Rules in Use and The Design Principle -- An Interpretive Summary

Sources:

Ostrom Glossary
Irrigation Monitoring -- Ostrom

Rules in Use

In her work, Elinor Ostrom emphasizes the importance of understanding the "rules in use" within a society or community. These rules play a crucial role in shaping how individuals interact and make decisions collectively. In this essay, we will explore Ostrom's concept of "rules in use" and its significance in understanding human behavior and the functioning of institutions.

Ostrom argues that rules are not just formal laws or regulations imposed by a central authority, but they also include informal norms, customs, and shared understandings that guide people's behavior. These rules in use are often shaped by the specific context and circumstances of a community, and they can vary across different groups and societies.

To understand the rules in use, Ostrom suggests that we need to examine five key components of a rule. First, we need to consider the attributes of the individuals who are affected by the rule, such as their age, education, or gender. These attributes can influence how individuals interpret and follow the rule.

Second, we need to look at the deontic modal verb of the rule, which indicates whether an action is permitted, obliged, or forbidden. This helps us understand the expectations and obligations associated with the rule.

Third, we need to understand the aim of the rule. Does it focus on regulating specific actions or achieving certain outcomes? This helps us grasp the purpose and intention behind the rule.

Fourth, we need to examine the conditions under which the rule is applicable. These conditions specify when and where an action or outcome is permitted, obligatory, or forbidden. Understanding these conditions helps us understand the context in which the rule operates.

Finally, we need to consider the consequences of not following the rule. What are the penalties or repercussions for violating the rule? This helps us understand the enforcement mechanisms and the potential impact of non-compliance.

By analyzing these five components, we can gain insights into the rules in use within a community or society. These rules are not static but can evolve and change over time as individuals adapt to their circumstances and learn from their experiences.

It is important to note that rules in use are not always aligned with formal rules or policies. Ostrom highlights the existence of "rules-in-form" and "rules-in-use" discrepancies, where the actual behavior of individuals may deviate from what is officially prescribed. This discrepancy can occur due to various factors, such as limited information, conflicting interests, or social norms.

Understanding the rules in use is crucial for policymakers and analysts as it provides valuable insights into how communities solve practical problems and make collective decisions. By studying the rules in use, we can identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing institutions and develop more effective policies that align with the realities of human behavior and social dynamics.

Ostrom's concept of "rules in use" emphasizes the importance of understanding the informal norms and shared understandings that shape human behavior and institutional functioning. By analyzing the attributes, deontic modalities, aims, conditions, and consequences of rules, we can gain valuable insights into how communities navigate complexity and solve problems collectively. This understanding is essential for policymakers and analysts seeking to design effective institutions and policies that align with the realities of human behavior and social dynamics.

Clear resource and social boundaries: A rule could be that only members of a specific community or group are allowed to access and use a particular common-pool resource. This helps establish clear boundaries and prevents outsiders from exploiting the resource.
Broad participation in writing rules: A rule could be that all members of a community have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process when creating rules for the management of a common-pool resource. This ensures that diverse perspectives are considered and increases the legitimacy of the rules.
Appropriate rules for local conditions: A rule could be that the management rules for a common-pool resource are tailored to the specific ecological, social, and cultural context of the community. This ensures that the rules are effective and relevant to the local conditions.
Consequences that balance costs and benefits: A rule could be that the benefits and costs of using a common-pool resource are distributed in a way that is perceived as fair by the participants. This helps maintain cooperation and prevents individuals from exploiting the resource for personal gain.
Regular monitoring of behavior: A rule could be that the behavior of individuals using a common-pool resource is regularly monitored to ensure compliance with the established rules. This helps detect and deter rule violations.
Graduated sanctions for rule violations: A rule could be that when a rule violation occurs, a series of graduated sanctions are imposed on the violator. These sanctions could start with warnings and escalate to more severe penalties if the violations persist. This helps maintain compliance with the rules.
Accessible and reasonably costly dispute resolution procedures: A rule could be that there are accessible and affordable mechanisms in place for resolving disputes related to the use and management of a common-pool resource. This helps prevent conflicts from escalating and provides a fair and efficient way to address disagreements.
Organization of tasks by multiple teams: A rule could be that different tasks related to the management of a common-pool resource are assigned to multiple teams or individuals. This helps distribute the workload and ensures that different aspects of resource management are effectively addressed.
Minimal level of autonomy for local communities: A rule could be that higher authorities convey a minimum level of autonomy to local communities in the making and enforcement of rules for the management of a common-pool resource. This allows communities to adapt the rules to their specific needs and conditions.
Regular sharing of information and knowledge: A rule could be that participants in the management of a common-pool resource are required to regularly share information and knowledge about the resource and its management. This helps improve collective understanding and facilitates informed decision-making..

Components of rules-in-use

The components of rules-in-use are:

Position: Specifies the roles and positions that participants assume in an action situation, as well as the number and type of participants who hold each position.
Boundary: Determines who can enter or leave positions and how they can do so. It includes rules related to licensing, employment, or any other requirements for participation.
Authority: Specifies the actions that participants in given positions may take. It includes the set of rules that governs the behavior of individuals in specific roles.
Aggregation: Determines how decisions are made in an action situation. It includes rules that dictate how individual choices or preferences are combined to reach a collective decision.
Scope: Specifies the jurisdiction or extent to which a rule applies. It determines the boundaries within which a rule is enforced and the range of actions or behaviors it governs.
Information: Determines what information must or must not be provided by participants. It includes rules related to transparency, disclosure, and access to information.
Payoff: Determines the rewards or consequences that individuals receive based on their actions. It includes rules that assign payoffs or incentives to participants depending on their behavior.

Position

Position rules specify the set of positions or roles that participants assume in an action situation, and the number and type of participants who hold each position.

For example, in the context of traffic policy, position rules would define the roles of drivers, pedestrians, traffic control officials, and any other relevant participants. These rules would specify the rights, responsibilities, and behaviors associated with each position.

In a specific intersection, position rules might dictate that drivers have the position of being able to drive through the intersection, pedestrians have the position of being able to cross the street, and traffic control officials have the position of enforcing traffic laws and directing traffic. These rules would also specify the number of participants who can hold each position, such as the number of traffic control officials needed at a particular intersection..

Boundaries

Boundary rules refer to the rules that define the boundaries between users and nonusers in a resource system. These rules determine who is allowed to access and use the resource and who is excluded. The level of clarity in defining these boundaries can vary, ranging from no boundaries defined to clearly defined boundaries with internal means of exclusion or external enforcement.

Examples of boundary rules include:

No boundaries defined: In this case, there are no specific rules or arrangements in place to limit entry or exclude nonusers. Anyone can access and use the resource without any restrictions.
Boundaries result of institutional arrangements which do not limit entry: In this case, the boundaries between users and nonusers are the result of institutional arrangements, such as social norms or customs, but these arrangements do not restrict entry. For example, in a community fishing pond, there may be an understanding that only community members can fish, but there are no formal rules or mechanisms to enforce this.
Boundaries result of institutional arrangements which limit entry: Here, the boundaries between users and nonusers are clearly defined by institutional arrangements, such as membership rules or permits. Nonmembers or individuals without permits are excluded from accessing and using the resource. For instance, a hunting club may have specific membership requirements, and only members are allowed to hunt on the club's land.
Boundaries result of natural/constructed attributes which limit entry: In this case, the boundaries between users and nonusers are determined by natural or constructed attributes of the resource system. For example, a fenced-off area in a national park may serve as a boundary, restricting access to authorized individuals only.
Boundaries result of natural/constructed and institutional arrangements which limit entry: Here, the boundaries are defined by a combination of natural or constructed attributes and institutional arrangements. For instance, a protected marine reserve may have physical barriers, such as buoys or signs, along with regulations that prohibit fishing or diving in the area.

Authority

Authority rules specify the actions that participants in given positions may take. These rules govern the decision-making power and control that individuals or groups have within a particular context or setting. Authority rules determine who has the right to make decisions, what actions they can take, and the extent of their power.

Examples of authority rules include:

In a company, the CEO has the authority to make strategic decisions and set company policies. Other employees must follow these decisions and policies.
In a classroom, the teacher has the authority to set rules and regulations for the students. The students are expected to follow these rules and regulations.
In a government, elected officials have the authority to make laws and policies that govern the country. Citizens are expected to abide by these laws.
In a sports team, the coach has the authority to make decisions regarding team strategy and player selection. Players are expected to follow the coach's instructions.

Authority rules are essential for maintaining order and ensuring that decisions are made by individuals or groups with the necessary expertise and responsibility. They provide a framework for decision-making and help establish a hierarchy of power within an organization or community..

Aggregation

Aggregation rules, as part of the rules-in-use framework, determine how decisions are made in an action situation. They specify how individual choices or actions are combined or aggregated to produce collective outcomes. Aggregation rules can vary depending on the context and the specific decision-making process.

For example, in a voting system, the aggregation rule may be majority rule, where the option with the most votes is chosen. Another example is consensus decision-making, where all participants must agree on a decision for it to be implemented.

In the context of natural resource management, aggregation rules can determine how individual resource users' actions are combined to determine the overall state of the resource. For instance, in a community-based fishery, the aggregation rule may be a quota system, where each fisher is allocated a specific amount of fish they can catch, and the total catch is aggregated to ensure sustainable resource use.

Scope

Scope rules, as one of the seven types of rules-in-use, determine the extent or range of application of other rules within a particular action situation. They specify the boundaries within which other rules are applicable and define the jurisdiction or domain in which those rules operate.

For example, in the context of traffic policy, scope rules may determine which intersections are subject to certain traffic regulations. They can define the geographical area or specific roads where a particular set of rules, such as speed limits or right-of-way rules, apply. Scope rules can also determine the conditions under which certain rules are activated or deactivated, such as implementing different traffic control measures during rush hour versus non-peak hours.

In a broader sense, scope rules can be found in various domains. For instance, in a community-based natural resource management system, scope rules may define the boundaries of a specific resource area where certain harvesting or conservation rules are enforced. In a workplace, scope rules may determine the departments or positions to which certain policies or procedures apply.

Information

Information, as a type of rule-in-use, refers to the rules that govern the flow and dissemination of information within a particular institutional setting. These rules determine what information is required, who has access to it, and how it is shared among participants.

Examples of information rules in different contexts include:

Transparency rules in government: These rules require public officials to disclose information about their actions, decisions, and financial transactions. For example, laws that mandate the publication of government budgets or require public officials to disclose their assets and income are information rules that promote transparency and accountability.
Reporting rules in organizations: These rules specify the type and frequency of information that employees or departments must report to their superiors or other relevant parties. For instance, a company may have rules that require employees to submit weekly progress reports or financial statements to their managers.
Information sharing rules in research collaborations: In collaborative research projects, there may be rules that govern the sharing of data, findings, and other relevant information among the participating researchers. These rules ensure that all collaborators have access to the necessary information to contribute effectively to the project.
Disclosure rules in financial markets: These rules require companies to provide accurate and timely information to investors and the public. For example, regulations may mandate that publicly traded companies disclose their financial statements, business operations, and any material information that may impact their stock prices.

In all these examples, information rules play a crucial role in facilitating transparency, accountability, coordination, and decision-making within the respective institutional settings. They ensure that relevant information is available to the right people at the right time, enabling informed actions and choices..

Payoff

In the context of rules-in-use, "payoff" refers to the outcomes or consequences that individuals receive as a result of their actions or behaviors within a specific set of rules. Payoffs can be positive or negative and can take various forms, such as rewards, punishments, benefits, costs, or incentives.

For example, in a traffic policy analysis, the payoff for drivers who follow the rule of stopping at a red traffic light is the avoidance of accidents and potential fines. On the other hand, the payoff for drivers who violate this rule and run a red light could be a higher risk of accidents, potential fines, and negative social consequences.

In another example, within a community-based irrigation system, the payoff for farmers who comply with the rule of contributing labor to clean the irrigation canals before the rainy season may be improved water distribution and increased agricultural productivity. Conversely, the payoff for farmers who do not comply with this rule could be reduced water access and potential social sanctions from other community members.

The concept of payoff is essential in understanding how individuals are motivated to comply or deviate from rules-in-use. It helps to analyze the incentives and disincentives that influence behavior and shape the overall functioning of a system or institution..

Design Principles

Ostrom's design principles are a set of guidelines that can help us understand how communities can effectively manage common pool resources. These principles are based on Ostrom's extensive research on various case studies around the world. Here is a simplified summary of Ostrom's design principles:

Clearly defined boundaries: It is important to have clear boundaries that define who is part of the community and who is not. For example, in Ostrom's study of irrigation systems in Nepal, the boundaries were clearly defined by the physical area of the irrigation system.
Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs: The benefits and costs of managing the resource should be distributed in a fair and proportional manner among the community members. For instance, in Ostrom's study of fishing communities in Maine, the costs of maintaining the fishing gear were shared among the fishermen, and the benefits of the catch were also distributed among them.
Collective choice arrangements: The community members should have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the rules and regulations for managing the resource. Ostrom found this principle in action in her study of groundwater management in California, where the farmers collectively made decisions about water usage.
Monitoring: There should be a system in place to monitor the behavior of community members and ensure compliance with the rules. Ostrom observed this principle in her study of forest management in Japan, where the community members took turns to monitor and report any violations of the rules.
Graduated sanctions: When community members violate the rules, there should be a system of graduated sanctions in place to discourage such behavior. Ostrom found this principle in her study of community forestry in Nepal, where violators of the rules faced penalties such as fines or temporary exclusion from using the forest resources.
Conflict resolution mechanisms: There should be mechanisms in place to resolve conflicts that may arise among community members. Ostrom observed this principle in her study of water management in the Philippines, where conflicts over water allocation were resolved through community meetings and discussions.
Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The community members should have the right to organize themselves and create their own rules for managing the resource. Ostrom found this principle in her study of irrigation systems in Spain, where the farmers had the freedom to form their own water user associations.

These design principles provide valuable insights into how communities can effectively manage common pool resources. By studying real-world examples, Ostrom demonstrated that communities can develop their own institutions and rules to sustainably manage shared resources.

Spermonde Research

The Spermonde Research (Deswandi, 2012)

Summary

The Spermonde Research is a study conducted in Spermonde Archipelago, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, with the aim of understanding the institutions and dynamics of capture fisheries in the region. The research program spanned three years and involved data collection through various methods such as interviews, focus group discussions, participant observation, and literature study.

The study found that the development of capture fisheries in Spermonde Archipelago was influenced by social, economic, and political factors at local, national, and international levels. The region has been a part of global markets since the 17th century, serving as an important port for trading activities between the locals and merchants from various regions.

The institutions managing capture fisheries in the region were classified into conventions, norms, and rules. These institutions emerged and evolved over time in response to the changing circumstances. Each component of the institutions, including conventions, norms, and rules, had different origins and functions.

The research also highlighted the dynamics of patron-client relationships in the capture fisheries sector. The study identified different types of patrons and clients, and examined the power relations and loyalty within these relationships. The impact of group dynamics on marine and coastal resource exploitation was also explored. Furthermore, the study discussed the unintended effects of integration into global markets on the capture fisheries sector in Spermonde Archipelago.

Rules in Use in the Spermonde Research

In the Spermonde research, Ostrom's "rules in use" can be observed in the institutions that manage capture fisheries in the region. These rules are the result of social, economic, and political developments and play a crucial role in governing the interactions between fishermen and the redistribution of marine and coastal resources. Here are some examples of Ostrom's "rules in use" in the Spermonde research:

Hierarchy/Order of Precedence: One example of a rule in use is the hierarchy/order of precedence for exploiting fishing grounds in Spermonde Archipelago. This rule determines the priority of access to fishing grounds based on factors such as seniority, ownership, or historical use rights. Fishermen are expected to follow this rule and respect the established hierarchy when accessing fishing grounds.
Norms Regulating Interactions: Another example of a rule in use is the norms that regulate interactions between different groups of fishermen. These norms define acceptable behavior and practices among fishermen from different communities or with different fishing methods. They help maintain order and prevent conflicts by establishing guidelines for cooperation and mutual respect.
Punishments for Non-Compliance: Rules in use also include the types of punishments that apply to non-compliance with the established institutions. In the Spermonde research, fishermen who violate the rules may face penalties such as fines, loss of fishing privileges, or social sanctions from their community. These punishments serve as deterrents and reinforce compliance with the established institutions.
Construction of Components of Institutions: The construction of components of institutions, such as conventions, norms, and rules, is another example of Ostrom's "rules in use." These components emerge and evolve over time in response to the changing circumstances of capture fisheries in the region. They reflect the cognitive, normative, and regulative structures that shape the behavior and interactions of fishermen.

Design Principle in the Spermonde Research

In the Spermonde research, several examples of Ostrom's Design Principles can be observed in the management of capture fisheries. Ostrom's Design Principles are a set of guidelines for effective and sustainable resource management developed by Elinor Ostrom, a renowned scholar in the field of common-pool resource management. Here are some examples of how these principles are applied in the context of Spermonde Archipelago:

Clearly defined boundaries: In order to effectively manage capture fisheries in Spermonde Archipelago, it is important to establish clear boundaries that define the area where fishing activities take place. This helps to prevent overfishing and ensure that the resources are sustainably utilized.
Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs: The management of capture fisheries in Spermonde Archipelago should ensure that the benefits derived from the resources are distributed in a fair and equitable manner among the fishing communities. This principle emphasizes the need for a balance between the costs incurred by the fishermen and the benefits they receive.
Collective choice arrangements: The management of capture fisheries in Spermonde Archipelago should involve the active participation of the fishing communities in decision-making processes. This can be achieved through the establishment of collective choice arrangements, such as community-based organizations or cooperatives, where the fishermen have a say in the management of the resources.
Monitoring: Regular monitoring of the fishing activities and the state of the resources is crucial for effective management. This can be done through the establishment of monitoring systems, where the fishing communities and relevant authorities collaborate to collect data on catch levels, species composition, and other relevant indicators.
Graduated sanctions: In order to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations governing capture fisheries in Spermonde Archipelago, it is important to have a system of graduated sanctions in place. This means that there should be a range of penalties or sanctions that increase in severity for repeated or serious violations of the rules.
Conflict resolution mechanisms: In situations where conflicts arise among the fishing communities or between the communities and external actors, it is important to have effective conflict resolution mechanisms in place. This can involve the establishment of mediation processes or the involvement of third-party arbitrators to help resolve disputes and maintain peace among the stakeholders.

Conventions, Norms and Rules

In Spermonde Archipelago's capture fisheries, institutions can be classified into conventions, norms, and rules. Here are some concrete examples of each:

Conventions: Conventions are informal agreements or practices that emerge among fishermen and islanders. They are based on shared views and understanding. In Spermonde Archipelago, some conventions include:

The convention of sharing fishing grounds: Fishermen have an unwritten agreement to share fishing grounds and not encroach on each other's territories.
The convention of cooperation during emergencies: When a fisherman is in distress or facing a problem at sea, other fishermen come together to provide assistance and support.

Norms: Norms are social expectations or standards of behavior that guide interactions between fishermen. They are often based on cultural values and traditions. In Spermonde Archipelago, some norms include:

The norm of fair distribution: Fishermen have a norm of distributing their catch fairly among the community, ensuring that everyone gets a fair share.
The norm of respecting fishing gear: Fishermen have a norm of not tampering with or damaging each other's fishing gear, showing respect for each other's livelihoods.

Rules: Rules are formalized regulations or laws that govern specific aspects of capture fisheries. They are enforced through external sanctioning mechanisms. In Spermonde Archipelago, some rules include:

The rule of fishing in restricted zones: Certain areas in the archipelago are designated as private-restricted zones (PRZs) or integrated-restricted zones (IRZs), where only specific fishing methods are allowed. Fishermen must adhere to these rules to fish in these zones.
The rule of reporting catches: Fishermen are required to report their catches to the local authorities, ensuring transparency and accountability in the fishing industry.