A review of Elinor Ostrom's IAD and SES (institutionalism) framework

1. The IAD Framework and
the SES Framework
Kan Yuenyong
DA8020: Policy Studies and Analysis; GSPA/NIDA
November 3, 2020

3. https://www.facebook.com/kan.yuenyong/posts/10152688363677619

6. 1988
2008

7. Keywords
• Institutional analysis
• Political economy, game theory
• Tragedy of Commons
• Common Pool Resource (CPR)
• Collective Actions (total outcome is a collective output generated by
personal interest)
• Self-Sustaining Ecosystem

8. https://www.uow.edu.au/global-challenges/sustaining-coastal-and-marine-zones/tuna-governance/

9. IAD components
• Action Situation
• Actors
• Rules (in use)
• Community Attributes
• Physical and Material Attributes
• Outcomes
• Evaluation Criteria

10. Elinor Ostrom’s Design Principles
• Boundaries of resource and resource users
• Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions
• Affected individuals can participate in modifying the operational rules
• Accountability
• Sanctions
• Low-cost conflict resolution mechanism
• Rights to organize
• Nested enterprises

11. The Three Worlds of Action (Origins of IAD)
• Drawing from this empirical work as well as game theory
• Use institutional arrangement
• Understand logic of institutional design
• Develop a proposal for improving institutional performance (collective
action problem)

13. IAD framework table 6.1 questions for eliciting
information on components of the action situation

15. Why IAD?
• Ostrom development theory to not only explain but also aware on setting
and situation that “hundred of documented cases of resources” can
cooperate + coordinate
• And to craft better policy -> tragedy of common model are incomplete
and harmful
• Private or state ownership represents only two o many possibilities

16. Compared to other frameworks
• Multiple Stream Framework (MSF) -> Problem / Policy (solution) / Political
Stream
• Policy Feedback Theory -> PA originated, Subsystem, Long term (ie
norms, constitution, culture, etc.) and Short term influence.
• Advocacy Coalitions Framework (ACF) -> predominantly guided by belief
system
• Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) -> single attention among competing
proposals at any given time

17. • Equity
• Fiscal equivalence
• Overstate benefits, understate preference
• Redistribution equity
• compensation
Evaluations of Equity

18. Resources coding form
https://seslibrary.asu.edu

19. Rules as Exogenous Variables Directly Affecting the
Elements of an Action Situation

20. Three worlds of Action

21. SES (Social-Ecological Systems), also by Ostrom
“A SES is an ecological system intricately linked with and affected by one or more social systems”

23. IAD vs SES : Similarity
• The main components of the IAD framework may be mapped onto the
SES framework
• Closest similarity = actors/community category
• The “governance system” component in the SES framework is roughly
analogous to the “rules” component in the IAD framework

24. IAD vs SES : Differences
• There are novel diagnostic terminology and the associated tiered structure as well as
inclusion of a list of second-tier objects in the SES framework
• The action situation does not feature as prominently as an obvious unit of analysis in the
SES framework
• Theoretical grounding
• IAD = game theory (actors holding positions, possessing information, and making
choices) or strategic interaction among actors
• SES = tragedy of commons, network theories (on second tier)
• IAD = democracy & democratic rule; SES = tiered system of objects that are organized
and justified around a diagnostic logic

25. END