Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T21:27:15.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elinor Ostrom on choice, collective action and rationality: a Senian analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2023

Paul Lewis  and
Matias Petersen Open the ORCID record for Matias Petersen [Opens in a new window]
Paul Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Political Economy, King's College London, UK
Matias Petersen*
Affiliation:
Centro Signos, Universidad de los Andes, Chile
*
Corresponding author: Matias Petersen; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores Elinor Ostrom's account of practical reason through the conceptual lens provided by a typology of dimensions of rational conduct advanced by Amartya Sen. On Sen's view, self-interested behaviour has three independent, and separable, features: self-centred welfare, self-welfare goal and self-goal choice. We suggest that Ostrom is committed to a version of rational choice theory that retains the assumptions of self-welfare goal and self-goal choice but, by acknowledging that people's welfare is affected by factors beyond their material consumption, departs from the assumption of self-welfare goal. We argue that this departure is not necessarily driven by an acknowledgement, along Senian lines, that people may have reasons for action other than the single-minded pursuit of their own goals, but rather by Ostrom's belief that the decision problem people face is so complex that maximising behaviour is rendered impossible. We illustrate this argument by analysing how Elinor Ostrom's position differs not only from Sen's but also from that of her husband and long-time collaborator Vincent Ostrom, who in his analysis of the covenantal aspects of rule-making seems to depart from the assumptions of instrumental rationality and preference-satisfaction.

Keywords

Amartya Sencollective rationalityElinor Ostromrational choice theoryrule-making
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2023 , pp. 852 - 867
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aligica, P. (2015) Public administration, public choice and the Ostroms: The achievements, the failure, the promise. Public Choice 163, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P.D. and Tarko, V. (2011) Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance 25, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P., Lewis, P. and Storr, V. (2017) Austrian economics and the Bloomington school: An introduction and overview. Advances in Austrian Economics 22, ix–xxxi.Google Scholar
Allen, B. (2005) Tocqueville, Covenant, the Democratic Revolution. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Arena, R. and Lawson, T. (2015) Introduction. Cambridge Journal of Economics 39(4), 987–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckert, J. (1996) What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action. Theory and Society 25, 803–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyte, H., Elkin, S., Levine, P., Mansbridge, J., Ostrom, E., Sotan, K. and Smith, R. (2014) The new civic politics: Civic theory and practice for the future. The Good Society 23, 206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. (1992) Shared cooperative activity. Philosophical Review 101(2), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. and Grossman, P. (2010) Institutions matter! Why the Herder problem is not a Prisoner's Dilemma. Theory and Decision 69, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, S. and Ostrom, E. (1995) A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review 89, 582–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. (2007) Identity and commitment: Sen's fourth aspect of the self. In Peter, F and Schmid, H (eds.), Rationality and Commitment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finlay, S. and Schroeder, M. (2017) Reasons for action: Internal vs. external. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/reasons-internal-external/.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1989) On Social Facts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 168, 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiser, L. and Ostrom, E. ([1982] 2000) The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In McGinnis, M (ed.), Polycentric Games and Institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Institutional Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lara, A. (2015) Rationality and complexity in the work of Elinor Ostrom. International Journal of the Commons 9, 573–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P.A. (2017) The Ostroms and Hayek as theorists of complex adaptive systems: Commonality and complementarity. Advances in Austrian Economics 22, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P.A. (2021) Elinor's Ostrom's ‘realist orientation’: An investigation of the ontological commitments of her analysis of the possibility of self-governance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 189, 623–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P.A. (2022) The Bloomington school as seen from Virginia: Levels of analysis; social ontology; schools of thought; and policy implications. Cosmos and Taxis 10(3 and 4), 71–85.Google Scholar
Lewis, P.A., Moura, M.G. and Runde, J. (2020) Ontology and the history of economic thought: An introduction. Cambridge Journal of Economics 44(5), 981–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, A. (2017) Covenant and moral psychology in polycentric orders. Advances in Austrian Economics 22, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, N. (2009) Rules, social ontology and collective identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39, 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, D. (2022) Beyond Positivism, Behaviorism, and Neoinstitutionalism in Economics. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. and Ostrom, E. (2012) Reflections on Vincent Ostrom, public administration, and polycentricity. Public Administration Review 72, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miroiu, A. and Dumitru, A. (2021) Foundations of social order: The Ostroms and John Searle. In Lemke, J and Tarko, V (eds.), Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School: Building a New Approach to Policy and the Social Sciences. Newcastle upon Time: Agenda Publishing.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1980) Artisanship and artifact. Public Administration Review 40, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1986) An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice 48(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1991) The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-Governing Society. San Francisco: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. ([1991] 2012) Some ontological and epistemological puzzles in policy analysis. In Ostrom, V (ed.), The Quest to Understand Human Affairs, Volume 2: Essays on Collective, Constitutional, and Epistemic Choice. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1993) Covenanting, co-producing, and the good society. Newsletter of the PEGS 3(2), 7–9.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1997) The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville's Challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 92, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1999) Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science 2, 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2006) Converting threats into opportunities. PS: Political Science and Politics 39, 3–12.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007) Engaging impossibilities and possibilities. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1304701 (accessed 21 September 2021).Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (2008) The Political Theory of the Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009) Engaging with impossibilities and possibilities. In Basu, K and Kanbur, R (eds.), Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honour of Amartya Sen, Volume 2: Society, Institutions, and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010a) Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review 100, 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010b) A long polycentric journey. Annual Review of Political Science 13, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Basurto, X. (2011) Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change. Journal of Institutional Economics 7, 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. and Walker, J. (1994) Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, E. and Sen, A. (2006) Adam Smith's economics. In Haakonssen, K (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidtz, D. (1994) Choosing ends. Ethics 104(2), 226–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In Cohen, P, Morgan, J and Pollack, M (eds.), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (2001) Rationality in Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1974) Choice, orderings and morality. In Körner, S (ed.), Practical Reason. Oxford: Blackwell, 54–67.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1977) Rational fools: A critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs 6, 317–344.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1984) Resources, Values and Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1985) Goals, commitment, and identity. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 1, 341–355.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1987) On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1995) Moral codes and economic success. In Brittan, S and Hamlin, A (eds.), Market Capitalism and Moral Values. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2002) Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2010) Adam Smith and the contemporary world. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 3, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A., Deaton, A. and Besley, T. (2020) Economics with a moral compass? Welfare economics: Past, present and future. Annual Review of Economics 12, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. ([1790] 1974) The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. D. Rapheal and A. Macfie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tarko, V. (2017) Elinor Ostrom: An Intellectual Biography. London and New York: Roman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Tarko, V. (2021) Elinor Ostrom as a behavioural economist. In Lemke, J and Tarko, V (eds.), Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School: Building a New Approach to Policy and the Social Sciences. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarko, V., Schlager, E. and Lutter, M. (2019) The Faustian Bargain: Power-sharing, constitutions, and the practice of polycentricity in governance. In Thiel, A, Blomquist, W and Garrick, D (eds.), Governing Complexity: Analyzing and Applying Polycentricity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toonen, T. (2010) Resilience in public administration: The work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom from a public administration perspective. Public Administration Review 70, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. and Miller, K. (1988) We-intentions. Philosophical Studies 53, 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar