discussed CIS scholarship within intellectual silos (Pieper et al 2023;Siddiki and Frantz 2022) due to two reasons: (1) its diverse application, as highlighted throughout this study; and (2) the retrospective identification of CIS as a coherent research agenda. In this paper, we track and explore this intellectual siloing is CIS-ABM research, observing multiple theoretical and topical fronts, as well as their overlaps.…”

“…Over time, various approaches have been developed and engaged for the purpose of analyzing institutions and better understanding their effects of behavior; these include frameworks like the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework (Ostrom 2005; and the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) Framework (Ostrom 2009;McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) and tools such as the Institutional Grammar (Crawford and Ostrom 1995;. Existing research notes the potential of computational methodologies (e.g., agentbased modeling, text analysis) to complement existing approaches to institutional analysis (e.g., Ghorbani et al 2013;Pieper et al 2023;Siddiki and Frantz 2022) and scholars have increasingly leveraged these methods for such institutional inquiries (e.g., Olivier and Schlager 2022;Rice et al 2021;Siddiki and Frantz 2023;Vannoni 2022).…”

“…While scholars have begun to retrospectively identify and discuss research that falls within our definition of CIS under a coherent label (Pieper et al 2023;Siddiki and Frantz 2022), it has quickly become apparent that CIS investigations draw on a multitude of different disciplines (e.g., public policy, political science, economics, sociology, philosophy, law, computer science), perspectives (e.g., historical institutionalism, social institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism), frameworks (e.g., the IAD framework, the SES framework, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980)'s policy implementation framework), and theories (e.g., common-pool resource theory, collective action theory, transaction cost theory) (Frantz and Siddiki 2022). Scholars note these broad scholastic traditions; however, studies engaging in CIS research often narrow the scope of their analysis to just one disciplinary lens (Pieper et al 2023), potentially leaving the contributions of each discipline siloed from the insights of others (Frantz and Siddiki 2022;Siddiki and Frantz 2022). Despite calls to facilitate transdisciplinary discussions in this strand of research (e.g., Frantz and Siddiki 2022), to our knowledge, no study to date systematically examines whether intellectual silos indeed exist in CIS scholarship, and if so, what such silos look like and imply for future work in this stream of inquiry.…”