POLITICAL SCIENCE Y673:

INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND CHANGING ORDERS

 

SYLLABUS

 

Section # 13673

 

Tun Myint

 

Tuesday, 3:30-5:30 p.m.

Spring Semester 2007

 

Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Seminar Room)

513 North Park Avenue

 

 

Contact Information:

Tun Myint, 513 N. Park (Park 1), 855-0441, tmyint@indiana.edu

Gayle Higgins, Course Secretary, 855-0441, ghiggins@indiana.edu.

Office Hours: Tuesday, 12:00-2:00 p.m., and by appointment

 

 

Preface

 

 

The study of changing human orders is fundamentally concerned with the investigation of the changes of human beliefs, behaviors, choices, cultures, knowledge, rules, values, and ecological exigencies that govern human interactions. As we entered the twenty-first century, institutional orders worldwide were in rapid transformation. In all layers of human governanceglobal, transnational, international, national, subnational, local, neighborhood, and householdthe ways in which human individuals and groups interact and organize governance processes are changing over time. As societies strive to reconstitute changing orders over time, both analysts and practitioners struggle to understand driving forces and the dynamics of societal changes. This course aims at probing causes and consequences of changing human orders from the institutional dimensions.

 

The fundamental question this course addresses is: how do institutional entrepreneurs shape the dynamics of human interactions, and how do they influence changing orders of human societies?  In probing answers for this question, a substantial focus will be on the role of institutional entrepreneurship, which is understood in this course as the art and science of understanding and conducting human interactions.

 

In search of the answer for the fundamental question of this course, we will explore ideas and motivation that lead individuals to be institutional entrepreneurs who create and make their own choices, and whose actions have transformative consequences on human orders. Institutional entrepreneurs know how to mobilize required resources and when to enact new ideas into actions. As such, we will closely examine theories and practices that enlighten our understanding of how the processes of enacting ideas and motivation of individuals and groups into actions influenced human orders. The central question stated above will be followed by several nonexclusive questions such as: How do entrepreneurs emerge and how do their ideas and actions influence institutional dynamics in maintaining human orders?  What are the sources of their influence in changing societies? How do social structures hinder or induce entrepreneurship activities? How do we understand the state of the art and science of human interactions? How might students of institutional analysis contribute to the advancement of analytical frameworks, methods, research designs, theories, and models of the complexity, dynamics, and changes of human orders?   

 

While we may not be able to answer all of these questions, we will at least achieve fundamental understanding of: (1) how entrepreneurial-minded individuals and groups influence societal changes, and (2) how analysts have been struggling to understand the phenomenon of changing orders. As such, students will be acquainted with the cases and literatures addressing institutional entrepreneurship and societal changes that have transformative consequences on orders of human societies. This course will closely investigate theoretical interpretations and empirical evidences of the dynamics of institutional entrepreneurship and changing orders. In sum, the participants in the course will learn multiple frameworks, methods, research designs, theories, and models that attempt to explain and predict human orders. The course is organized into the following topics.

 

Orders and Disorders in Changing Societies

 

Week 1: Jan. 9             Introduction to the Course:  Institutional Analysis with Multiple Frameworks and Methods

 

Week 2: Jan. 16           Diversity of Orders

 

Week 3: Jan. 23           Institutional Diversity and Changing Orders

 

Entrepreneurship and Societal Changes

 

Week 4: Jan. 30           Epistemic and Ontological Foundations of Institutional Entrepreneurship

 

Week 5: Feb. 6            Cultural and Value Foundations of Entrepreneurship

 

Week 6: Feb. 13          Entrepreneurship and Institutional Changes

 

Social Capitals and Entrepreneurship

 

Week 7: Feb. 20          Social Capitals and Entrepreneurs in Static Societies

           

Week 8: Feb. 27          Social Capitals and Entrepreneurs in Dynamic Societies

 

Week 9: Mar. 6            Dynamics of Social Capital and Societal Changes

                                    [Mini-Conference Proposals/Abstracts Due]

 

Governance Reforms

 

Week 10: Mar. 20        Struggle for Constitutional Choice

 

Week 11: Mar. 27        Equity Jurisprudence

 

Week 12: Apr. 3          Challenges of Governance Reforms

 

The Art and Science of Human Interactions

 

Week 13: Apr. 10        Self-Governance and Entrepreneurship

                                    [Mini-Conference Papers Due]

 

Week 14: Apr. 17        Dynamics of Ideas, Individuals, and Institutions

 

Week 15: Apr. 24        Coevolution of Markets, Social Institutions, and Citizens

 

 

Two-Semester Sequence in

Institutional Analysis and Development

 

As the analytical perspective of institutional analysis frames the discussion of the issues, the course will be drawing upon the analytic tools developed in the fall semester. This course is a part of a two-semester sequence on Institutional Analysis and Development that has been taught each year by Workshop-affiliated scholars for more than two decades. Typically, these two courses have been divided by levels of analysis, with micro-level covered one semester and macro-level the other. A slight departure was introduced four years ago. The fall semester’s course introduced students to the overall methodological approach of institutional analysis, including micro and macro, and especially cross-level analyses. This semester’s course will cover diverse frameworks and methodologies in conducting institutional analysis.

 

Students may take either of the two-semester Institutional Analysis and Development sequence for credit. However, students taking the spring semester course who have not completed the fall semester version should have sufficient background in relevant material in political science, public policy, anthropology, economics, law, or related fields. The readings listed in the required and supplementary sections are inconclusive. There will be other works introduced, especially by our guest speakers. In addition, students and other participants will have to pursue those literatures of most direct interest to their own research projects. Please contact the instructor if you have any questions about additional readings.

 

 

Rules and Expectations

 

The course is designed in the Workshop style. It can be a fairly large group, including post-doctoral fellows, visiting scholars, and other faculty members, in addition to the usual arrangement of instructor and graduate students. However, be assured that students will be provided plenty of opportunities to participate. For exactly this reason, students enrolled for credit will be asked to comment upon the assigned readings in biweekly memos. Be warned that the instructor uses these memos to help organize the day’s discussion, and that authors of these memos should come to class fully prepared to discuss the topics raised in the memos.

 

Memos. Students will be asked to submit memos commenting on some important aspect of that week’s readings or on other issues of basic concern (including exploring ideas for their research papers.) Please do not summarize the readings. Instead, move directly to making some observation, raising important points, and asking questions worthy of further discussion in class. Students are encouraged to keep their comments in these memos brief and to the point. It has been our experience that weekly memos greatly enhance the quality of class discussions by giving students an opportunity to articulate their responses. These memos must be completed and distributed by no later than Sunday evenings. The class will be divided into two groups. Students within each group will write a memo every other week.

 

Discussion. Discussions are ways of fine tuning raw ideas, sharpening insightful questions, clarifying concepts, contesting theories, and exercising artisanship of learning community. Students are expected to participate actively in the class discussion. What this requires is advanced preparation with readings and reflection on your diverse personal experiences. All inquiries, contestations, and points of views made in class are taken seriously and respectfully.

 

Mini-Conference Paper. Each student (and other seminar participants) will complete an original research paper for presentation at a Mini-Conference to be held on April 29 and May 1. The Mini-Conference is always organized in a rather unconventional way but has proven to be very rewarding to participants: someone other than the author is assigned to present and comment on each paper. The author is given an opportunity to respond to the comments and the remainder of the time is then used for general discussion of that paper and the more general issues it may raise. All comments and criticisms are expected to be constructive, and each author should be concerned about how to revise and improve the quality of her or his paper after the seminar ends, with the goal of moving the work to publication. The Mini-Conference is a way of learning to participate in an intellectual community and coming to appreciate the general coherence of intellectual discourse. To view past Mini-conference agenda and selected papers, go to: http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/seminar.html. Since a copy of each paper will be placed on the Workshop’s website and made available to Mini-Conference participants (only), papers must be completed well in advance. We give students two options:

 

The due date for Mini-Conference papers is April 10. A file copy of your paper should be sent by email to Gayle Higgins (ghiggins@indiana.edu). If your paper is turned in by the due date, then the Workshop will pay for any photocopying costs.

 

If you need an extra week, we will extend the due date to April 17. A file copy of your paper should be sent by email to Gayle Higgins. You will also need to submit, at your expense, a required number of copies by class time on April 24.

 

Students will be required to submit long abstracts or brief status reports on their Mini-Conference papers on March 6. This is absolute deadline for paper topics and abstracts so that we can effectively organize the mini-conference agenda.

 

The following required texts are ordered for the class at IU Bookstore and TIS Bookstore. These texts will serve as guiding materials for the course. However, several journal articles and investigative news media reports relating to the topic of the course are assigned for each week readings. Students are advised to read supplementary materials and to pursue other materials relevant to their own research and to the Mini-conference paper for the course.

 

 

Required Texts

 

Bstan-’dzin-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Lama XIV. 2005. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. New York: Morgan Road Books. [This book is available at the Borders Bookstore]

 

Hobbes, Thomas. [1651] 1982. Leviathan. Ed. with intro by C. B. Macpherson. New York: Penguin Classics.

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 

Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1942] 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. HarperPerennial.

 

 

Supplementary Texts

 

Allen, Barbara, and Donald Lutz. 2006. “The Alaska Constitution: Realizing the Theory of a Compound Republic.” Prepared for the Conference on Vincent Ostrom: The Quest to Understand Human Affairs, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, May 31-June 3. (See paper on conference website at http://www.indiana.edu/~voconf/papers/allen_voconf.pdf.)

 

Farjoun, Emmanuel, and Moshé Machover. 1983. Laws of Chaos: A Probabilistic Approach to Political Economy. London: Verso Edition, Thetford Press. Free Online text at http://iwright.googlepages.com/probabilisticpoliticaleconomy.

 

Houseknecht, Sharon K., and Jerry G. Pankhurst, ed. 2000. Family, Religion, and Social Change in Diverse Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

 

Murmann, Johann Peter. 2003. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Ostrom, Vincent. [1971] Forthcoming 2007. The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment. 3rd rev. ed. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

 

Sabetti, Filippo. 2006. “A Quiet Revolution: Rethinking the Foundations of Human Society.” Prepared for the Conference on Vincent Ostrom: The Quest to Understand Human Affairs, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, May 31-June 3. (See paper on conference website at http://www.indiana.edu/~voconf/papers/sabetti_voconf.pdf.)

 

Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Sproule-Jones, Mark. 2006. “Public Administration: An Intellectual Crisis or a New Direction?” Prepared for the Conference on Vincent Ostrom: The Quest to Understand Human Affairs, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, May 31-June 3. (See paper on conference website at http://www.indiana.edu/~voconf/papers/sproule-jones_voconf.pdf.)

 

Swedberg, Richard. 2005. Interest. Open University Press.

 

Swedberg, Richard, ed. 2000. Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1835–40] 2000. Democracy in America. Bantam Classics.

 

Young, H. Peyton. 1998. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

 

 

Course Description

 

 

Orders and Disorders in Changing Societies

 

 

Week 1: January 9                Introduction to the Course: Institutional Analysis with Multiple Frameworks and Methods

 

Understanding changing phenomena of human orders is a major challenge for social scientists. In order to understand changing phenomena of human orders, it is crucial to understand the nature and origins of diverse institutions and their dynamics. What is appealing about the study of institutions and institutional dynamic?  It is appealing for at least three reasons we know: (1) that human beings can finds ways to overcome social dilemmas, such as the “tragedy of the commons” problems and free-rider problems; (2) that peace and harmony of diverse patterns of human interactions can only be maintained through rule-based relationships; (3) that the age of anthropocene demands fundamental understanding of the impact of human interactions on nonhuman systems or coevolution between human institutions and the environment. The remarkable amount of time, energy, and resources devoted to understanding the nature, origins, and functions of institutions in relatively recent time is evidence that the study of institutions and institutional dynamics is a worthwhile endeavor.

 

As we consider institutional dimensions of human orders as the focus of this course, we need to understand how institutions structure human interactions and how those structures change over time due to the changes in human behaviors and choices. When we go to a grocery store, we make multiple choices among different prices, types, and brands of soap, shampoo, toothbrush, and any other item you can imagine to purchase. We make our own choices within our individual calculus of choice. Similarly, people make various types of choices every day to fulfill their needs and desires. Some choices are for short term such as purchasing a toothbrush, some are for medium term such as choosing a political candidate, some are for long term such as choosing a major to study or a partner in life. All of these choices have transformative consequences to our living. What governs the architectures of these choices is fundamental for entrepreneurs who consider these structures of human interactions as a type of resources for his or her own entrepreneurial activities. Thereby, they influence and change these structures of human interaction by using them for their own entrepreneurship activities. The changes in structures of human interactions are fundamental sources of changing phenomena of human orders.

 

Essential readings for Week 1:

 

Syllabus

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 1: An Outline of the Process of Economic Change, pp. 1–8

            Chapter 2: Uncertainty in a Non-ergodic World, pp. 13–22

 

Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 1: Understanding the Diversity of Structured Human Interactions, pp. 3–29

 

 

Week 2: January 16              Diversity of Orders

 

Maintaining orders within a society requires diverse types of institutions. Dominant thinking of institutional structures such as centralized versus decentralized; top-down versus bottom-up; vertical versus horizontal structure is helpful but not sufficient to explain the diversity of human orders at multiple layers. The diversity of institutional structures exist within a centralized system, and similarly, centralized structures of institutional types play important roles in decentralized institutional arrangements in maintaining human orders. There is no such institution as a purely centralized institution or purely decentralized institution. More important, there is no conclusive or “best” way to maintain human orders for the variety of evidences and reasons discussed in this week’s readings.

 

Similarly, there is no single best level that can maintain the orders of human societies among local, national, international and global levels. The fundamental problem with the state-centric model of institutional arrangements for human orders within both a country and international community as a whole has recently reported in the empirical evidences of institutional analyses, especially in the field of environmental governance. Unitary thinking of the state as possessing sovereign power to control orders “below” and “above” the “level” of state is not sufficient if not myopic in explaining and predicting human orders. When one level, namely the state, is assumed the center of all dynamics of human orders, it limits us to advance analyses of the diverse and dynamic nature of human orders. Therefore, taking the diversity of orders as a conceptual lens in our investigation of human interactions is essential. This will allow us to understand and frame the landscape of institutional entrepreneurship as dynamic and evolving.

 

It is very helpful to understand how Thomas Hobbes reached a conclusion for the sovereign state as Leviathan that has dominated much of the state-centric world orders. It is enlightening to understand that there are alternatives to the state-centric models of world orders in Vincent Ostrom’s discussion of human conditions and ontological foundation of human understanding. These alternative possibilities are available only when human individuals exercise their critical thinking and learning capacities. We will further engage these and other readings of this week in our class discussion.

 

Essential readings for Week 2:

 

Bstan-’dzin-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Lama XIV. 2005. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, Morgan Roads Book.

            Chapter 3: Emptiness, Relativity, and Quantum Physics, pp. 43–69

            Chapter 6: The Question of Consciousness, pp. 119–37

 

Hobbes, Thomas. [1651] 1982. Leviathan, Penguin Books.

            Part I: Of Man, pp. 183–222

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 7: The Evolving Human Environment, pp.87–102

            Chapter 8: The Sources of Order and Disorder, pp.103–15

 

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge, Michigan University Press.

            Chapter 5: The Human Condition: Life, Learning, Language, Knowledge,

                              Culture, and the Problem of Order, pp. 119–50

 

 

Week 3: January 23              Institutional Diversity and Changing Orders

 

The diversity of institutional complexes maintains human orders at multiple layers.

The changes of human orders are directly linked to the changes in institutional complexes. As such, institutional entrepreneurship plays a key role in the structure and diversity of institutional complexes. As careful scholars of institutions and orders of societies, it is crucial we understand that institutional entrepreneurship take important area of analytical landscape in the study of changing human orders. Institutional diversity and changing orders do not occur in a vacuum at the absence of human actors. Human actors are the ones shaping and reconstituting institutional diversity and changing orders. Therefore, understanding the nature and origin of institutional diversity is crucial for understanding changing orders.

 

Maintaining orders through diverse sets of institutions is a continuous struggle for societies. The storm center of this struggle is the issue of coexisting diverse sets of institutions within the phenomena of the changing nature of orders. This coexistence is determined by the complementarity of diverse institutions in maintaining order. How do institutions complement each other? Under what conditions are institutions complementary with each other?  What are the consequences to the orders of societies from institutional incoherency?  For example, phenomena of frequent events of military coups (total of 19 coups, including the latest one on September 19, 2006, since the establishment of the constitutional monarchy in 1939) in modern Thai history has to be understood as evidences of institutional clashes between the monarchy and democratic institutions. Similar observation can be made in a relatively matured democracy in the United States where the institutional clashes persists between a centralized executive branch and a decentralized legislative branch, as they struggle to be complementary institutions within a democratic system of government. Institutional complementarity among diverse institutions is a key in maintaining orders. In a micro level, consider a factory that produces consumer goods. It has to ensure that the procedures of raw material processing, production lines, quality control, packaging, and distribution division operate in complementary ways in order to maximize the capacity of the factory. When one or more of these procedures become incompatible with the other, then the order of the factory faces disruption. Therefore, complementarity of institutional diversity and maintaining orders are two important dimensions of institutional entrepreneurship.

 

If the institutional diversity is a fact of life, then the fundamental question we face as scholars of institutions is the question of institutional compatibility among diverse sets of institutions. Whether and how the compatibility problem hinders or induces institutional changes over time will become more relevant when one type and one level of institutional arrangement are no longer sufficient to address governance problems. As the readings for this week leads us to consider institutional diversity and processes of institutional changes, we will devote our class discussion on these.

 

Essential readings for Week 3:

 

Amable, Bruno. 2000. “Institutional Complementarity and Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production.” Review of International Political Economy 7(4) (Winter): 645–87. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Held, David, and Anthony McGrew, eds. 2000. The Global Transformations Reader, Polity Press.

            The Great Globalization Debate: An Introduction, pp. 1–45

 

Hobbes, Thomas. [1651] 1982. Leviathan, Penguin Books.

            Part II: Of Common-wealth, pp. 223–88

 

Keohane, Robert O. 1995. “Hobbes’ Dilemma and Institutional Change in World Politics: Sovereignty in International Society.” In Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End of the Cold War, eds. Hans-Henrik Holm and Georg Sørensen, 165–86. Boulder: Westview Press.

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 9: Getting It Right and Getting It Wrong, pp. 116–26

 

Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 4: Animating Institutional Analysis, pp. 99–133

            Chapter 8: Using Rules as Tools to Cope with the Commons, pp. 219–54

            Chapter 9: Robust Resource Governance in Polycentric Institutions, pp. 255–88

 

 

Enterpreneurship and Societal Changes

 

 

Week 4: January 30              Epistemic and Ontological Foundations of Institutional Entrepreneurship

 

The institutional entrepreneurship in this course is understood as the art and science of understanding and conducting human interactions. This understanding implies that the concept and conduct of entrepreneurship is not confined to either economics or political science disciplines. The complexity of human interactions cannot be explained and predicted by relying on theories and methods of one discipline. The spectrum of the complexity of human interactions begins at the state of consciousness of individual to the state of forming intentions entering into interactions with other individuals and surrounding environment. The multifaceted nature of human interactions challenges us to consider both spiritual as well as scientific theories and methods of understanding. In this sense, it is crucial that we examine how the literature addresses the epistemic and ontological foundations of institutional entrepreneurship.

 

The source of human action is the human mind. The mind’s perception of the surrounding world and interaction with that surrounding world is the subject of consideration here. We make our own interpretations of this subject through language, belief systems, cultures, experiences, and intentions of others and those of our own. The essential readings for this week provide reasons for why it is important to understand epistemic and ontological foundations of institutional entrepreneurship.

 

Essential readings for Week 4:

 

Chorvat, Terrence R., Kevin McCabe, and Vernon Smith. 2004. “Law and Neuroeconomics.” George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 04-07. See Social Science Research Network http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=501063.

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 4: Consciousness and Human Intentionality, pp. 38–47

 

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge, University of Michigan Press.

            Chapter 4: Epistemic Choice and Public Choice, pp. 89–116

            Chapter 7: The Ontological Foundations of Human Understanding, pp. 175–200

 

Schneider, Mark, and Paul Teske. 1992. “Toward a Theory of the Political Entrepreneur: Evidence from Local Government.” The American Political Science Review, 86(3) (September): 737–47. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28199209%2986%3A3%3C737%3ATATOTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D.)

 

Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1942] 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, HarperPerennial.

            Part II: Can Capitalism Survive?, pp. 59–120

 

Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1835–40] 2000. Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Book 2, Bantam Classics.

Chapter 5: Of the Use Which the Americans Make of Public Associations in Civil Life,

                  628–32

Chapter 6: Of the Relation between Public Associations and Newspapers, pp. 633–36

Chapter 7: Connection of Civil and Political Associations, pp. 637–42

            Chapter 8: The Americans Combat Individualism by the Principle of Interest, pp. 643-46

 

 

Week 5: February 6               Cultural and Value Foundations of Entrepreneurship

 

Successful institutional entrepreneurs are sensitive to belief systems, culture, and values of different societies. We need to consider cultural and value foundations of institutional entrepreneurship to understand diverse patterns of organization of human interactions. The phenomena of why some cultures persist and why some changes over time have direct impact on orders of societies.

 

Cultures in one sense can be understood as illustrations of people’s belief systems and perception of surrounding social environment. Successful entrepreneurs can maneuvers the landscape of belief systems and cultures. They influence the changes in cultures and values of the society in which they conduct entrepreneurship activities. Some entrepreneurs see culture as a commodity and create an enterprise directly responding to the meaning of a particular culture. For instance, during the celebration of the 60th anniversary of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s accession to the throne in Thailand last year, entrepreneurs knew that Thai people were going to associate the color yellow with the meaning of respect or loyalty to the King because that color is associated with his birthday. As you may have seen video clips of the military coup in Thailand or may have visited Thailand last year, almost every Thai wore yellow shirts or yellow wristbands to show their loyalty to the King. Some entrepreneurs in Thailand profited by producing yellow shirts, flowers, and wristbands during the period leading to the anniversary, which made the Thai people happy. This type of interpretation of cultures exists in every society. The challenge for us is to understand the roles of culture and social values in institutional entrepreneurship.

 

This week is the final week for investigating the foundational elements of institutional entrepreneurship. The readings for this week point out that belief systems and culture are one of the crucial contexts in which human interactions occurs and  they are a source of challenge for analysts because the deficiency of rational assumption of human behaviors resonate in these contexts. We will engage these issues associating to institutional entrepreneurship in our class discussion.

 

Essential readings for Week 5:

 

Dodd, Sarah Drakopoulou. 2002. “Metaphors and Meaning: A Grounded Cultural Model of US Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing 17(5) (September): 519–35. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1974. “Some Social-Psychological Dimensions of Social Change in a Turkish Village.” The British Journal of Sociology 25(1) (March): 47–62. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315%28197403%2925%3A1%3C47%3ASSDOSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O.)

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 3: Belief Systems, Culture, and Cognitive Science, pp. 23–37

 

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge, University of Michigan Press.

            Part 4: The Cultural Foundations of Creative Civilizations, p. 225

            Chapter 9: Comparing African and European Experience, pp. 227–51

            Chapter 10: East and West, pp. 253–67

 

Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1942] 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, HarperPerennial.

            Part II: Can Capitalism Survive?, pp. 121–63

 

 

Week 6: February 13 Entrepreneurship and Institutional Changes

 

We have explored the foundation of the landscape of institutional entrepreneurship during the past five weeks. Beginning this week, we will be exploring how institutional entrepreneurships influence the processes of creation and change of institutions. By influencing intentionally or unintentionally the processes of creation and changes of institutions, institutional entrepreneurs influence changing orders of societies. Therefore, institutional entrepreneurship is one of the key drivers that influence institutional changes.

 

What are the social conditions that favor emergence of entrepreneurs? How do entrepreneurs capitalize on these conditions to create new enterprises?  What motivate entrepreneurs to conduct entrepreneurship activities? How do entrepreneurship activities influence institutional creation and change? How do we understand the influence of entrepreneurship in institutional changes?  These questions govern this week discussion. The readings for this week provide some food for thoughts and raises critical questions about the role of entrepreneurs in institutional changes.

 

Dr. Viktor Vanberg, Professor of Economics, Freiburg University, Germany, and currently Resident Scholar at Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, Indiana, will be our guest speaker and will discuss his work “On the Complementarity of Liberalism and Democracy.”

 

Essential readings for Week 6:

 

Crouch, Colin, and Henry Farrell. 2004. “Breaking the Path of Institutional Development? Alternatives to the New Determinism.” Rationality and Society 16(1) (February): 5–43. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

McKelvey, Maureen. 1998. “Evolutionary Innovations: Learning, Entrepreneurship and the Dynamics of the Firm.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 8(2): 157–75. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Nee, Victor, and Su Sijin. 1990. “Institutional Change and Economic Growth in China: The View from the Villages.” The Journal of Asian Studies 49(1) (February): 3–25. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9118%28199002%2949%3A1%3C3%3AICAEGI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0.)

 

Roland, Gérard. 2004. “Understanding Institutional Change: Fast-Moving and Slow-Moving Institutions.” Studies in Comparative International Development 38(4) (Winter): 109–31. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Sheingate, Adam D. 2003. “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development.” Studies in American Political Development 17(2) (October): 185–203. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Sine, Wesley D., and Robert J. David. 2003. “Environmental Jolts, Institutional Change, and the Creation of Entrepreneurial Opportunity in the US Electric Power Industry.” Research Policy 32: 185–207.

 

Vanberg, Viktor. 2006. “On the Complementarity of Liberalism and Democracy.” Prepared for presentation at the panel on “Liberty in the Political Institutions of the 21st Century,” MPS General Meeting, November 5-10, Guatemala. (Link to paper.)

 

Yu, Tony Fu-Lai. 2001. “An Entrepreneurial Perspective of Institutional Change.” Constitutional Political Economy 12(3) (September): 217–36. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

Social Capitals and Entrepreneurship

 

 

Week 7: February 20 Social Capitals and Entrepreneurs in Static Societies

 

One of the capitals entrepreneurs consider as resources for entrepreneurship activities is social capital. The conditions of social capitals in static societies where institutional arrangements are controlled by dictators, ideological groups and/or authoritarian political parties are different from those of dynamic societies where political freedom and democratic system of institutional arrangement exist. However, entrepreneurs exist and operate entrepreneurship activities of various forms in these static societies. Successful entrepreneurs in these static societies conduct entrepreneurship activities differently than those of their counterparts in dynamic societies. They know how to “legitimize” their conducts. They know how to “change” the social environment in which they operate entrepreneurship activities. Although they may not be the force for revolutionary changes, they can make several small adjustments to the environment that over time lead to system changes. However, they need to understand the condition of social capital to make these small adjustments.

 

How do entrepreneurs in static societies create and apply social capitals for their entrepreneurship activities?  How do they legitimize their conducts?  How does the nature of social capital in static societies differ from that of dynamic societies?  How do institutional entrepreneurship activities affect institutional changes and social changes in static societies? These and other questions pertinent to social capitals and entrepreneurships in static societies are addressed in this week readings. We will engage further on these issues during our class discussion.

 

Professor Michael McGinnis, Department of Political Science, Indiana University Bloomington, will be a guest speaker on “Agency and Entrepreneurship in Rebel Organizations,” which is Chapter 5 of his forthcoming book on Managing Conflict Policy: Exploring Strategic Complementarities in the Horn of Africa.

 

Essential readings for Week 7:

 

Etzioni, Amitai. 1987. “Entrepreneurship, Adaptation and Legitimation: A Macro-behavioral Perspective.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 8(2) (June): 175–89. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Fox, Jonathan. 1997. “How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico.” In State-Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development,” ed. Peter Evans, 119–49. Berkeley: University of California, International and Area Studies.

 

Hagen, Everett E. 1960/1961. “The Entrepreneur as Rebel against Traditional Society.” Human Organization 19(4): 185–87.

 

McGinnis, Michael D. forthcoming. “Agency and Entrepreneurship in Rebel Organizations.” In Managing Conflict Policy: Exploring Strategic Complementarities in the Horn of Africa. Bloomington, Indiana: Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Draft Book Manuscript, January 2007.

 

Nee, Victor, and Frank W. Young. 1991. “Peasant Entrepreneurs in China’s ‘Second Economy’: An Institutional Analysis.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 39(2) (January): 293–310. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0079%28199101%2939%3A2%3C293%3APEIC%22E%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S.)

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 11: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union, pp. 146–54

 

 

Week 8: February 27 Social Capitals and Entrepreneurs in Dynamic Societies

 

In dynamic societies, social capital perhaps is the most valuable capital in real-time sense compared to the condition of it in static societies. The dynamic society is conducive to entrepreneurship activities that capitalize on social capital. It does so by maintaining at least three conditions (1) valuing and safeguarding diversity of human ideas; (2) promoting societal goods by ways of individual interests; (3) institutionalizing and guaranteeing political freedom of citizens in constitutional choice level. These three conditions are controlled deliberately in static societies. Therefore, the landscape of entrepreneurship in dynamic societies is more fertile than that of static societies.

 

However, these conditions do not guarantee that all entrepreneurship activities in dynamic societies are productive and successful. The questions we face are such as: What are the factors that determine successes and failures of institutional entrepreneurship in dynamic societies? What types of entrepreneurs in dynamic societies are able to capitalize on social capital and why? How does social capital in dynamic societies vary from the social capital in static societies? What can we learn about institutional change and changing orders from institutional entrepreneurship activities in dynamic societies? We will explore answers for these questions and others in class.

 

Essential readings for Week 8:

 

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” The American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure): S95–S120. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%281988%2994%3CS95%3ASCITCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P.)

 

Murmann, Johann Peter. 2003. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions, Cambridge University Press.

            Chapter 1: Introduction, pp. 1–31

Chapter 5: Toward an Institutional Theory of Competitive Advantage, pp. 194–238

 

Westlund, Hans, and Roger Bolton. 2003. “Local Social Capital and Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics 21(2) (September): 77–113. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Woolcock, Michael. 1998. Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework.” Theory and Society 27(2) (April): 151–208. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0304-2421%28199804%2927%3A2%3C151%3ASCAEDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3.)

 

 

Week 9: March 6                   Dynamics of Social Capital and Societal Changes

                                                [Mini-Conference Proposals/Abstracts Due]

 

After having addressed the function of social capital in entrepreneurship activities in static and dynamic societies during the last two weeks, we will investigate dynamics of social capital and what role the dynamics of social capital play in changing human orders. Social capital is one of many capitals utilized in entrepreneurship activities. It is a dynamic capital in the sense that social capital is generated out of individual’s interactions with others. We need to understand different forms of human-made capitals such as human capital, physical capital, social capital, political capital, spiritual capital, cultural capital, and others. This frame of understanding will serves us to understand fully what social capital is and how it is different from others, and how it is dynamic in the processes of social changes. The literature in social capital is growing and therefore, we will have to keep open-minded with concepts and understanding.

 

Our main concern this week is exploration of the dynamics of social capital. And subsequently to understand how the dynamics of social capital affect institutional and social changes. What is social capital? How is it different from others in terms of its nature and function? Under what circumstances social capital cannot be fostered?  How can we understand the dynamics of social capital? What are the conditions that favor dynamics of social capital? These questions are raised in this week readings and we will explore further in our discussion.

 

Professor Armando Razo, Department of Political Science, Indiana University Bloomington, will be the guest speaker for this week and he will lead us is discussion with the presentation of his forthcoming book on Social Networks of Limited Dictatorship.

 

Essential readings for Week 9:

 

Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn. 1997. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3) (July): 999–1023. (See JSTOR

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-5853%28199707%2941%3A3%3C999%3AIEFTCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23.)

 

Evans, Peter. 1996. “Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy.” World Development 24(6): 1119–32. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Foley, Michael, and Bob Edwards. 1999. “Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?” Journal of Public Policy 19(2) (May): 141–73. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Ostrom, Elinor. 1999. “Social Capital: A Fad or a Fundamental Concept?” In Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, ed. Partha Dasgupta and Ismail Seraeldin, 172–214. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Online: http://www.exclusion.net/images/pdf/778_latuk_ostrom.pdf.

 

Uphoff, Norman, and C. M. Wijayaratna. 2000. “Demonstrated Benefits from Social Capital: The Productivity of Farmer Organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka.” World Development 28(11): 1875–90. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Woolcock, Michael, and Deepa Narayan. 2000. “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy.” The World Bank Research Observer 15(2) (August): 225–49. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

Spring Break                          March 10 (after last class)–18

 

 

Governance Reforms

 

 

Week 10:  March 20              Struggle for Constitutional Choice

 

During the next three weeks, we will devote our attention of institutional entrepreneurship on governance reforms. Governance reforms in the countries in transition to democracy have to address fundamental issue of broken public trust in governmental institutions. The larger issue of governance reform, therefore, is reconstituting political and social orders. One of the major struggles for reconstituting political and social orders resonates in the challenges of constitutional choice at the national level.   

 

The phrases “good governance” and “the rule of law” have been perceived as synonymous terms in the practitioners’ world of the World Bank and associated organizations. The policy assumption that “good governance” is essential for economic growth has recently regenerated widespread interest among the international financing institutions and donor countries in the projects to reform judicial systems around the world. The resources spent on judicial reforms have been reportedly impressive. During four years between 1994 and 1998, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Asian Development Bank either approved or initiated more than U.S. $500 million in loans for judicial reform projects in 26 countries. The U.S. Agency for International Development spent nearly $200 million in the 1980s on similar projects as reported by the General Accounting Office in 1993. International donor countries and private groups are also funding programs to modernize the judicial branch of governments. Today, the majority of developing countries in transition to democracy, including former Soviet states, are receiving assistance of some kind to reform courts, prosecutors’ offices, and the legal institutions that make up judicial system. The policy assumption behind the push for judicial reform is that the rule of law is crucial for achieving governance reform and economic development. However, repairing broken public trust in governmental institutions requires imagination and action beyond rewriting the rule of law in the book and restructuring legal institutions.

 

The heart of the challenge of governance reform lies in the problem of constitutional choice. Those who would live under the respective constitutions not by the donors or external organizations must make the constitutional choice for governance reform in the countries in transition. Therefore, it is valuable to understand the nature and the struggle of constitutional choice made by the local population. In this way, the resources from inside and outside can be channeled to the appropriate places of societies in the transition to democracy. In addition to the cases reported in this week’s readings, we will investigate the cases of governance reform processes in Liberia and Burma where the societies are facing the problem of constitutional choice.

 

Professor Amos Sawyer who is chairing Governance Reform Commission in Liberia will join us and lead discussion on the challenges of constitutional choice and governance reforms in Liberia.   

 

Essential readings for Week 10:

 

Buchanan, James M. 2004. “The Status of the Status Quo.” Constitutional Political Economy 15(2) (June): 133–44. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Ostrom, Vincent. [1971] Forthcoming 2007. The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experience. 3rd rev. ed. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Chapter 8: Two Centuries Later: Some Reflections on the American Experiments in

                  Constitutional Choice, pp. 167–213

            Chapter 9: The Constitutional Level of Analysis: A Challenge, pp. 214–34

 

Sabetti, Filippo. 1982. “The Making of Italy as an Experiment in Constitutional Choice.” Publius 12(3) (Summer): 65–84. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-5950%28198222%2912%3A3%3C65%3ATMOIAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5.)

 

Vanberg, Viktor. 2004. “The Status Quo in Contractarian-Constitutionalist Perspective.” Constitutional Political Economy 15(2) (June): 153–70. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

Week 11: March 27               Equity Jurisprudence

 

The problem of applying formal laws that require a third party legal agency such as judges and lawyers to interpret these laws for direct first parties’ problems (such as defendant and plaintiffs in formal cases and citizens in policy processes) is the nucleus of the problem of equity jurisprudence. This problem can be conceived as an epistemological problem similar to the sense that male animals (and those of non-reproducing female animals) can never fully understand and interpret the intrinsic experience of giving births. This problem persists to not only at the stage of interpretation of the language of the law for the implementation stage of formal laws but it also persists at the stage of making processes of those formal laws. Lawmaking bodies and lawmakers make laws for potential and imagined current and future problems of conflicts among citizens, with the intention of providing public good and maximizing ideals of justice. Therefore, the issue of equity jurisprudence is a challenge in governance reforms when societies reconstitute to establish patterns of orders.  

 

In many societies, a threat to societal orders emerges from the problem of equity jurisprudence in fundamental sense. For example, in Burma, nearly 60 years of violent and non-violent struggles of ethnic minorities for equality is directly associated with the equity jurisprudence problem. While ethnic majority in Burma continue to build a single and unitary identity of Burmese people in both constitutional and political form, the minority ethnic people desire diverse and polycentric identity of Burmese people in constitutional and political form. The intellectual component of the struggle for these ethnic minorities is to articulate how their indigenous cultures, values, identities, and aspiration can be incorporated into national constitutional and political identity.

 

For analysts, we need to understand the empirical evidences of the problems of equity jurisprudence in societies. How do both formal and informal mechanisms of conflict resolution address the equity jurisprudence problem? How do institutional entrepreneurs address the challenges of equity jurisprudence? As much as it is hard to define equity jurisprudence to satisfy the whole population, the reading this week present the hard nature of interpreting laws for equity jurisprudence. The challenge imposed on societies is that the problem of equity jurisprudence will persist even if formal laws are clearly written to maintain orders. The challenge for us is to unpack the “black box” of this problem.

 

Essential readings for Week 11:

 

Cover, Robert M. 1983. “NOMOS and Narrative.” Harvard Law Review 97(4) (November): 1–68+70–306. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%28198311%2997%3A1%3C1%3ATSC1T%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U.) This URL is for the entire journal. See pp. 4-68 for Cover’s Foreword “NOMOS and Narrative.”

 

Glaberson, William. 2006. “Broken Bench: In Tiny Courts of New York, Abuses of Law and Power” in series, New York Times, September 25.

 

Rosenn, Keith. 1971. “The Jeito: Brazil’s Institutional Bypass of the Formal Legal System and Its Development Implications.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 19(3) (Summer): 514–49. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-919X%28197122%2919%3A3%3C514%3ATJBIBO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z.)

 

Shivakumar, Sujai J. 2001. “The Place of Indigenous Institutions in Constitutional Order.” Constitutional Political Economy 14(1) (March): 3–21. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

Week 12: April 3                    Challenges of Governance Reforms

 

This is the final week in addressing the issue of governance reforms and the roles of institutional entrepreneurship. During the first two weeks of discussion on the issues of governance reform, we focused on the hard problem of legal reform ranging from the struggles for constitutional choice to the problem of equity jurisprudence. While considering law and legal institutions during the governance reform processes is crucial in reconstituting orders, it is not sufficient unless governance reform processes address the issues of political transition from the old form of institutional arrangement to the new form of institutional arrangement. Among this week’s readings, Samuel Huntington and Charles Tilly discuss macro level political reform processes and explain how countries transit to democracy. They chart a landscape of political reform processes at the national level where institutional entrepreneurs maneuver through reform processes. Others provide critical food for thought on the role of institutional entrepreneurs in governance reform processes and discuss how they influence reconstituting social orders.

 

Although governance reforms have been discussed in light of the countries in transition to democratic systems of institutional arrangements, there is a growing literature in the past three decades addressing governance reform issues in light of the changing role of the state and governmental bureaucracies. For instance, Eran Vigoda challenges us to reconsider the concept of “responsive” government and put forward the idea of “collaborative” governance where government is a part of societal institutional arrangements solving social problems together with citizens. Therefore, it is not to be mistaken that governance reforms are occurring across different type of national institutional arrangements throughout the world, not just in the countries in transition to democracy. The research in governance reform is not confined to the countries in political transition from centralized to democratic systems. The questions such as how entrepreneurs in transitioning countries influence institutional change processes compared to how those entrepreneurs in stable democracies influence institutional changes are worthy of exploration to understand the nature of entrepreneurs and the drivers of institutional changes. The readings from this week lead us to many other questions on institutional entrepreneurship and governance reforms.

 

Essential readings for Week 12:

 

Fernandez, Raquel, and Dani Rodrik. 1991. “Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty.” The American Economic Review 81(5) (December): 1146–55. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199112%2981%3A5%3C1146%3ARTRSQB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R.)

 

Hagen, Everett. 1957. “The Process of Economic Development.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 5(3) (April): 193–215. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0079%28195704%295%3A3%3C193%3ATPOED%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5.)

 

Huntington, Samuel P. 1991-1992. “How Countries Democratize?” Political Science Quarterly 106(4) (Winter): 579–616. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28199124%2F199224%29106%3A4%3C579%3AHCD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R.)

 

Róna-Tas, Ákos. 1994. “The First Shall Be Last? Entrepreneurship and Communist Cadres in the Transition from Socialism.” The American Journal of Sociology 100(1) (July): 40–69. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28199407%29100%3A1%3C40%3ATFSBLE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V.)

 

Smallbone, David, and Friederike Welter. 2001. “The Distinctiveness of Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies.” Small Business Economics 16(4) (June): 249–62. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Tilly, Charles. 2000. “Processes and Mechanisms of Democratization.” Sociological Theory 18(1) (March): 1–16. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735-2751%28200003%2918%3A1%3C1%3APAMOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F.)

 

Vigoda, Eran. 2002. “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 62(5) (September/October): 527–40. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

The Art and Science of Human Interactions

 

 

Week 13: April 10                  Self-Governance and Entrepreneurship

                                                [Mini-Conference Papers Due]

 

From this week’s readings, we will learn that theory of self-governance requires five fundamental conditions to achieve self-governance. First, people are enlightened citizens and critical thinkers who can create and make educated choices through open discussion of interrelated interests. Second, a community has a shared understanding of social problems through culture of inquiry and contestation. Third, rules of actions and roles of actors are clearly defined for governance of social problems. Fourth, practice of governance is considered as repeated experiment to be evaluated with certain criteria of economic and social benefit calculus. Fifth, polycentric institutional arrangement is considered as a mean of resolving the problem of aggregation. These conditions highlight the challenge of self-governance. It is not easy. The tendency of human actors acting under the constraints of time and resources is to choose easier mechanism of governance. Hence, the popularity of consolidation of smaller units into larger one, top-down command and control arrangement, and unitary state structure are apparent in the history of governmental institutions almost everywhere.

 

The fundamental challenge of the concept of self-governance is that citizens have to be public entrepreneurs who can master five conditions stated above in solving social problems. It is unlikely that every citizen can be public entrepreneurs in this sense. Therefore, societies will continue to face social dilemma of institutional choices to provide institutional arrangements to frame organization of human actions and interactions. This provision process, however, have to allow active participation of citizens aiming at promotion of self-governance and entrepreneurship. The readings for this week highlight the challenges involved in empowering citizens for self-governance and entrepreneurship activities.

 

 

Essential readings for Week 13:

 

Chilcott, Jenny, Mary Maykind, Claire Perry, and Pat Shannon. n.d. “Citizen Participation in Decision-Making Structures.” See International Association for Community Development http://www.iacdglobal.org/documents/research/chilcott.pdf.

 

Davidsson, Per, and Johan Wiklund. 2001. “Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: Current Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25(4) (Summer): 81–99. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Ostrom, Vincent. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville’s Challenge, University of Michigan Press.

Chapter 11: Toward a Science of Citizenship in Democratic Systems of Order, pp. 271–

                    302

 

Ostrom, Vincent. 1986. “Constitutional Foundations for a Theory of System Comparisons.” Prepared for the Radein Seminar, Italy, February 14-25, 1987. (See Digital Library of the Commons http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00000744/00/VOCO86AA.pdf.)

 

Waddock, Sandra A., and James E. Post. 1991. “Social Entrepreneurs and Catalytic Change.” Public Administration Review 51(5) (September/October): 393–401. (See JSTOR http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-3352%28199109%2F10%2951%3A5%3C393%3ASEACC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M.)

 

 

Week 14: April 17                  Dynamics of Ideas, Individuals, and Institutions

 

The journey of human ideas begins at an individual’s mind. From individual’s mind, ideas flow to other individuals and surrounding environment. Some of those ideas are institutionalized and some are not. This journey of the flow of ideas from the state of pure thoughts within an individual’s mind to layers of surrounding environment all the way to becoming institution is the spectrum where dynamics of ideas, individuals, and institutions persist. Metaphorically speaking, this spectrum is the engine room of human interactions.

 

If we observe a self-organized trail system on IUB campus and try to unpack the mental and physical processes involved in creating such a self-organized trail system that eventually become a public walking path, we will find the dynamics of ideas, individuals, and institutions. As illustrated in the case of the self-organized trail system studied by Robert Goldstone and Michael Roberts, these trail entrepreneurs calculated the costs and benefits of creating the trail and initiated the trails without consultation with others but self-contemplation processes. Other like-minded entrepreneurs agreed with the pioneers and followed the path, eventually creating a public walk. Such an enterprise is institutional entrepreneurship. We have investigated throughout this semester how institutional entrepreneurship influence changing orders. We have much to learn about the dynamics of ideas, individuals, and institutions from these types of cases, such as the self-organized trail systems presented in this week readings.  

 

Essential reading for Week 14:

 

Bstan-’dzin-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Lama XIV. 2005. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, Morgan Road Books.

            Chapter 7: Toward a Science of Consciousness, pp.141–61

            Chapter 8: The Spectrum of Consciousness, pp. 166–83

 

Finlayson, Alan. 2004. “Political Science, Political Ideas and Rhetoric.” Economy and Society 33(4) (November): 528–49. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Goldstone, Robert and Michael Roberts. 2006. “Self-organized Trail Systems in Groups of Humans. Complexity 11(6) (August): 43–50. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Meyer, David E., David E. Irwin, Allen M. Osman, and John Kounios. 1988. “The Dynamics of Cognition and Action: Mental Processes Inferred from Speed-Accuracy Decomposition.” Psychological Review 95(2) (April): 183–237. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

Musgrove, Mike. 2006. “Video Game Console's Debut Sparks Violence: First-Day Sales of PlayStation 3 Met With Shooting, Pepper Spray.” Washington Post A01, Saturday, November 18. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701443.html.)

 

Ostrom, Elinor, and Vincent Ostrom. 2004. “The Quest for Meaning in Public Choice.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 63(1) (January): 105–47. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

Week 15: April 24                  Coevolution of Markets, Social Institutions, and Citizens

 

What we have learned from the readings and discussion throughout this semester is that changes of orders are inherent in the nature of human interactions. The institutional entrepreneurs who capitalize on the properties of human interactions to create novelty in a society need to be carefully observed in study of changing orders of human societies. These entrepreneurs know no boundaries between market and state or among different intellectual disciplines. They know that human interaction is a crucial field of study and they capitalize on properties of human interactions. In thinking from the dimension of coevolutionary development of human orders, perhaps we may consider institutional entrepreneurs as “interactors” and institutions as “replicators” in the coevolution of markets, social institutions, and citizens.

 

Essential readings for Week 15:

 

Bstan-’dzin-rgya-mtsho, Dalai Lama XIV. 2005. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, Morgan Road Books.

            Chapter 9: Science, Spirituality, and Humanity, pp. 205–9

 

North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press.

            Chapter 12: Where Are We Going?, 166–70

 

Ostrom, Elinor. 1997. “Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development.” In State-Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development,” ed. Peter Evans, 85–118. Berkeley: University of California. (See eScholarship Repository, Calif. Digital Library, http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=uciaspubs/research.)

 

van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., and Sigrid Stagl. 2003. “Coevolution of Economic Behavior and Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Change.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13(3) (August): 289–317. (See IU Libraries at http://www.libraries.iub.edu and check the Online Full-Text Journals.)

 

 

 

April 28 and 30                       MINICONFERENCE

 

 

Week 16 April 30–May 4      FINAL EXAM WEEK