48034635

8/13/2019 48034635

1/11

A Conversationwith Elinor and

Vincent Ostrom

Theo Toonen is dean of the FacultyTechnology, Policy and Management Delft University of Technology, and cinstitutional governance and public adistration at Delft University of Technoand Leiden University in the NetherlaE-mail : [email protected]

A Conversation with Elinor and Vincent Ostrom 19

Hindy Lauer Schacter, Editor

Theo ToonenDelft University of Technology/Leiden University

Resilience in Public Administration: Te Work of Elinor and

Vincent Ostrom from a Public Administration Perspective

Tis essay examines the remarkable careers of Elinor andVincent Ostrom, exploring polycentricity and humanmanagement of common property resources from theno-name elds of public administration in the late1950s, through the metropolitan public service industriesand public choice approach to democratic administration

in the 1960s and 1970s and the institutional analysisof common pool resource management of the 1980sand 1990s. It continues with the diagnosis of theself-governing capabilities of socio-ecological systems inthe 2000s. Many continuities underlie focal shifts inattention. Teir work will be related to developments inthe public administration eld along with illustrationsof their pioneer example for public administration onresearch as a collaborative enterprise. Te 2009 NobelLaureate in economics, Elinor Ostrom has been working

from an academic background and intellectual traditionthat, particularly through her long-term collaborationwith Vincent Ostrom, is strongly rooted in the classicaland prevailing institutional concerns that may be seenas core to public administration as an academic eld ofeducation and research.

We simply study institutions, that is what we do.

Elinor Ostrom

Tere is no way you can write about my work without paying attention to the work of Vincent.Elinor Ostromborn in Los Angeles in 1933 andknown as Lin to her friends and associatesreacts

with her usual charm and straightforwardness to myrequest to contribute to a review article about her andher research forPAR. It is sometime in the summer of2008. Vincent is Vincent Ostrom (1919). He is herlong-term tutor, husband, and colleague, and has alsocollaborated with her as a researcher and teacher and,particularly, as founder and codirector (19732003)of the Workshop in Political Teory and Policy

Analysis at Indiana University in Bloomington. Since1990, Vincent has been the Arthur F. Bentley Profes-sor Emeritus of Political Science at Indiana University.

With a smileand elegantly neglecting a masters

degree in public administration from the Univer-sity of California, Los Angeles (1962), that got hertrapped [because] [m]y courses were so fascinatingthat I decided to quit my full-time job and go backto graduate school at a time when women didnt goto graduate school (PNAS 2006, 19221)Lin adds,

After all, Vincent is my link to the public administra-tion community. I was his editorial assistant when he was editor-in-chief ofPublic Administration Review.Vincent Ostrom held this position from 1963 to1966, following John Perkins and preceding Dwight

Waldo. Being at the beginning of her academic career,Lin helped outin the way that academic wives didthenwithout compensation. Later in my career,in terms of institutional affi liations and professionalorganizations, I have always been more involved withthe Public Choice Society and the American PoliticalScience Association.

Te message was clear: a combination of genuineembarrassment about all the attention, recognition,prizes, rewards, and honors individually bestowedon her in recent yearsand much more was soonto followand her admiration of and gratitude forVincent Ostroms substantial intellectual contributionto the production, quality, and development of herown work made Elinors willingness to cooperate withme on this review contingent on my promise to payfull credit and attention to the intellectual partnershipthat she considers part and parcel of, if not the keyto, the development of her own work and academic

career. Tis author was happy to comply.

Much of Elinor Ostroms current audience and reader-ship, also in public administration, will associateher work with her vigorous interest in and rigoroustreatment of the analysis of small-scale, self-regulatorysystems, particularly in the domain of such naturalresources as sheries, forests, pastures, and waterresource systems. Even for the relative outsider, it iseasy to mark the publication of the bookGoverningthe Commons: Te Evolution of Institutions for Col-lective Action (E. Ostrom 1990) as the hallmark of a

8/13/2019 48034635

2/11

194 Public Administration Review March | April 2010

remarkable academic story with both a globaloutreach and a practical policy impact. Vari-ous books and numerous articles on commonpool resource (CPR) management were to fol-low. In terms of quality and scientic status,her later work has been widely recognized andconsolidated by recent publications in suchhighly esteemed scientic journals asScience (Dietz, Ostrom, and Stern 2003; E. Ostrom2009) and the Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences (E. Ostrom 2007). She isalso one of the few women elected to two ofthe United States most prestigious honor-ary academies: the National Academy ofSciences and the American Academy of Artsand Sciences. On October 12, 2009, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize inEconomic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobelthe Nobel Prize inEconomicswas jointly awarded to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E.

Williamson for their work on nonmarket economic arrangements.Ostrom, the rst woman to receive this honor, was awarded theprize for her analysis of economic governance, especially the com-mons.

Many continuities underlie the shifts in focus in Elinor Ostroms work and writing with regard to conceptual frameworks anddomains of research or elds of application: water, school districts,police, urban service delivery structures, metropolitan governmentorganization, citizen coproduction, develop-ment policy, game theory, open access, andunderstanding knowledge as a commons. Linnotes, My dissertation was on water re-sources. Ten we began the police and publicservice industry studies that made us visibleand put us on the map. Tis was followed bythe institutional analysis and developmentframeworkthe three worlds of actionandthe common pool resource managementresearch, which amounted to the socio-eco-logical systems framework. But these are allexamples of the more general theories we weretesting.

Tese steps in the Ostroms development will be explored here,and will also be related to some of the developments in the eld ofpublic administration. Both scholars are complementary and mutu-ally reinforcing. Te one serves as the base and source of inspirationfor the other: Vincent is more philosophical and ideational, coming

from political theory and administrative sciences, strongly rooted inthe constitutional tradition in which the study of American publicadministration had its origin. Elinor is more analytic, empirical, andoperational, with a strong drive to confront assumptions with socialreality and to test hypotheses in an experimental laboratory settingor operational eld survey against painstakingly dened conceptualindicators and self-collected data, even using satellite observations inlater years (Ostrom and Nagendra 2006). Apart from their personalties, the Ostroms are closely bound by both a deep appreciationfor craftsmanshipat our meeting, Vincent, by way of illustration,handed me an interview with a much-admired master woodworker(Finch and Goodman 2007) with whom they had a long-standing

relationship and whom they consider asource of inspiration for their workand astrong interest in the importance of narra-tives, language, and conceptualization inpolicy analysis and the scientic enterprise.

When asked, they both described themselveas political economists of some sort. Fewpeople will realize that it was Vincent, notElinor, who introduced the concept of com-mon pool resource to the study of the publicdomain in general and public administrationin particular while looking for new analyticaconcepts that would allow him to break outof the classical tradition of equating publiadministration with government studies.

Polycentricity As early as the 1960s and 1970s, if not earlier, the Ostroms wentbeyond markets and hierarchies. At critical junctures in the develment of the respective disciplines, their work triggered and con-tributed signicantly to the governance turn in international publiadministration, policy sciences, and even political science ( oone

1998). Te Ostroms were outspoken advocates of and instrumentalin breaking away from a monolithic and monocentric conception administrative structure, public service, and the state. Teir writingand research opened the door to studying polycentricity, a some-

what elusive but intellectually canvassing concept that persistentland in completely different institutional contexts stresses the need for and the importancof multiplicity, diversity, interdependency,checks and balances, complexity, and requi-site variety in both the study and the actualoperation of public administration and publservice delivery (V. Ostrom 1972).

Te contemporary social and political rel-evance of Elinors research and writings on commons has clearly beneted fromandcontributed tothe current increase in attention to environmental issues, most notably i

relation to global warming, climate change, and the internationaldebate on the exhaustion of natural resources. However, as a formstudent of Vincents, Elinor acknowledges, It should not be overlooked that it was Vincent, not me, who discovered and rst usedthe concept of common pool resources in his teaching and writingon common property resource management at the end of the 1950I returned to it in the 1980s only to discover that there was a whol

eld of research that had organized itself around the concept. Evin his dissertation (UCLA, 1950), Vincent already was focusing o water management. In the 1950s and 1960s, public administration was preoccupied with the nation-state as the organizing concept.Vincent was not so much interested in the discipline of publicadministration as in the practice of public administration. He interpreted the study of public administration as the study of how peopoperate in practice. He was looking for new concepts in order toinclude nongovernmental action in the analysis. Vincent nods andadds smilingly, I understood public administration as the study ohow people worked in the eld rather than a study of bureaucracyin the 1950s and 1960s.

On October 12, 2009 . . . theNobel Prize in Economics. . . was jointly awarded to

Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson for their work

on nonmarket economicarrangements. Ostrom, the rst

woman to receive this honor, was awarded the prize for heranalysis of economic governance,

especially the commons.

Te Ostroms were outspokenadvocates of and instrumental

in breaking away from amonolithic and monocentricconception of administrative

structure, public service, andthe state. Teir writings andresearch opened the door tostudying polycentricity. . . .

8/13/2019 48034635

3/11


management, and central control. Vincent also became convincedof the relevance of the constitutional dimension of natural and common resource management, but not only in an academic sense. Asa consultant on natural resources at the Alaska Constitutional Convention in 195556, Vincent Ostrom was largely responsible for tinclusion of the famous Article 8, the Natural Resource Article ofthe Alaska Constitution, which is sometimes referred to as the rsconstitutional sustainability article in the world.

Human Management of Common Property ResourcesVincent took these newly acquired insights with him to the Univesity of California, Los Angeles (V. Ostrom 1967). Lin: Te watermanagement system in the L.A. government system was a compleorganization of public and private arrangements in service deliver

A new system of water rights emerged with new forms of relationships among people. A different system in the West compared to

the East. River basins cut as a common unitacross administrative sectors in the metro-politan area. Te predominant assumption

was that people with a common property hano organization in sharing the one source.Tus Vincent used the common pool resourc

concept to go against the predominant undestanding of coordination in terms of bureaucratic control and governmental managemeand to be able to point to the many forms ofcoordination at various scale levels and fromthe bottom up. Hed witnessed this in Colo-rado, Montana, and New Mexico: irrigationsystems on the basis of a common river basin the arid region of the American West.

Vincent: eaching at the Universities of Wyoming and Oregon had facilitated thisunderstanding. Governance structures were

varied and related to physical circumstances; they put social realitin coherence with physical reality. Te subject of Lins dissertation

was the water pumping system; there was too much pumping offresh water. She analyzed the role of equity courts in shaping bounaries and exclusion rules and the importance ofhuman (as over andagainst bureaucratic) management in connecting sub-basins.

Lin: We arent antimanagement but we arrived at a different management concept. Vincent: Jurisprudence rather than top-downsteering. Our mission became how to understand and ght againssimplication rather than assume that strong executive leadershipcould solve the problem only to see that it could not.

The No-Name Fields of Public AdministrationVincent Ostrom used the common pool resource concept in histeachingclasses that Lin attendedand thus could introducenongovernmental organizations as part of the broader concept ofpublic service as an industry. Tis concept, which he took from

Joe Bain (1959), allowed him to study the interchange in a met-ropolitan area as an economya local public economyratherthan only in terms of a government organization. Te commonpool resource concept included the study of social self-regulatorynonstate and nonmarket institutions, and decision-making procesin the analysis of critical domains of collective action and public

When asked about the origin of their deep interest in self-organiza-tion, self-regulation, and self-government, both Ostroms refer topersonal formative experiences. Elinor: On one of my rst jobs I

witnessed a group of professionals exploring a topic for their politicalbosses by using a costbenet analysis. On the basis of their calcula-tions they concluded that the benets would not outweigh the costs.Tey also concluded that they could not tell that to their bosses.Elinor compared that to other independentnonhierarchicalin-stitutions that did the opposite and that were not afraid of speakingtruth to power, as Wildavsky (1979) would later sum up in a viewon the art and craft of policy analysis that the Ostroms could easilyrelate to. Lin continues, Early in my academic career I thus gradu-ally became interested in sources of freedom and self-regulatory(nonhierarchical) systems: options to move freely, no monopoly,polycentricity, checks and balances. Not small is beautiful but theneed for institutional variety, layers within layers and a multi-scalesociety: large scale and small scale. Embeddedin and next to one another.

Elinor developed this interest in the sourcesof authenticity and independence in combi-nation with a strong empirical drive. Tis

was triggered, she explains, by the large-scale amalgamation of school districts in theU.S.from around 110,000 in 1910 to about15,000 by 1950which had been going on

without much empirical underpinning, juston the belief that the districts would be moreeffi cient and equitable. However, some of thebiggest tragedies were precisely in these verylarge consolidated schools. In the early 1960s,this was being followed by a proposal to amal-gamate and consolidate police districts with-out even knowing how the system worked!

For Vincent as well, experiences early in his career are the point ofreference. Lin: After teaching high school in California at the endof World War II, Vincent moved to the University of Wyoming,

where the president asked him to get involved in the study of thesystem of governing in Wyoming. Vincent worked with local gov-ernment offi cials for three years, which laid the foundation for hislater work in Oregon and Los Angeles, where Lin became involvedas a masters and then doctoral student. Vincent elaborates: Inthe assignment in Wyoming, I followed an empirical, bottom-upapproach. Cattle turned out to be an important locus of interest.Systems of brands on cattle could be perceived in terms of propertyrights. Te arrangement was that, in the winter, the cattle were on

private land, but in the summer they were in the open, i.e., a com-mon area. Te roundup was a collective enterprise. Brands servedas a way to appropriate young calves, for example. Part of the land

was private, but in the summer feeding was on the open range. Tismade me aware of the need to think about ways to conceptualizecommon property in the domain between private and public owner-ship as part of the system of governing. I saw stockowners associat-ing privately to commonly establish and enforce property rights.

Tis insight was the starting point for a (re)conceptualization ofcoordination in the public sector, contrasted with an understand-ing of coordination in terms of bureaucratic government, public

Vincent Ostrom used thecommon pool resource

concept in his teaching . . .and could thus introduce

nongovernmental organizationsas part of the broader concept

of public service as anindustry. . . . Tis concept. . . allowed him to study theinterchange in a metropolitanarea as an economya local

public economyrather thanonly in terms of a government

organization.

8/13/2019 48034635

4/11


intervention, thus effectively contributing to broadening the studyof government and public administration beyond the boundaries ofthe state as a government. Tis amounted to a behavioral approach tothe study of intergovernmental relations in metropolitan areas: As thedemand for public services tends to accelerate in an expanding econ-omy, relationships among diverse public enterprises will assume anincreasing importance in U.S. public life. Students of intergovern-mental relationships have an important opportunity to extend ourunderstanding of some of the basic patterns of behavior that existamong the complex variety of governmental agencies responsible forproducing, nancing, and arranging the provision of public goodsand services . . . Te operation of a public enterprise system com-posed of diverse public industries will require knowledge of bothpolitical and economic processes. Scholars in economics, politicalscience, and related behavioral sciences have much to contribute to-

ward an understanding of the structure, conduct, and performanceof the different public industries that form part of the Unites Statespublic enterprise system (Ostrom and Ostrom 1965, 146).

Lin, Vincent, and their fellow researchers in the police studies proj-ect and public service industry (PSI) framework plugged into theearly development of what later would become known as the new

political economy, the public choice approach, or the new institu-tional economics. Vincent identied these approaches early on asamong the no-name elds in public administration: A no-nameconference was held at Charlottesville, Virginia, during the autumnof 1963. Sponsored by the Tomas Jefferson Center for Studiesin Political Economy, the conference was variously characterizedas dealing with the pure theory of collective decision making, theanalysis of nonmarket decision making, the positive theory of col-lective agreement, and other such references. No one was especiallypleased with any of the names suggested so it remained the no-name conference. However, all of the conferees shared professor

James M. Buchanans enthusiastic conviction that, as Vincent notes,an important and exiting theoretical eld of interest [was] emerg-ing simultaneously in several places and under several guises.

Most of the participants in the Charlottesville conference wereeconomists and political scientists who had been working on com-mon problems at the intersection of economic and political theory.Buchanan and Gordon ullocks work onTe Calculus of Consent (1962) is a good illustration of such an effort. Ostrom: Next tothe more popularized work of Galbraith and Boulding . . . that bearupon intersecting interests in economics and political science, . . .the work of many others, including Baumol, Dahl, Downs, Lindb-lom, McKean, Musgrave, Schelling, Shackle, and Simon has addedboth depth and breadth to the eld of inquiry. Vincent urged

scholars to keep in touch with any newly emerging no-name eldsthat may represent important and exciting developments for theadvancement of public administration (V. Ostrom 1964, 6263).

Public Service Industries and Democratic AdministrationLin, notes, at some point in the interview, Te interrelationshipsbetween people in compound systemscombining small, big and,large subsystemsare important. Tese days we will increasinglyneed to pay attention to large-scale systems, which link the global tothe local and vice versa. Tink about the Rhine, the Mekong or theMississippi. Te spontaneous references to water are no coincidencein light of her early and more recent interest in global environmen-

tal policy issues. But it is important to note that there was a periodin her careerin 1965, when she was defending her disserta-tionwhen she told her graduate students, most notable amongthem Roger Parks, that she wanted to study and research any polarea, but not water! Te graduate seminar in Bloomington, whereshe had arrived with Vincent after completing her dissertation, waon how to measure public goods and was inspired by the workof Herbert Simon: We read Herb Simon in class, particularly hisearly books and articles on government, administration, and thepublic good. Looking for a eld of application, water having beeexcluded by the young PhD graduate, who was ready for a differesubject, they chose the police. Tis was to determine her researchagenda for the next 15 years. But it also laid the foundation toreturn refreshed, condently and analytically well equipped to thesubject of water and various other common pool resources some 2years later.

In the PSI framework, government and its delivery structures consisted of an interdependent, market-like network of users, provideand producers of public goods and services, large parts of which

were critically dependent for their successful performance on thecoproduction and cogovernance of citizens, neighborhoods, and

societal organizations, as well as on governments among themselv Although these concepts are commonly used today, they opened acompletely new perspective on government service delivery in thearly 1970s and 1980s (Parks et al. 1981). Such a system may halarge numbers of autonomous units of government with substantidegrees of overlap among multiple levels of government. Many pvate enterprises and voluntary associations may function as integparts of such a public service economy. Substantial separation ofpowers within each unit of government may exist in which all decsion-makers are constrained by enforceable legal or constitutionalimits upon their authority. Each citizen participates in multipleconsumption units organized around diverse communities ofinterest through overlapping levels of government and served by array of different public and private production units supplying anparticular bundle of public goods and services. Each citizen, in sucircumstances, is served not by the government, but by a varietydifferent public service industries (Ostrom and Ostrom 1977, 10

In an era of e-government and online service delivery, this vision responsive, dedicated governance or customized government mayresonate fairly well. But the words were written at a time whencentral planning, program-planning-budgeting systems, and therationalization, simplication, and streamlining of administrativesystems were considered by many the key to eliminating fragmention, overlap, and redundancy. Te institutional features stressed by

the Ostroms were generally considered signs of waste and inef-ciency rather than potential for responsiveness and resilience inthe public sector. In advocating the concept of a PSI system, theOstroms and their associates were going directly against a powerfcurrent that identied robust government as centralized and consodated. Tey theoretically stressed the potential value of institutionafragmentation and did this full force. Te way in which the PSIframework was developed still provides a rare display of a researmethodology textbook in full action in order to make social scienmore scientic ( aagepera 2008): a fundamental vision of poly-centric metropolitan government (Ostrom, iebout, and Warren1961), presented as an alternative to dual or consolidated structur

8/13/2019 48034635

5/11


(Bish and Ostrom 1973; Ostrom and Ostrom 1971), developedin a set of rivaling hypothesis (E. Ostrom 1972), undergirded bya relatively simple but strong conceptual framework (Ostrom andOstrom 1977), systematically developed into indicators of structure(Ostrom, Parks, and Whitaker 1974), that can be related to andtested against multiple indicators of outcome and performance (E.Ostrom 1977), amounting to rounded-off conclusions (E. Ostrom1976; Parks 1985). Lin: It is important to me that research consistsof a well-developed theory, a tested, accurate instrument, and good,tight measurements.

Vincent developed their alternative version of responsive govern-ment and democratic administration, a concept taken from Alexisde ocqueville and contrasted to the patterns of bureaucratic ad-ministration found in France (V. Ostrom [1973] 2008a, 72), intoa fully edged criticism inTe Intellectual Crisis in American Public

Administration. Tis work was an elaborated series of master classesthat built on Vincents constitutional orientation on the FederalistPapers and Elinors and other scholars operational eld research ex-perience in metropolitan areas. It used the emerging eld of theoryand researchthe new political economy that was soon to becomethe public choice approachto provide a contemporary formula-

tion of the constitutional theory of Alexander Hamilton and JamesMadison. Tis approach was also meant to illustrate that the PSIversion of concurrent administration actually t better in the U.S.administrative tradition than did the mainstream belief in consoli-dated government. In the European context, the book became an in-stant classic among students of modern American public administra-tion ( oonen 1983, 1988). Te approach proposed by Vincent andsubscribed to by Lin offered an orientation away from the formallegal structures of the state, which were still dominant in Europeanadministrative science at the time (Lynn 2006, 40). It also providedan alternative vision for the centralized government bureaucracy asthe symbol of a growing but increasingly overloaded welfare state.

Crafting Independent ScholarshipParadoxically, the interdisciplinary nature of the work and writingsof Elinor and Vincent Ostrom, as well as their eagerness to incorpo-rate new theoretical and methodological developments that were notalways immediately incorporated into mainstream public adminis-tration and to abandon them if these developments went in a lessproductive direction, contributed to a somewhat distant and attimes strained relationship with American public administration asan institutional eld of teaching and research. Tis type of strainedrelationship would happen again later, albeit somewhat differently,

with the Public Choice Society. In the United States,Te IntellectualCrisis marked the beginning of a period in which the Ostroms were

estranged from large parts of the establishment of the public admin-istration discipline.

Te criticism of the consolidation and amalgamation movement inmetropolitan areas was based on empirical grounds and showed thatpolicy beliefs did not necessarily reect reality. Te research project

was highly visible, at one point comparing 80 metropolitan areas.Te research showed that many presumptions about the economiesof scale and the lack of central coordination were false. Lin: Onthe whole, polycentric arrangements with small, medium, and largedepartmental systems generally outperformed cities that had onlyone or two departments. In many cases, the consolidation reforms

were supported by liberal political forces and by many traditionalpublic administration researchers searching to improve deterioratregions and neighborhoods. Tis gave the no-nonsense researchattitude of the Ostroms an inadvertent but sustained ideologicalundertone. In addition, large parts of the American public adminitration community seemed to takeTe Intellectual Crisis more or lepersonally or ignored it as just another book on the identity crisis

American public administration. Te emergence of a critical publicadministration found its summit in the Minnowbrook Conferenceand in the early 1970s. Te Ostroms, however, had little in com-mon with these movements.

Both Lin and Vincent have always been rather relaxed about, if noindifferent to, this development, although it was one of the reasonsVincent launched himself into an intensive project to elaborate hisvision on the constitutional foundations of the U.S. federal systemrst developed inTe Teory of a Compound Republic (V. Ostrom1991, [1971] 2008). Initially not always appreciated on its own meits, the publication was honored by the American Political Science

Association at the turn of the millennium for its lasting impact onthe study of American federalism and intergovernmental relationsTe Ostroms merely observe that the title of Vincents 1973 contri-

bution to the eld of public administration had to be read properlyas a criticism of American rather than generic, international, or comparative public administrationthat is, critical of the operationalpractice of American government rather than the institutionalizedcommunity of public administration as a discipline. When asked,they still have no strong opinion about public administration otherthan, in the words of Lin, the neglect of the citizen. Tis is a criti-cism that public administration shares with the political science. LOnce while waiting at a meeting of the Political Science AssociatI was asked why I was reading a book on peasants. Political scienc

was about presidents, parties, and Congress.

Te Ostroms (1971) eventually translated their joint venture in theno-name elds of public administration with some highly visiblepublications into the public choice approach to the study of publicadministration, which for a while determined their external prolein the academic world of public administration and policy analysiVincent: You cannot test whole industries and you need theoreti-cally grounded models and analytical simplications for predictioand generalization. Buchanan and ullocksTe Calculus of Conse(1962), one of the cornerstones in the emerging no-name elds,

was important to both Lin and Vincent. For Vincent, it meant therecognition of the importance of the constitutional aspect of colletive choices among different goods. Later, he would speak about tconstitutional level of analysis as a forgotten tradition (V. Ostro

1982), to be included in any framework for institutional analysis.For Lin, the publication laid the foundation for her venture intogame theory experiments in the late 1980s (Ostrom, Gardner, and

Walker 1994) and her later interest in the experimental lab testingof cognitive and behavioral models for conict resolution, socialcooperation, trust, and reciprocity (Ostrom and Walker 2003).

Elinor: A very important event to us was Vincents being invitedparticipate in the Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project during the acdemic year 198182 (Kaufman, Majone, and Ostrom 1986). Tisproject stimulated the future appetite for interdisciplinary work.It also meant a drastic push toward the internationalization of the

8/13/2019 48034635

6/11


work at the workshop. oday, it is hard to imagine how far apart the worlds of public administration and policy analysis still werephys-ically, mentally and culturallyon both sides of the Atlantic in thelate 1970s. According to the Ostroms, the Bielefeld debates betweenVincent and Paul Sabatier on how to do public administrationindirectly had a lasting inuence on their work. Tis contact wasbased on mutual respect and connected the PSI approach to anothergrowing body of literature and research at the operational level ofgovernment and public administration under the heading ofbot-tom up and top downimplementation (Sabatier 1986). TeBielefeld project thus directly and indirectly linked the Ostroms tohitherto largely unfamiliar European networks of institutional re-search and scholars involved in bottom-up implementation research.Tese scholars were struggling with some of the same questions andsometimes meeting the same institutional and academic resistancethat the Ostroms had encountered in studying the shop oor ofgovernment and public administration (Hanf and oonen 1985)

Lin was only there for part of the time, but she did get to meet thelater Nobel laureate Reinhart Selten. He invited her back and, uponreturning to Europe, Lin ended up taking classes in math and theuse of experimental methods of empirical research in relation to

game theory. Tis strengthened the methodological foundation ofmuch of the advanced experimental and gametheoretical lab testing and modeling that oc-curred later. At the time, she had already start-ed her research on common pool resources.She had already used game theorywith theprisoners dilemma game as the iconand,as a dedicated member of the Public ChoiceSociety, she was, of course, familiar withMancur Olsons highly inuentialLogic ofCollective Action (1965) and Garrett Hardins ragedy of the Commons (1968). Te latterhas come to be regarded as a classic essay onenvironmental and nature conservation policy(Kennedy 2003).

Given certain conditions, the prisonersdilemma would predict a perverse outcomeof joint decision-making efforts. Olsons logicled to the prediction of inaction unless force, external sanctions, orselective incentives were introduced. Hardin drew attention to thetragedy of the commons: the natural resources that belong to every-one and consequently to no one. Common pool resources are acces-sible to many users. Te valuable yields can be harvested at marginalrather than actual personal costs. Te demand exceeds the supply.

Overtaxing and overusing would ruin and undermine those naturalresources considered to belong to the common poolair, clean water, forests, the marine sh stock, inland lakes, irrigation systems,grasslands, natural reserves, wetlands, marine environments, riverbasins, and so on.

Lin: Olson, PDG, the ragedy, they all said it could not work,but from my work with the CPR community I saw many cases andpractical examples in which it did work. I saw self-organization in allparts of the world. Some researchers, for example Putnam (1993),point at social capital but do not use or provide a theory on howtrust and reciprocity develops. Hardin can be tested. We confronted

the assumptions with survey research in the eld and experimentsin the lab. I got interested in the underlying rules, conditions, anddesign principles that induced self-organization in managing naturcommon property resources and how theyevolved in interactionto one another. In order to study all of this, we had to deal with amaddening diversity. Vincent, who had worked with Ross Ashby athe Palo Alto Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Scienin California where Vincent was an invited fellow in 1955, was covinced about the need for requisite variety. Trough Vincent I hadbecome acquainted with the work of de ocqueville, which helpedin understanding the need to confront complexity in social organiztion. It was mind-boggling. At one point Doug North invited meto Harvard. After the lecture he suggested I put my ideas on CPRmanagement together in a book. In short, this resulted inGoverninthe Commons, my rst effort to make a beginning. It went totallyagainst the Public Choice doctrine to keep it elegant and simple. Wbecame devoted to understanding institutional diversity and allowfor complexity where needed (Ashby 1956, 1962).

Institutional Variety: No PanaceasTe effort to understand institutional diversity amounted to theextended formulation of an elaborate approach: the institutional

analysis and development (AID) framework (E. Ostrom 2005). Tiframework for analyzing and formulatingdesign principles for robust resource governance in polycentric institutions builds furtheon earlier efforts. It is a conceptually strongelaborated, researched, and empiricallygrounded extension of the early effort withLarry Kiser to integrate various disciplinaryapproaches into the three worlds of action, adescribed in the publication of the same nam(Kiser and Ostrom 1982): operational, colletive choice, and constitutional action. Tesecoexist as holons, nested systems that aresystems in themselves but, at the same timesubsystems of larger systems without whichthey could not survive, and vice versa. Tecentral topics of long-term Ostrom researchreturn at various entries in the AID frame-

work. For example, the insight that govern-ance structures are related to physical circumstance is stressed in need to pay attention to the physical nature of goods. Te centralrole of citizens as coproducers of policy is translated into attributeof the relevant community and their institutional rules in useju-risprudence rather than bureaucratic legislationwhen communities themselves try to solve problems related to their environment

More practical and applied publications stress potential policyconsequences in dealing with the tragedy of the commons, and coclusions are mixed. Te depletion of natural resources and commonpool resources is not an unavoidable mechanical process. Tere isroom to develop a view and to create choices. Te humanenvironment interaction, which is part of the commons problem, is opento reection and deliberation and can be inuenced and changed.o a certain extent, the future of the commons is makeable, and

the structure of how decision making is organized plays a crucialand strategic role. Te result is often not the tragedy described byHardin but what McCay . . . has described as a comedya dram

Te effort to understandinstitutional diversity amounted

to the extended formulationof an elaborate approach:

the institutional analysis anddevelopment (AID) framework.

. . . Tis framework foranalyzing and formulating

design principles for robustresource governance inpolycentric institutions builds

further on earlier efforts.

8/13/2019 48034635

7/11


for certain, but one with a happy ending. Tree decades of empiri-cal research have revealed many rich and complicated histories ofcommons management. Sometimes these histories tell of Hardinstragedy. Sometimes the outcome is more like McCays comedy.Often the results are somewhere in between, lled with ambiguity.But drama is always there (Dietz et al. 2002, 34).

Socio-Ecological SystemsElinor, in collaboration with many others, more recently developedthe Ostroms joint interest in the human capacity, willingness, andcapability for self-organization into a general framework of analyz-ing the sustainability of socio-ecological systems (SES). Without aframework to organize relevant variables identied in theories andempirical research, isolated knowledge acquired from studies ofdiverse resource systems in different countries by bio-physical andsocial scientists is not likely to accumulate. A framework is thus use-ful in providing a common set of potentially relevant variables andtheir subcomponents to use in the design of data collection instru-ments, the conduct of eldwork, and the analysis of ndings aboutthe sustainability of complex SESs (E. Ostrom 2009, 420).

Te SES framework is certainly not the rst one that Lin crafted

and developed in her academic career. o put it differently, like theresearch on common pool resources, the SES framework is basedon the experience, ndings and conclusions of a lifetime career oftheory-driven but radically empirical research, not only in the en-vironmental domain. Te SES framework is intended to contributeto the integrated study of the interplay of ecological, technological,social, economic, and political factors as strategic components ofmodern, globally perceived ecosystems. Te general SES frameworkis an application of the AID framework with a more prominentplace for the ecologists. Te question is when the users of a resource

will invest time and energy to avert a tragedy of the commons. Tegeneral framework is to identify 10 subsystem variables that affectthe likelihood of self-organization in efforts to achieve sustainablesocio-ecological systems (Anderies, Janssen, and Ostrom, 2004).

Te SES framework reects the long-term and fundamentally inter-disciplinary orientation of the Ostroms. Te actions of people arenot external, but are endogenous to the development of ecosystems.It is the mutual interaction between person and environment thatcontributes to the exhaustion or preservation of natural resources.Te social embeddedness of natural and articialtechnologicalresource systems is key to the understanding of their operation andimpact on earth system development and governance. Socio-eco-logical systems are conceived by the Ostroms as compound, nested,and multilayered structures of man-made and natural resources and

resource systems. Te interaction of those resource systems withmans behavior as subjects, users, and governors of these systemsand resources, as well as the sanctions and incentives embedded inthe governance systems that rule and regulate these interactions,determine, in a strongly contingent and contextual fashion, theoutcome in terms of exhaustion, preservation, or resilience. Gover-nance systems in the SES framework are typically conceived of asnetworks of governmental and nongovernmental organizations andrelated associations (Janssen and Ostrom 2006). A core challenge indiagnosing why some SESs are sustainable whereas others collapse isthe identication and analysis of relationships among multiple levelsof these complex systems at different spatial and temporal scales.

Understanding a complex whole requires knowledge about specivariables and how their component parts are related. Tus we mustlearn how to dissect and harness complexity rather than eliminatefrom such systems (E. Ostrom 2009, 420).

Tis introduction to her contribution to the special section ofPushing Networks to the Limit in the summer 2009 issue ofScience neatly sums up the scientic topics and analytical concerns that hbeen central to her work since she got her start on the faculty atIndiana University in 1965 as a visiting assistant professor, teachi

American government at 7:30 in the morning on uesday, Turs-day, and Saturday. For those long acquainted with the Ostroms

work, research, and intellectual development, the echo and imprinof Vincents consolidated message and repeated mantras for doinginstitutional research and for the applied policy consequences southrough loud and clear.

Research as a Collaborative EnterpriseFor Elinor Ostrom, self-governance is not something only to be ademically preached. She practices academic governance in her daenvironment. She has established and codirected various advancegraduate training and research institutions. At various points in

time, she has been chair and acting chair of her Indiana Universitypolitical science faculty. Since 1982, she has served on the executcouncil of the Public Choice Society; as president (198284), sheset out An Agenda for the Study of Institutions (1986). She wasvice president of the American Political Science Association (APfrom 1975 to 1976, president of the Midwest Political Science Association from 1982 to 1984, and president of APSA from 1996 to1997. Many of these appointments have to be interpreted as tokenof appreciation for and recognition of her standing in the respectivacademic communities. Her impact in traditional public adminis-tration and political science is still considerable, as shown, for exaple, by the European debate on multilevel governance. Yet chanceare that the current, younger generation of academic researchers ascholars around the world will directly or indirectly associate ElinOstrom with a different background. Te International Associationfor the Study of Common Property was founded in 1989. Elinor

was president in 199091 and has been a caring and active membever since. Te association is devoted to bringing together interdiscplinary researchers, practitioners, and policy makers for the purpoof fostering a better understanding, improvements, and sustainablsolutions for environmental, electronic, and any other type of sharesource that is a commons or a common pool resource. In additioto her traditional elds, Elinor Ostrom has become a visible sociascience scholar in the area of environmental sciences, biology, anlife and earth sciences.

o Elinor and Vincent Ostrom, research is not an individual enter-prise but a collaborative industry. It is remarkable to see that suchan immensely productive, renowned, and internationally acclaimeresearcher as Elinor Ostrom has not shied away from administra-tive duties during her long career. Nor did she shy away from theprofessional executive responsibilities that come with success inacademia. She joined Vincent in taking responsibility for build-ing up and governing a research network and infrastructure with astrong and stimulating intellectual climate at the workshop from

which many of her associates, collaborators, visitors, and graduatstudents would benet. Te workshop is a long-term model for

8/13/2019 48034635

8/11


a contemporary, interdisciplinary graduate school. When askedabout the key to her success, Lin rst points to the workshop asan important tool and infrastructure that she could not have done

without. It also kept her in Indiana despite attractive offers fromHarvard and other renowned research centers. Te infrastructurehere is so important to everything I want to do. I just couldnt walkaway from it, she publicly conded to a relieved Indiana Universityoffi cial some time ago (IU 2002, 10). In addition to a game lab andsecretarial and modern documentation facilities, it is particularly thesocial network infrastructure of researchers and graduate studentsshe is referring to. Te workshop has developed into something of avalue-based institution itself.

Te creation of the workshop in 1973 was not merely a coincidenceor an outgrowth or by-product of a fruitful research enterprise.Lin: We have always strongly believed in interdisciplinary andcooperative networks and person-to-person interaction in craftingand in conducting training, research, and education in an inte-grated fashion. She refers to an early statement of Vincents, oneto which Vincent still strongly adheres. It is in the same editorialcomment he made as editor-in-chief ofPAR when referencing theno-name elds of public administration. Long before the concepts

of a knowledge economy, a knowledge-based society, or a knowledgedemocracy were to become part and parcel of the common languagein contemporary research and development and higher educationdevelopment, Vincent wrote, Knowledge is [to be] viewed as aproduct, and the various agencies concerned with its productionand distribution are viewed as a part of the knowledge industry. . . which includes such components as education, research anddevelopment, media of communication, information machines, andinformation services. Tis approach permits a new mode of attackupon familiar problems of public management and intergovernmen-tal relations and promises to contribute to a better understandingboth of the American public enterprise system and the opportuni-ties for public entrepreneurship in American society . . . [ ]he taskof keeping in touch with new developmentsin established elds of inquiry or in unnamedelds which have not coalesced suffi ciently tobe identied as distinct areas of inquiry andintellectual interest is perhaps one of the morediffi cult problems confronting a professionalassociation concerned with the productionand distribution of knowledge relevant to itspractice (V. Ostrom 1964, 62). It was hisrationale for extending the editorial board ofPAR at the time with new editorial associates.But it also provided the basic idea behind

setting up the workshop as a collaborativeresearch infrastructure and community oncethe occasion arose.

In the course of the 1990s, the workshop grew into a globalizedmeeting place of people from many different disciplineseconom-ics, political science, law, environmental policy, anthropology,psychology, public administration, methodology, and even fromacross the great divide between natural and social sciencesandfrom literally all regions of the world (Jagger 2004). Vincent had abackground as a high school teacher. In Lin, he found a willing andable ally to stress the critical importance of teaching. Asking what

the problem is became a basic orientation of the workshop. Lincontinues, We have never been mainstream in our attention. Nowthere is gradually more acceptance of interdisciplinary research. Wdeveloped our own pedagogical methodology to accompany themission of research. A civic education: how do we teach studentsnot to dismiss publications from other disciplines? Weve come touse mini-conferences as a tool to bridge variety. First present the psition and understanding of the other, then reect and criticize. Whave always invested in close feedback, in writing papers, writingresponses, relating papers to the main theme of a seminar, stressinthe importance of student memos, and encouraging students to becontributors. Over time we have had excellent students. We havebeneted a lot from them.

ConclusionIn addition to the common pool resource and socio-ecologicalsystem approaches to the study of environmental policy and adaptive governance in climate adaptation, the concept of polycentricihas found its way into European urban studies and spatial plannintheory (Faludi 2008; Herrschel and Newman 2002; Metrex 2007)Te ype 1 and ype 2 versions of European multilevel governancedistinguished by Lisbet Hooghe and Gary Marks (2003) acknowl

edge and are directly derived from the two traditions that Elinorand Vincent Ostrom once distinguished in their behavioral ap-proach to the study of intergovernmental relations. If, in the mod-ern European context, the Westphalian understanding of regionalor local autonomy is either no longer valid or of limited operationmeaning in an emerging polycentric order without an overarchinsource of jurisdictional authority (Skelcher 2005, 95), the PSI andemocratic government approach and the debates it triggered in thUnited States on metropolitan and intergovernmental systems maagement are highly relevant. Tey are most likely a fruitful source inspiration and comparative modeling in an obvious and importaneld of transatlantic comparative research in a steadily globalizinpublic administration ( oonen, forthcoming).

ogether with other work by Lin and Vincendating from that time, Te Intellectual Crisis may be seen as a trailblazer for the later governance turn in European public administra-tion. Te Ostroms would actively contributeto this development, which took shape inthe course of the 1980s. On the waves of anemerging European integration in the 1990sin which the former sovereign and monopo-listic nation-state was being replaced as thedominant administrative structure to pave

the way for a more European-wide adminis-trative space, the governance concept surfedto a broad and increasingly undifferentiated

network approach. In its broadness and procedural orientation, thnetwork approach in its current fashion has probably become toogenericif not too postmodernfor the Ostroms to handle. Tedevelopment as such makes it relatively easy to relate, incorporatand adopt their joint work on nonmarket or nongovernmental selfgovernance and common pool resource management into the coreof European public administration studies and policy scienceseier perhaps than in the more managerial U.S. setting. But from the

work it also follows that public and constitutional law, the questio

ogether with other work by[the Ostroms] dating from

that time, Te Intellectual Crisis may be seen as a trailblazer

for the later governanceturn in European public

administration. Te Ostroms would actively contribute to thisdevelopment, which took shape

in the course of the 1980s.

8/13/2019 48034635

9/11


of legitimacy and checks and balances, and rule-ordered relation-ships should not be too easily dismissed or neglected. And last butnot least, they would say, bring the citizen back in as an agent ofreform and transformation.

Under the impact of the debate on globalization, global warm-ing, the energy crisis, and climate change, various disciplines arecurrently blending together in a distinct movement toward theemergence of something like a climate or earth governance sci-ence, in which the eld of public administration is still frightfullyabsent in many respects. Tis leaves the current debate wide opento the governance ideas of natural scientists, biologists, meteorolo-gists, engineers, economists, environmental policy scientists, or theestablished international politics and international law specialists,

who are most likely to turn out a rather technical, process-oriented,and instrumental version that omits the hardware of governmentallegitimization: the institutional side of governance. Elinor Ostromis one of the few high-prole, interdisciplinary social scientists par-ticipating in this domain. Although not a self-perceived public ad-ministration agent, she has clearly been working from an academicbackground and intellectual tradition that, particularly through herlong-term collaboration with Vincent Ostrom, is strongly rooted in

the classical institutional concerns and types of organization, policy,governance, and (public) management questions that may be seen asthe core of public administration as an academic eld of educationand research. Te Ostroms work provides the eld of public admin-istration with various clues on how to effectively tie institutional,value-based concerns and democratic considerations to the study ofthe major concerns of todays globalized world. Indeed, the natural,ecological, technological, and social sciences have developed inde-pendently and do not combine easily (E. Ostrom 2009, 419). Inthe tradition of exploring Vincent Ostroms no-name elds of publicadministration, it is only logical that Elinor Ostrom has set a power-ful example of how to go beyond panaceas (Ostrom, Janssen, and

Anderies 2007)in academia and research.

AcknowledgmentsFor a large part of 1984, I was an invited fellow at the Workshopof Political Teory and Policy Analysis. As a distant, benevolentEuropean observer, I have been a longtime personal witness ofand participant in the professional activities of Vincent and ElinorOstrom, as well as a willing recipient of the inspiration and dis-course generated by the intellectual spin-off of their vast scienticoeuvre and academic institution building. For this review, I hadtwo lengthy interviews with Elinor and Vincent Ostrom at theirhome on the outskirts of Bloomington, Indiana, in the summer of2008 and one follow-up conversation with Elinor in Stockholm in

the spring of 2009. Te excellent staff of the workshop providedbiographies and background readings. Subsequently, I reread variousbooks, texts, and articles by and about a long-term collaborative andvery productive research duo. Te Nobel Prize Committee in 2009took all of us by surprise, but this merely required a few editorialadaptations of a text that was nearly completed. Te Ostrom storyalready stood by and of itself.

References Anderies, John M., Marco A. Janssen, and Elinor Ostrom. 2004. A

Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-Ecological Systemsfrom an Institutional Perspective.Ecology and Society 9(1). http://

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/ [accessed November 19,2009].

Ashby, Ross W. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.. 1962. Principles of the Self-Organizing System. InPrinciples

of Self-Organization, edited by Heinz von Foerster and George W.Zopf, 25578. New York: Macmillan.

Bain, Joe S. 1959.Industrial Organization. New York: Wiley.Bish, Robert L., and Vincent Ostrom. 1973. Understanding Urban

Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Buchanan, James M., and Gordon ullock. 1962. Te Calculus of Con-sent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Dietz, Tomas, Nives Dolsak, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2002.Te Drama of the Commons. In Te Drama of the Commons, editedby Elinor Ostrom, Tomas Dietz, Nives Dolsak, Paul C. Stern, Su-san Stovich, and Elke U. Weber, 335. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.Dietz, Tomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2003. Te Struggle to

Govern the Commons. Science 302: 190712.Faludi, Andreas, ed. 2008.European Spatial Research and Planning. Cam-

bridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Finch, Jackie Shekler, and Paul Goodman. 2007. Master Woodworker:Still learning, Loving Life.Homes and Lifestyles of South-CentralIndiana, Winter, 8285.

Hanf, Kenneth, and Teo A. J. oonen. 1985. Policy Implementation inFederal and Unitary Systems. Boston: Martin Nijhoff.

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. Te ragedy of the Commons. Science 162:124348.

Herrschel, assilio, and Peter Newman. 2002.Governance of Europes CityRegions: Planning, Policy and Politics. New York: Routledge.

Hooghe, Lisbet, and Gary Marks. 2003. Unraveling the Central State,but How? ypes of Multilevel Governance. American Political ScienceReview 97(2): 23343.

Indiana University (IU). 2002. Research and Creative Activity 25(1): 9. Jagger, Pamela. 2004. Artisans of Political Teory and Empirical Inquiry;

Tirty Years of Scholarship at the Workshop in Political Teory andPolicy Analysis. http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/publications/materials/workshop_history.pdf [accessed November 19, 2009].

Janssen, Marco, and Elinor Ostrom. 2006. Governing Social-Ecologi-cal Systems. InHandbook of Computational Economics: Agent-BasedComputational Economic, vol. 2, edited by Leigh esfatsion andKenneth L. Judd, 14651509. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver, Giandomenico Majone, and Vincent Ostrom,eds. 1986. Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector: TeBielefeld Interdisciplinary Project. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Kennedy, Donald. 2003. Sustainability and the Commons. Science 302:

1861.Kiser, Larry L., and Elinor Ostrom. 1982. Te Tree Worlds of Action:

A Metatheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches. InStrategiesof Political Inquiry, edited by Elinor Ostrom, 179222. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publications.

Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. 2006. Public Management: Old and New. New York: Routledge.

Metrex. 2007. Framework: Polycentricity and Better European erritorialBalance, Network of European Metropolitan Regions and Areas.http://www.eurometrex.org [accessed November 19, 2009].

Olson, Mancur. 1965. Te Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

8/13/2019 48034635

10/11


Ostrom, Elinor. 1972. Metropolitan Reform: Propositions Derived from wo raditions. Social Science Quarterly 53(4): 47493.. 1976. Size and Performance in a Federal System.Publius: Te Journal of Federalism 6(2): 3373.. 1977. Why Do We Need Multiple Indicators of Public Service Outputs? In National Conference on Nonmetropolitan Community Services Report, 27786.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Offi ce.. 1986. An Agenda for the Study of Institutions.Public Choice 48(1): 325.. 1990. Governing the Commons: Te Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.. 2007. A Diagnostic Approach for Going beyond Panaceas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 1518187.. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.Science 325: 41922.Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, and James Walker. 1994. Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Ostrom, Elinor, Marco A. Janssen, and John M. Anderies. 2007. Going Beyond Panaceas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 1517678.Ostrom, Elinor, and Harini Nagendra. 2006. Insights on Linking Forests, rees, and People from the Air, on the Ground, and in the Laboratory.Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 103(51): 1922431.Ostrom, Elinor, Roger B. Parks, and Gordon P. Whitaker. 1974. Dening and Measuring Structural Variations in Interorganizational Arrangements .Publius: Te

Journal of Federalism 4(4): 87108.Ostrom, Elinor, and James Walker. 2003. rust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Ostrom, Vincent. 1964. Editorial Comment: Developments in the No-Name Fields of Public Administration.Public Administration Review 24(1): 6263.. 1967. Water and Politics: California Style. Arts and Architecture 84(32): 1416.. 1972. Polycentricity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 59, Washington, DC. [Later

published as Polycentricity (part 1) and Polycentricity (part 2). InPolycentricity and Local Public Economies; Readings for the Workshop in Political Teory andPolicy Analysis, edited by Michael McGinnis, 5274, 119-139. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.]

. 1982. A Forgotten radition: the Constitutional Level of Analyses. In Missing Elements in Political Inquiry: Logic and Levels of Analysis, edited by Judith A.

Gillespie and Dina A. Zinnes, 23752. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.. 1991. Te Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self-Governing Society. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.. [1973] 2008a. Te Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. 3rd ed. uscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.. [1971] 2008b. Te Political Teory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Ostrom, Vincent, and Elinor Ostrom. 1965. A Behavioral Approach to the Study of Intergovernmental Relations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 359: 13746.. 1971. Public Choice: A Different Approach to the Study of Public Administration.Public Administration Review 31(2): 20316.. 1977. Public Goods and Public Choices. In Alternatives for Delivering Public Services; owards Improved Performance, edited by E. S. Savas, 749. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.Ostrom, Vincent, Charles M. iebout, and Robert Warren. 1961. Te Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Teoretical Inquiry. American Politi-

cal Science Review 55(4): 83142.Parks, Roger B. 1985. Metropolitan Structure and Systemic Performance: the Case of Police Service Delivery. InPolicy Implementation in Federal and Unitary

Systems, edited by Kenneth Hanf and Teo A. J. oonen, 16191. Boston: Martin Nijhoff.Parks, Roger B., et al. 1981. Consumers as Coproducers of Public Services: Some Economical and Institutional Considerations.Policy Studies Journal 9(7):

100111.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 2006. Prole of Elinor Ostrom as a Recently Elected Member of the National Academy of Sciences.

103(51): 19221.Putnam, Robert D., with Robert Leonardi and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic raditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Sabatier, Paul A. 1986. What Can We Learn from Implementation Research? InGuidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector: Te Bielefeld Interdisciplin-

ary Project, edited by Franz-Xaver Kaufmann, Giandomenico Majone, and Vincent Ostrom, 31327. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Skelcher, Chris. 2005. Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administra-

tion, and Institutions 18(1): 94104.aagepera, Rein. 2008. Making Social Sciences More Scientic: Te Need for Predictive Models. New York: Oxford University Press.oonen, Teo A. J. 1983. Administrative Plurality in a Unitary State: Te Analysis of Public Organisati onal Pluralism. Policy and Politics 11(3): 24771.

. 1988. Monocentrisme, polycentrisme en de economie van het openbaar bestuur; Het werk van Vincent Ostrom. [Monocentricity, polycentricity and theeconomy of public administration; Te work of Vincent Ostrom]. In Bestuurskunde: Hoofdguren en kernthemas [Public administration: Leading gures andcore themes], edited by A. F. A. Korsten and Teo A. J. oonen, 10526. Leiden: Stenfert Kroese.

. 1998. Networks, Management and Institutions: Public Administration as Normal Science.Public Administration 76(2): 22952.. Forthcoming. Multi-Level Governance (MLG) and Intergovernmental Relations (IGR): Integrating the Teoretical Perspectives. InGovernance and

Intergovernmental Relations in the European Union and the United States: Teoretical Perspectives, edited by Edoardo Ongaro, Andrew Massey, Marc Holzer, andEllen Wayenberg. New York: Routledge.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1979.Speaking ruth o Power; Te Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.

8/13/2019 48034635

11/11

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

48034635