Lectures Social and Institutional Change
04-09-2023
Session 1: Introduction
There are a lot of things changing in the world. They raise a number of complex changes.
But why are these changes happening and what are the consequences? But also how can
we regulate these changes (design of the city/ regulate the labor market etc.).
A typical sociological explanation would point to the institutions. Institutions are the rules of
the game in a society: the humanly devised constrains that shape human interaction.
Institutions are rules. Rules are sanctions/ taboos/ customs etc.
Devised by humans. It’s not written, it’s a code of conduct.
It constraints individuals’ decision making. We don’t really think about it. It changes
from culture to culture. Institutions make certain behavior more costly, which affects
rational decision making.
Formal versus informal institutions. Institutions provide a structure (car roads/ right side of
the road) to everyday life.
Informal institutions: behavioral regularity based on socially shared rules. Unwritten and
enforced outside of officially sanctioning channels. Code of conduct. (norms)
Formal institutions: official rules, written down in law or contract, and typically enforced by
a state. (laws/constitutions)
06-09-2023
Session 2: The micro-macro problem & theories of institutional change
Auguste Comte said the core of sociology should be the study of dynamics. Why do societies
change. The second core is the study of statics. Which processes make societies endure.
We do not choose as isolates, but in communities. He said progress is possible through
order. This so that societies can endure.
But no scientific method was used (more philosophic). Since then, many things have
been said and done.
Emile Durkheim was the first professor of sociology. Sociology is in itself a distinct and
autonomous science. A social fact goes beyond individuals, it is about the society. Society is
more than the sum of the individuals (society is more than an individual). It also includes our
social relationships and social patterns or forms of social organization. These forces regulate
the individual and group behavior. It has influence on the individual. Macro-phenomena.
“A social fact is any way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting over the
individual an external constraint.”
Social facts are external and objective feature of society. They exist independently of
individuals. They include norms, values, customs etc. The social fact influences on
individuals’ behavior. Norms are above us and they are collective phenomena. They
contribute to the stability and order of society (we know where to go or find information).
When studying social facts, it’s crucial for understanding society’s functioning and social
cohesion (why do we things, and why do facts change). If we want to live in a society with
less polarization, we must understand what the social facts are and where we are going as a
society.
,Social facts:
Social norms (we drive on the right side of the road). They may not apply to all
societies.
Residential segregation. The individuals do not want to live segregated, but over time
it happens.
Dress codes (doctors wear masks)
Inequalities. It doesn’t matter how much you make as an individual.
Fertility rates. It is not about individuals, it is about the macro level. It goes beyond
one household.
Do we really need sociology?
Durkheim’s approach is that is not among the individual, but among the prior social facts, and
looking at the macro level. This is called the structural approach.
“This is because the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. It is something different,
whose properties differ from those displayed by the parts from which it is formed.”
sometimes a good understanding of individual behavior is not enough to explain macro-
phenomena.
This is known as the structural approach to sociology: collective phenomena can and
should only be explained with other collective phenomena.
The macro level would explain the macro. Coleman says yes this is the case, but we need to
come back at the micro level. We need to be able to say something about the macro.
The improved social conditions -> revolutions. This is the macro-to-macro level. The
individuals will be dissatisfied, they are frustrated. We look at what is going on at the
individual level. At a protest, people do not know each other but they are frustrated
and come together to demonstrate. This turns into a revolution.
SIP (structural-individualistic research program). It
holds that the collective phenomena can and should
be explained by a drawing on the individual level.
1 is not a straight line, because this is not the direct
consequence. The Coleman boat
Criticism of the Coleman boat:
- It seems to suggest that all individuals behave
and decide in the same way. Not everyone can
be the same. Individuals make different
decisions.
- There are no interactions. Actors decide in isolation. But actors talk to one another. It
looks like there is no social interaction. Individuals influence each other.
It’s differences to Durkheim:
The whole is not different from the sum & no interdependencies among individuals. The
macro has its own properties, beyond individuals. Individuals are always connected. When
we are a group, we think different than when we are isolated, but we do not live isolated.
Even though SIP argues that everyone does the same and decide the same way, but the
whole is more than the sum of the parts. Many collective phenomena are unintended and
may evolve even though people seek to prevent them.
Collective phenomena which are unintended in that sense that individuals do not seek to
create them are called emergent phenomena. Emergence has two main ingredients:
The system has a micro-macro structure.
The entities on the micro-level are interdependent.
, Many theories explain collective phenomena based on assumptions about individual
behavior. Emergence appears to be like magic, but it isn’t. Actually, some researchers
consider it the core contribution to the social sciences.
Schelling’s model of residential segregation.
“Which social mechanisms explain residential segregation?”
Schelling: even though individuals didn’t mind being surrounded or living by agents of a
different race or economic background, they would still choose to segregate themselves from
other agents over time. In the end individual they live segregated. It is an emergent
phenomenon. It says it doesn’t matter what an individual does.
Theories of institutional change:
Collective-choice theories.
- Centralized, collective-choice process: Institutional change is often viewed as a
process where rules are explicitly determined by a collective political entity.
Individuals and organizations engage in collective action, conflict, and bargaining to
alter these rules for their own benefit.
- Libecap’s concept of contracting: property rights (norms/ day-to-day interactions).
Different property rights configurations lead to different distributional consequences,
prompting bargaining, lobbying, and political action to modify rules. Contracting refers
to the rule-changing activity, governed by higher-level political rules.
- Ostrom’s Multi-Layer Hierarchy of Rules. Higher-level rules temporarily treated as
fixed when analyzing rule formation at lower levels.
Operational rules (day-to-day interaction)
Collective-choice rules (choosing operational rules)
Constitutional rules (choosing collective-choice rules).
Metaconstitutional rules (choosing constitutional rules)
- Determinants of institutional change. Institutional change depends on individual
calculations of expected costs and benefits. The potential for change is also
contingent upon how decision-makers perceive the impacts of altering the rules.
- Causes of institutional change. Libecap identifies exogenous parameter shifts as a
fundamental driver. Ostrom recognizes both exogenous and endogenous causes.
- Path dependent process. The responses are shaped by past choices and
commitments. Existing institutions may create vested interests in maintaining the
status quo.
Collective choice theories emphasize group decision-making and adaption of governing
institutions. Key concepts: collaboration, negotiation, collective action.
Institutional change process: deliberative process, cooperation, addressing challenges or
crises.
Criticism:
- Collective choice models may struggle to explain why formal rules are ignored or fail
to produce intended outcomes.
- Informal rules often evolve spontaneously and may not fit in the models.
Example of small fishing company.
1. Collaboration: collaborate to form a fishing cooperative. Work together with shared goals
of sustainable fishing.
2. Negotiation: rules and regulations like catch limits. This to ensure long-term sustainability.
3. Deliberative processes: meetings and discussions to continuously evaluate the
effectiveness of their rules. Adapt them based on feedback and changing conditions.
4. Cooperation: cooperate by enforcing the rules collectively and work together (sanctions).
5. Drivers of change: what drives to ensure a sustainable future.
6. Implications: result in evolution of their fishing institutions.
