Working groups (10/29/13)

Part 1: The rationale for framework bridging

The first session is to describe the points of departure of the agenda. For this purpose, two often-used frameworks and their application will be briefly described: a) the IAD-SES framework, which is probably one of the most used frameworks in our field of study, and launched our community into this debate, and b) the IoS framework, which is employed by a group of academics principally located at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Second, against the background of the recognition of the existence of multiple, overlapping frameworks, the suitability of a “framework bridging” strategy will be laid out and justified. In a nutshell, the aim of “bridging” is to evaluate different frameworks with regards to a variety of research objects, and generate understanding on their respective differences and commonalities, advantages and disadvantages and ways to combine them in actual, problem-oriented research. The session will conclude with the identification of frameworks and associated communities for future bridging efforts.

Program for the session – part 1

The Social-ecological Systems Fraemwork and the Institutional Analysis and development framework and their applications – Villamayor-Tomas – 10 min.

Brief questions of clarification

The Institutions of Sustainability Framework and the Transactions in Social-ecological Systems approach – Thiel 10 min.

Brief questions of clarification

The Workshop in Institutional Analysis of Social-ecological and Technical Systems (WINS) at IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and its interest in “Bridging” Hagedorn 20 min.

OPEN DISCUSSION – 30 min.

Mapping Communities relevant to the study of the Green Sectors: Villamayor Tomas – 10min.

DISCUSSION – 10 min.
Part 2: Scoping frameworks

The second session of this working group is to launch participants into a discussion on one of the most important working steps in order to make “bridging” work: the development of categories that help us to meaningfully cross-evaluate and interrelate analytical frameworks. We expect that this discussion will also need to revisit definitions of what frameworks in fact are and how they relate to, for example, theories. In order to launch this discussion ten participants will be asked to prepare the session by reading up on three selected frameworks and their applications, e.g. the SES-IAD framework, the IoS framework and a third one which will be selected for discussion by the conveners at a laterstage. Readings will be provided by the organizers. Based on this preparation participants will have the opportunity to make initial statements on the task at hand and the idea of bridging more in general. The hope of the conveners is furthermore to complement statements by selected participants from our community w with insights by an invited philosopher of science. Subsequently, the floor will be open for moderated discussion among selected participants and with the audience to address three questions: a) what are merits and problems in employing a bridging strategy in regard to framework construction and interdisciplinary discourse, b) what are categories we can use to meaningfully compare frameworks, i.e. what are key dimensions of frameworks (as opposed, for example to theories)?, and c) how could we take bridging and research on frameworks and their application further?

Program for the session – part 2

Introduction to the frameworks discussed, SES-IAD and IoS-TransSES – very brief – one powerpoint per framework, 3 min. (presenter tba)

Third framework: 10 min. (presenter tba)

Brief questions of clarification

Initial statements of participants: 3 minutes per participant, focus on question b)

Open discussion among invited participants and audience (chair: tba)

The convenors commit to elaborate proceedings of the discussion and send it to the 10 invitees for further discussion

42 (The) Study of Foundational Religious (Islamic) Texts as Commons

Coordinators: Anas Malik ([e-mail]) and Nazif Shahrani ([e-mail])
Abstract: We propose a Working Group on the Study of Foundational Religious (with a focus on Islamic) Texts as Commons for WOW in 2014. This is a part of a growth area for Workshoppers and for the study of contemporary Muslim societies, and is overdue. Vincent’s writings contain some important early questions related to this, and Lin was strongly supportive of related projects, so the working group would also help sustain and expand their legacy.
The study of the key religious text of Islam (Qur’an and Hadith/Sunna of Prophet Muhammad) as well as texts regarding First Muslims (Companions of the Prophet, his Righteous Successors or Khulafa Rashidun and Tabi’un) can be explored as a type “Commons” that are culturally appropriated by individuals, organized politically motivated groups, governmental and non-governmental entities and communities in diverse contexts around the world for use and abuse (both instrumentally as well as affectively).   This very long and complex process of appropriation and use of these Common Textual Goods have not been systematically studied from the social scientific perspective, certainly not framing access to these texts as a type of Commons and with their own numerous tragedies, both historical and contemporary.  Therefore exploring the subject with the help of IAD and SES tools, even if experimentally to examine how specific social groups have exploited them in the past and/or go about their management of the uses of the sacred texts within the broader social ecological systems might offer some new insights to study of contemporary Islamist political movements—Islamist traditionalist, moderates, fundamentalist, modernist and extremist, etc, and inform analysis of constitutional, collective, and operational choice in contexts where Islamic references are considered salient.

 

Body

There are a number of entry points to the notion of text and tradition as a commons. While the social movements literature has been diligent in applying collective action, framing, political opportunity structures, resource mobilization, network analysis, and other concepts, it has not seriously tackled the constitutional or the constitutive levels of analysis in Muslim discursive contexts. This has left that realm in the hands of investigators with a formal legalistic bent that do not have a systematic sense of institutional grammar, and a restricted focus on national constitutional documents. While legalistic approach is in itself valuable and necessary, it sometimes becomes the only effort, which (from a Bloomington school perspective) is impoverished and may often be counterproductive and a recipe for recurrent developmental disasters. Another possibility is the deontic assessment of injunctions as they have been variously appropriated in different action arenas, referring to grammar as well as semantics and syntax- this alone could generate some great comparative work, and more nuanced assessment of institutional diversity in Muslim contexts. There's also the basic presumption in the religious responsa literature that text interacts with context, and so any rule-deliberation must reference context as well as text, suggesting that even in the more top-down legalistic versions, those who are most familiar and engaged with an action arena have a central role in rule-ordered relations. And these initial thoughts only scratch the surface. The absence of an acceptable institutional hierarchy (especially among Sunni Muslims) for final arbitration of interpretive challenges of the sacred texts (both theological and historical) presents another very productive environment for the study of foundational texts as religious common.

 

There are at least two areas where it might have strategic value in terms of the Workshop and the Bloomington School. First, it would more prominently engage with the literature around religion (Islam) and politics, which has fixated on ideas, identities, and attitudes, and not been great on institutional analysis, and this could open an audience of scholars and policy people to be introduced to the uses of the conceptual, methodological and analytical tools the Workshop has produced. Second, the political economy association of the Bloomington school has a value in that it appears less politicized than some established scholarly camps, and may enjoy a more thorough reading as a result, building the scholarly community around the Workshop further.

 

Vincent’s volume on The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies helps set the stage for this discussion. The Preface to his book ends with: “If the essential core of my analysis is correct, we are in deep trouble.  We have developed a language of discourse [in English] that has become an obstacle to resolving problems in constructive ways.  To understand the character of the problem and to come to terms with the conditions necessary for constructive resolutions requires us to rethink the place of the cultural and social sciences and humanities in human affairs.  We have a great deal of serious work to do, but work that offers immense potentials for reward.” P. xiii. 

 

That sums up the need for rethinking how best to apply the tools of cultural and social sciences and humanities to the understanding of Islamic religious-textual Commons, originally conveyed in classical Arabic and rendered accessible via translations and interpretations in countless other languages and cultural contexts over the last fourteen centuries culminating to the challenges and opportunities confronting the Muslim world today.   Systematic study of how Muslims of different cultural traditions are currently making political uses of their sacred religious texts as cultural Commons and with what consequences to themselves and to others, and who claims to protect the Muslim religious Commons, why and how by various institutional means are very complex, to say the least.  One obvious issue will be the choice of specific communities we focus on, whether here in the US, or in our various areas of expertise, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, etc.

Some suggested starting points for the working group follow. These are not absolute commitments, but possibilities that members of the working group might amend or add to according to their interests.
The ADICO syntax and contestation over ADICO semantics, syntax, and pragmatics, provide a way to map injunctions rule configurations in the text (see Lin Ostrom’s 2005 book on Institutional Diversity for a succinct summary). The value of ADICO is it provides an easily transported skeleton for anchoring some of the contestation prevalent in Muslim contexts of religion, and that it allows for comparison, while allowing for the numerous other sources of rules and rationales in those contexts. For example, we would likely extend the deontics beyond the must (fard & wajib), must not (haram), and permitted (mubah) to the commonly used categories of mustahab (liked, recommended) and makruh (disliked). The interpretive dynamics of how the middle categories are stretched towards either end by individuals and groups for instrumental uses offers important opportunities for systematic analysis.
One initial effort could be to map injunctions that apply to individuals, collectives, and at a constitutional level into the IAD framework. As an example, one may argue that the religious injunction to give zakat is an obligation on individuals, but the distribution of those funds has been variously undertaken by individuals, third sector associations, informal networks, and formal governments. The historic manipulations of the distinction between the fard kifaya (communal obligation) and fard ‘ayn (individual obligation) and the times when one devolves to the other by individuals and collectivities (governmental and otherwise) is another interesting direction.
Distinguishing injunctions from rules-in-use and the dynamic movements between the two in particular contexts provides another sub-area. The point of this would be to bridge the gap between normative requirements derived from text and institutions that emerge and are maintained (or discarded) by ideology and/or sanctions. This is an ongoing theme that was particularly pressing in Vincent Ostrom’s emphasis on how shared understandings were grounded, transmitted, altered and maintained.
Extend the focus on “text” to consider this in terms of the nuss/nass (text) and waqia (context) distinction commonly used in the fiqh (jurisprudence) responsa literature. This would emphasize deliberative engagement by user/participant actors. This will provide opportunities for studying the role of human agency rather the normally false attribution of agency to religion/sacred texts.
The degree to which local custom (adat) become explicitly factored in fiqh deliberations (in many cases treated as a legitimate source of law, a kind of common law) is a starting point for the role local knowledge plays. This is indeed a very important factors historically in the development of the various recognized schools of fiqh or madaahib and the repeated calls for the re-opening of the “doors of ijtihad”. The one that I feel is under-considered and has great potential is the role of waqia. Contextual knowledge is critical in religious deliberation over appropriate action, and the experts in the local knowledge are most likely to be the participants in a local action situation. This is also documented ethnographically to be true in the formal Islamic qadi run courts in parts of the Middle East. This is implicit in most fiqh discussions, but has been obscured, particularly in the more monolithic discourse that has prevailed among some absolutist or puritanical ideological activists. The result has often been catastrophic and tragic, often violating the spirit of injunctions or doing violence to competing interpretations.

 

 The distinction between qadi  (a politically appointed rule-adjudicator, official in service to the sultan (political authority) and faqih (jurisprudential scholar) and the general class of scholars (ulama) suggest some bases for thinking about well-recognized contestation over appropriate rules in the management of the Religious Commons. There is a rich vein of historical scholarship that may be mined for this, and it raises great questions for contemporary social movements and discussions of Islam and state which could be documented through systematic ethnography also.

 

Yet another area to consider is the covenantal basis for constituting society in Muslim and interreligious contexts. This has attracted prominent recent initiatives in this area both by religious leaders as well as in scholarship, and provides significant scope for further additions to the literature.

43 Understanding Robustness to Disturbance in Irrigation SES: Moving beyond CPR Theory and Static Analyses

Coordinators: Sergio Villamayor-Tomas ([e-mail]) and Eduardo Araral ([e-mail])
Abstract: Institutional analyses of irrigation management have traditionally focused on identifying the long-term conditions that enable farmers to avoid the overexploitation of shared resources. More recently, a new concern has emerged about the factors under which different irrigation management regimes can contribute to socio-ecological robustness in the occurrence of disturbances. This new interest has come along with the use new analytical frameworks such as the SES framework or the robustness framework. Robustness can be defined as the ability of a system to maintain its basic relationships and functionality in the occurrence of disturbances. Disturbance can be defined as unexpected changes in the components of a system or its environment. The concept of robustness emphasizes the cost-benefit trade-offs associated to designed systems so its use is appropriate in the context of irrigation management. Cooperation factors such as communication, leadership and monitoring can explain collective capacity to adapt. Papers in this session will explore the relevance of some of those factors as well as other not necessarily linked to cooperation processes. The study of robustness also requires the use of over time research designs and analyses. The working group includes papers using different methodologies to better understand the challenges and opportunities of each of them in that regard.
All papers will be done in a speed-talk format (10mts). We will plan to leave roughly 15 minutes at the end for discussion. Depending on the interest among the participants joint publications and collaborative projects will be considered. The session/s will include the below presentations. Submissions on related papers will be also considered.

Presentation	Presenter	Description
Robustness of irrigation systems in Nepal	Marty Anderies	Presents results on the robustness of irrigation systems based on laboratory experiments inspired by small scale systems in Nepal
Robustness to several disturbances in Philippines	Eduardo Araral	Explains the case of the 2,000-year old Ifugao SES and the contemporary challenges they now face and how they are coping/not coping with it
Water governance and adaptation in Kenya	Tom Evans	Discuss insights from a study on water governance, adaptation and the role of information in decision-making in irrigation systems in Kenya
Robustness to climate change in Nepal	Irene Perez-Ibarra	Present results of an agent-based model with the purpose of studying the robustness and adaptive capacity of the Pumpa irrigation system to climate change.
Robustness to droughts in Mexico	Sergio Villamayor-Tomas	Discuss the findings of a comparative case study of robustness to droughts and other disturbances in Mexico

44 (The) Use of Meta-Analysis in Studies of the Commons – Coordinating Efforts and Sharing Knowledge

Coordinator: Michael Schoon ([e-mail])
Abstract:  This working group proposes a 2-hour roundtable in which each group could present their database/library/project for 10 minutes.  In the second hour, the panelists will host a round-table discussion that addresses the following topics:

• 
  How to take CPR research beyond the case study and articulate methods to enhance the potential for cross-site analysis
  
• 
  Identifying best practices and pitfalls in meta-analysis
  
• 
  How to encourage the broader use of databases and the contribution of data
  

Our goal is to figure out how best to work together synergistically and direct our projects in complementary directions, where feasible.  This may lead to further discussions that build off of past work and how the Workshop and affiliates can continue to move from case studies to larger-scale endeavors.

45 Using and Adapting the IAD Framework to Analyze Organizational Dynamics and Large-Scale Policy Processes

Coordinators: Forrest Fleischman ([e-mail]) and Gwen Arnold ([e-mail])
Abstract:  This working group proposes a 2-hour roundtable in which each group could present their database/library/project for 10 minutes.  In the second hour, the panelists will host a round-table discussion that addresses the following topics:

• 
  How to take CPR research beyond the case study and articulate methods to enhance the potential for cross-site analysis
  
• 
  Identifying best practices and pitfalls in meta-analysis
  
• 
  How to encourage the broader use of databases and the contribution of data
  

Our goal is to figure out how best to work together synergistically and direct our projects in complementary directions, where feasible.  This may lead to further discussions that build off of past work and how the Workshop and affiliates can continue to move from case studies to larger-scale endeavors.

46 Vincent Ostrom’s The Quest to Understand Human Affairs. 2 vols – Roundtable Panel

Coordinator: Filippo Sabetti ([e-mail])
The aim of the roundtable is to have an opportunity to present and discuss the two volumes of unpublished papers of Vincent Ostrom, ably edited by Barbara Allen. The two volumes with Allen’s extended notes effectively convey how Vincent carried his idea forward, and the writing and rewriting that he did, that ultimately led to Vincent’s finished books, like The Political Theory of a Compound Republic and The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: a Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge. The volumes merit serious consideration and discussion for WOW5 participants eager to understand and extend the spirit and vision of Vincent Ostrom.

47 What Is to Be Done? Charting Future Research Program, Prospects, and Directions – Plenary Session

Coordinator: Filippo Sabetti ([e-mail])
Abstract: The other roundtables are designed to articulate, introduce and explain the lasting value of the conceptual framework and analytical perspectives of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom to the study of public affairs.  The new roundtable being proposed here extends the Ostrom vision beyond the works presented in the other roundtables and  seeks answers to the question of “What is to be done?” The panels are challenged to envision future research program and to discuss what challenges, prospects and directions may await the Bloomington School in the twenty-first century. The panel consists of scholars with a deep interest in extending the challenges and research programs initiated by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom and Workshop colleagues.

48 Wicked Problems in Fragmented Regions

Coordinator: Brett Never ([e-mail])
Abstract: Regional fragmentation has been at the heart of the Workshop’s research project for over fifty years, with Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren (1961) providing the impetus for understanding whether fragmentation leads to hopeless inefficiency or opportunities for service differentiation. At the same time, the Workshop has been at the forefront of constructing a framework for conceptualizing solutions to wicked problems, where there is both complexity and confusion about the nature of the challenge. The working group proposed here seeks to understand how the nesting of institutions can help us address wicked problems in fragmented regions. Two of our authors bring forward an interest in the challenges of delivering services in urban regions, while the other two are concerned with the impact of environmental problems that drift across boundaries. The goal of our group, while still in formation, would be to explore the processes necessary to develop consensus on the scope of the problem(s) as well as the choices of institutions that could be possibly used to address it(them).