Fall 2005 Colloquia


Colloquia during Fall 2005


Monday, September 12, 2005




Presented by Professor Gerhard Glomm, Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington (coauthor: Fabio Méndez, Department of Economics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville)


Abstract: In this paper we study how privatization and deregulation of production of intermediate goods influence capital accumulation. Our model is solved under three alternative scenarios: one where the intermediate sector is composed of a public monopoly under government control, one where the intermediate sector is dominated by a private monopoly, and one with a competitive intermediate sector. The comparison of these models suggests that the income benefits of state-to-market transitions are mostly due to increased competition on the deregulated market and that the privatization of state enterprises is not likely to generate significant changes in the economy when the public monopoly is replaced by a private monopoly. In fact, the model predicts that for high enough levels of public investment, a public monopoly would be preferred to a private monopoly in terms of the resulting aggregate income level. We find that elimination of monopoly rights can increase aggregate income by more than 20%.


BIO: Born in southern Germany in 1957, Dr. Glomm attended the University of Kansas from 1978 to 1981, majoring in Economics. He completed graduate school at the University of Minnesota with a Ph.D. in Economics in 1988. Dr. Glomm has previously held faculty positions at the University of Virginia and most recently at Michigan State University. Research and teaching interests include macroeconomics, economic growth, income distribution and political economy. Recent papers include, “On the Political Economy of Means Tested Education Vouchers” (with P. Bearse and B. Ravikumas,) European Economic Review, 2000 and “Distributional Effects of Public Education in an Economy with Public Pensions” (with M. Kaganovich) International Economics Review, 2003 and “AIDS Crisis and Growth” (with P. Corrigan and F. Mender) Journal of Development Economics, 2005. He is currently working on pension reform in Brazil and childhood obesity in the U.S.


Paper in PDF


Monday, September 19, 2005




Presented by Professor Peter Todd, School of Informatics, Program in Cognitive Science, and Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: Traditional views of rational decision making assume that individuals gather, evaluate, and combine all the available evidence to come up with the best choice possible. But given that human and animal minds are designed to work in environments where information is often costly and difficult to obtain, we should instead expect many decisions to be made with simple "fast and frugal" heuristics that limit information use. These heuristics typically ignore most of the available information and rely on only a few important cues. Yet they make choices that are accurate in their appropriate application domains, achieving ecological rationality through their fit to particular information structures. One such class of heuristics produces inferences (or choices) based on only a single cue or piece of information, yielding one-reason decision making. Another class limits search through a sequence of available options, such as when searching for a job or a mate. In this talk I will discuss the building blocks underlying such fast and frugal decision mechanisms, how these heuristics can exploit environment structure to perform well, and how they fare in comparison to traditional decision mechanisms.


BIO: Peter M. Todd grew up in Silicon Valley, studied mathematics and electronic music at Oberlin College, received an MPhil in computer speech and language processing from Cambridge University, and developed neural network models of the evolution of learning for his 1992 PhD in psychology at Stanford University. In 1995 he moved to Germany to help found the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC), which has been at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin since 1997. His research interests while assistant director there focused on modeling the interactions between decision making and decision environments, including how the two co-evolve over time. The Center's work culminated in the book Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Gigerenzer, Todd, and the ABC Research Group; Oxford, 1999); the sequel, focusing on environment structures and their impact, is being finalized. In addition, Todd has coedited three books on neural network and artificial life models in music and has written papers on topics ranging from social decision processes in rats to modeling patterns of age at first marriage. He is currently Professor of Informatics, Cognitive Science, and Psychology at Indiana University, Bloomington.


Professor Todd's paper "How Much Information Do We Need?" has been accepted for publication so only a hard copy is available.


Monday, September 26, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)


Collective Rights in a Modernizing North: On Institutionalizing Sami AND LOCAL Rights to Land and Water in Northern Norway


Presented by Professor Audun Sandberg, Faculty of Social Science, Bodø University College, Bodø, Norway, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: Devolution and the institutionalizing of indigenous and local rights in the northern areas of the world have been a lengthy process. Alaska, Canada, Russia and the Nordic countries have experienced long and painful constitutional processes that are far from resolved yet. Among these, one of the most interesting ones is the 25 year long Norwegian political and legal process to establish property rights to “land and water” in the northern province of Finnmark. This paper gives an update and an analysis of this process at the verge of the implementation of a new property rights regime in the north.


In this Northern Province, institutional developments have been distinctly different from the rest of Norway. This has been a meeting place between “the three tribes” (the Sámi, the Háløygs and the Kven) at the same time as the state has had a significant and powerful presence in the area since the 16th century. The evolving institutions are also characterized by a customary collective use of the harvestable resources on land and in water in the entire area and the nomadic pasturing and managing rights of the reindeer herders which have evolved from ancient use and are independent of the rights of the owners of the ground. The national institutional solution also has to be in accordance with international law, in this case in particular the UN-Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Article 27) and the ILO-convention no. 1969 on indigenous peoples in independent states.


In this complex web of diverse historical rights, multilevel usage and international considerations, a process of institutionalization has taken place that will be of considerable interest to other northern areas, but which still is open towards future developments.


BIO: Professor Audun Sandberg is visiting at the Workshop, Indiana University, during Fall 2005. He is an Assoc. Professor at Bodø University College in Northern Norway. He holds a Cand-Polit. degree from University of Bergen, but has also studied at University of Oslo and at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has been working at the University of Dar es Salaam and in the Norwegian Ministry of Environment, but has since 1979 had a crucial role in building the new university in Bodø. He has done extensive research on institutions for governing northern resources and been involved in a number of large EU-projects. He has also held central positions in the Norwegian Research Council. He has visited the Workshop a number of times since 1990.


Paper in PDF


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Tuesday, September 27, 2005 (Special Session)




Presented by T. K. Ahn, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington (coauthors: Justin Esarey and John T. Scholz, Department of Political Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee)

Abstract: We report the results of a laboratory experiment in which subjects continuously select whom to play, whether to cooperate with them in repeated 2-person prisoners dilemma games. By manipulating the nature of information exchanged in endogenously-evolving networks, we observe the impact of reputational information on overall payoffs, levels of cooperation, the shape of networks, and the kinds of strategies employed under different information and reputational conditions. Selective networking among cooperators appears to drive the primary dynamic in our experiments, with information providing earlier and greater advantages to nice strategies. Our findings suggest that policy actors tempted to exploit early attempts at creating joint projects are likely to end up ostracized in a defectors’ getto and unable to gain the potential long-term advantages of mutual cooperation provided that there are enough nice strategies among relevant policy actors to develop the clusters of mutual cooperation that formed in our experiments.

BIO: T. K. Ahn is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Florida State University. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, Bloomington in 2001. His current research interests involve studying endogenous processes using experimental methods. He is working on experimental studies of endogenous group formation with economists Mark Isaac and Tim Salmon and endogenous network formation with  political scientists John T. Scholz and Justin Esarey.

Paper in PDF


Thursday, September 29, 2005 (Special Session)




Presented by Dr. Chéibane Coulibaly, President, Centre Universitaire Mande Bukari (CUMBU), Bamako, Mali


Abstract: For developing economies which are largely rural, such as that of Mali for example, land, as a production asset, must be seen not only as a factor of production along with labor and capital but as a fundamental constraint where livelihood opportunities are severely limited.  Even in contexts of economic crisis where access to capital is limited, land tenure continues to pose the most critical challenges. Considerable increases of human and animal populations create pressures over land resources which though, relative in some parts of Mali, can be absolute and frequently a source of conflict in various other parts of the country. Many of these conflicts concern cross-border spaces and have implications for inter-state interaction that pose threat to sub-regional peace.


BIO: Chéibane Coulibaly began as a Professor of Philosophy in High School in Mali and as a researcher in Rural Sociology at the Malian Ministry of Agriculture. He received his Doctorate in Socio-economics of Development at Université de Paris I (Panthéon – Sorbonne) in 1985. He is Professor of Rural Sociology and Political Philosophy at Mande Bukari University in Mali and Associate Professor in Rural Sociology at Université Libre de Bruxelles and at Les Facultés Notre Dame de la Paix in Belgium. For the second time, he is at the Workshop as a Visiting Scholar. His work is mainly on land tenure issues in West Africa and on institutions and institutional problem solving in rural areas in West Africa. He has published two books and several articles on these items. His forthcoming book is on Subsidiarity and Democracy-building in West Africa, mainly in the Mandingo civilization area.


Paper in PDF


Monday, October 3, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)


Towards a Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment


Presented by Dr. Insa Theesfeld, Division of Resource Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington (coauthor: Christian Schleyer, Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Humboldt University, Berlin)


Abstract: The methodological task described in the paper is a subtask within the frame of the Integrated Project SEAMLESS (System for Environmental and Agricultural Modeling; Linking European Science and Society) financed under the 6th Framework Program of the European Union. The aim of SEAMLESS is the development of an integrated modeling framework to support analysis of agricultural systems and assessment of impacts related to sustainability and sustainable development.


The paper will introduce ideas for a conceptual approach to assess ex-ante policy options aiming at sustainable development in the agri-environmental sphere from an institutional perspective. Here, institutions are conceived as institutions for sustainability, i.e. providing the necessary institutional structure capable for delivering economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives. The basic assumption is that a policy options aiming at integrating these three dimensions of sustainability can only be effective and efficient, if a proper institutional arrangement is in place, i.e. institutional compatibility is given.


First, the paper will give the results of a research and literature review on institutional indicators, by outlining four clusters of literature origin: good governance, social capital, institutions as the fourth dimension of sustainability and transaction costs. In summary, the literature review shows that none of the four clusters aims directly at measuring institutional compatibility of policy options - which shows that this is a field of research that is just about to develop and needs intensive methodological input. Nevertheless, a lot can be learned from the studies under review, regarding purpose, methodologies and typologies of institutional indicators.


Second, the paper will present the Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment (PICA). PICA is planned to be a formalized procedure of subsequent steps:


    1. Different screenings to evaluate policies for their characteristics, in particular, the type of policy, the

        involved institutional levels (governance structures or property rights), the crucial institutional points

        (such as required participation and local cooperation), and the nature of the problem addressed

        (attributes of resources and actors involved).

    2. Different raster scans to sort out the relevant institutional indicators according to the policy under

        scrutiny to come to conclusions about an institutional fit or a misfit.


PICA should be designed in a way to give indications, for instance, on the embeddedness level compatibility or the governance structures compatibility.


Main research questions to be addressed are: What are the characteristics of the concrete policy under scrutiny? What change in governance structures is it aiming at? Can we assume normative statement about the optimal form of governance that would mitigate the problem? What characteristics of policies can be linked to distinct institutional arrangements in order to let the policy options foreseen to become effective? Which institutional indicators for sustainability can help to assess the impact of policies ex-ante?


Third, the paper will explore on options to reduce complexity of the aforementioned approach. A focus can be on policy options aiming to address common-pool resource management questions. As a starting point, ex-post cases of policy implementations might be analyzed to select policy characteristics and link them up with institutional indicators to assess and institutional fit or misfit.


BIO: Dr. Insa Theesfeld is an agricultural economist, specialized in institutional economics and resource economics. She received her doctorate degree from Humboldt University of Berlin. In her dissertation she applied institutional analysis to common-pool resource management in transition countries. Currently, she is a research fellow at the Chair of Resource Economics at Humboldt University of Berlin. In the frame of the interdisciplinary SEAMLESS research project, she scientifically leads and coordinates an international research group, which aims at developing a methodological procedure for ex-ante agro-environmental and rural development policy assessment, as regards institutional compatibility. Besides this strong methodological interest in institutional analysis, her focus is on natural resource management in Central and Eastern Europe and, in particular, on the relationships of formal policy changes and local institutional changes of water resource management.


Paper in PDF


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Thursday, October 6, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)


An Institutional Economics Perspective on Economic Growth


Presented by Professor A. Allan Schmid, University Distinguished Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing


Abstract: The debate over whether institutions or some factor such as human capital or health is more important for economic growth is misplaced. Regressing income on institutional variables will not provide an understanding of how institutions affect the presence and particular combination of the factors of production and who captures the benefits thereof. Institutions cannot be effectively measured by some general index of property rights, security, free trade, or regulatory burden. The empirical specification of institutional variables could be improved by categorizing the sources of human interdependence since the formal and informal institutions that affect performance are unique to each source. These categories include goods with high exclusion costs, increasing returns, and non-rival cost functions. Growth and poverty reduction may require selective confiscation of property rights. The alleged tradeoff between efficiency and distribution is poorly conceived.

BIO: A. Allan Schmid, University Distinguished Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. Ph.D. University of Wisconsin. Author of Property, Power, and Public Choice; Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Political Economy Approach; and Conflict & Cooperation: Institutional and Behavioral Economics, published last year by Blackwell (Web page–Institutional Econ–


Paper in PDF


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Monday, October 10, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)




Presented by Professor Markus Hanisch, Institute for Cooperative Studies, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: This paper investigates the cooperative association as a means of solving particular problems of rural development. I argue that in order to understand the role of cooperatives for rural development, it is not adequate to merely apply a comparative static analysis of their relative market performance vis-à-vis other organizational types they compete with. Such a comparison cannot explain why cooperatives exist in large numbers, because a competitive market environment provides only limited incentives for organizing business as a cooperative. Can one understand the role of cooperative organizations for the development of western economies from a today’s standpoint?


The paper applies three different perspectives on the cooperative organization. One follows the argumentation of transaction cost economics, the other approach discusses explanations for the role of cooperatives for economic development published by the eyewitnesses of the European cooperative movement, namely Mill, Walras, Pareto, Marshall and Pigout, finally two case studies illustrate the socio-economic conditions under which new cooperatives form in Germany. The paper concludes that cooperatives initiate the creation of know how, social group processes like the fair screening for managerial talent, the  articulation of preferences and the true willingness to pay for services. In doing so, they create important local information. Free accessibility to this information is the essence of the emergence of the cooperative’s future competitors, namely private service companies and public service industries, both of which are important elements of modern economies.


Once competition is in place, services are offered for competitive prices by companies or by subsidized prices by public service industries, so that cooperatives "help and services" are no longer necessary. Having to face competition, cooperatives either professionalize, therewith losing identity and group cohesion, or vanish. However, this process is not irreversible. In the pace of structural change, the state or the private service industry may have to withdraw services from rural communities or their services may no longer meet the preferences of rural dwellers. Clearly articulated dissatisfaction with services is then the beginning of self-organized services which may organize as new cooperatives.


BIO: Dr. Markus Hanisch is an agricultural economist. He received his doctorate from The Humboldt-University of Berlin. He is the current manager of the Institute for Cooperative Studies at the Humboldt University. His research interest focuses on ownership transformation and land market development in Central and Eastern Europe and on the more general issue of co-ownership and rural cooperation. During his one month stay at the Workshop, he intends to intensify research collaboration (CIReG and Transcoop projects) with Workshop colleagues and to improve his publication.


Paper in PDF


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Thursday, October 13, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)




Presented by Professor Michael L. Cook, Robert D. Partridge Professor, Division of Applied Social Sciences, University of Missouri - Columbia


Abstract: Agricultural cooperatives play a major role in the global food system. Consequently they are important rural development institutions and organizational arrangements. This seminar explores the evolution of a field based research program exploring identification and taxonomy construction of “collective action problems” in agricultural cooperatives.  The research program, based at the University of Missouri incorporates multiple conceptual and methodological approaches in studying the evolution of these organizations as they move from primarily collective good oriented toward club and private good oriented entities. Our studies suggest that the growing heterogeneity of members and it’s impact on investment and patronage preferences is leading toward a reexamination of organizational objectives and organizational architecture. The implications for rural development appear to be complex and nontrivial. 


BIO: Michael Cook’s research involves application of new institutional economics concepts to collective action issues with specific emphasis on comparative property rights analysis of cooperatives and mutuals world wide; on cooperative governance; macrohierarchy forms within the netchain; and on organizational architecture of cooperatives. His team is particularly interested in advancing the conceptual and empirical work on collective action problems. Cook received his PhD at the University of Wisconsin and has taught at Texas A&M and the University of Missouri where he is the Robert D. Partridge Professor of Organization and Cooperative Economics and a member of the core faculty of the Agribusiness Research Institute (ARI), Senior Fellow with the Contracting and Organizations Research Institute (CORI), and Executive Director of the Graduate Institute of Cooperative Leadership (GICL). He has also served in the cooperative and private sector holding positions of CEO and President of RGA and Farmland World Trade and Marketing Analyst with Tenneco. 


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Friday, October 14, 2005 (Special Session)




Presented by Patterson Ogon, Founding Director, The Ijaw Council for Human Rights, Port Harcourt and Yenagoa, Nigeria, and Visiting Scholar at the Department of Political Science, IUPUI


Abstract: As the price of gasoline has reached historic highs and hovered around $3 per gallon, many Americans have complained about the negative impact that high gas prices have on their personal finances.  Residents of many African oil-producing countries, however, ask why they have not received any benefits from such windfall revenues.  In the case of Nigeria, a recent IMF report observes that an estimated cumulative total of US$ 350 billion of oil revenues coincided with a poverty rate (measured as the share of the population subsisting on less than $1 per day) that increased from close to 36 percent in 1970 to just under 70 percent in 2000.  More than two-thirds of Nigeria’s oil is found in the land of the Ijaw people.  Yet, the vast majority of Ijaws have no electricity and no piped drinking water.  In December 1998, the Ijaw people set out their demands for self-determination and local control over natural resources in the Kaiama Declaration.  The Nigerian state responded to their peaceful demands with a military campaign of repression and sustained human rights violations.  The villages of Odi and Odioma were razed, thousands of Ijaws have been killed, and millions were effectively denied their right to vote in Nigeria’s fraudulent 2003 “democratic” elections.  This presentation describes the current state of affairs in the oil-producing Niger Delta region, explores corporate and state complicity in human rights violations against the oil-producing communities and argues that the best way forward for Nigeria is through a system of  local self government and resource control in a federation of ethnic nationalities.


BIO: Patterson Ogon is a 1990 graduate of the Department of Politics and Administration at the University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, and he is in the United States to be a Luce Residential Fellow at the Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Institute of International Studies, University of California - Berkeley.


Monday, October 17, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)


Social Science Knowledge and Institutional Innovation: An Institutional Design Perspective


Presented by Professor Vernon W. Ruttan, Regents Professor Emeritus, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul


Abstract: In this paper I advance a model in which institutional innovation is induced by changes in resource endowments, cultural endowments and technical change. I also introduce the role of advances in social science knowledge as a source of institutional innovation. The sources of institutional innovation are illustrated by changes in land tenure and labor relations in Philippine agriculture, by the development of institutional design principles based on studies of small scale resource management, and by the transition from command and control to market based systems of resource management at the national level in the United States. In a final section I elaborate a pattern model that maps the general equilibrium relationship among change in resource endowments, cultural endowments, technology and institutions.


BIO: Vernon W. Ruttan is a Regents’ Professor Emeritus in the Departments of Economics and Applied Economics and an Adjunct Professor in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.  He attended Yale University (BA, 1948) and the University of Chicago (MA, 1952; PhD, 1954).  He has served as a staff member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (1961-63) and as President of the Agricultural Development Council (1973-78).                                                                                          


Ruttan’s research has been in the field of agricultural development, resource economics, and research policy.  He is the author of Agricultural Research Policy, (University of Minnesota Press, 1982); (with Yujiro Hayami) Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (Johns Hopkins Press, 1985); Technology, Growth and Development: An Induced Innovation Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2001). and Social Science Knowledge and Economic Development (University of Michigan Press, 2003.). His most recent book, Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? Military Procurement and Technology Development, will be published by Oxford in 1996.


Ruttan has been elected a fellow of the American Agricultural Economics Association (1974); American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1976); the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1986); and to membership in the National Academy of Sciences (1990).  He has been awarded honorary degrees from Rutgers University (1978); Christian Albrecht University of Kiel (1986), and Purdue University (1991).


Paper in PDF


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Thursday, October 20, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)


The Dichotomy of Segregative and Integrative Institutions and its Particular Importance for Sustainable Resource Use and Rural Development


Presented by Professor Konrad Hagedorn, Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Chair of Resource Economics, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: This paper has started with the question “What is special about those institutions which bring about sustainability? In order contribute to an answer we have introduced into the Institutions of Sustainability Framework which structures the analysis of sustainability according to four main categories namely, Transactions, Institutions, Governance structures and Actors. From there we proposed that the goal of achieving sustainability has to do with balancing two sorts of costs and actor may face while being constrained by institutions. One is the costs from the integrative effects of institutions on his individual decision making. The other is the costs from the segregative effect of institutions. From there we proposed to classify rules according to their integrative and segregative effects on individuals. We explain why we think that the market or state dichotomy is inadequate for subordinating governance problems and types of rules. As a contribution to theory we have then structured the problem with achieving sustainability as a choice model in which we assumed a threshold of sustainability to exist. Sustainability in this model is described as societies´ compromise between institutions which integrate individual actors with their decisions in a wider system holding them fully responsible for their decision making and those institutions which partly free individual decision makers from parts of their responsibilities. It can be shown that completely different incentive structures for actors result from segregative and integrative institutions, respectively. Going out from this model, we propose a simplistic theoretical method for the search for institutions which support sustainable development. It soon becomes clear, that changes in society's perception as to whether more segregative or more integrative rules are appropriate have to do with the complexity of the governance problem and the availability of knowledge. The more the governance problem is characterized by "decomposability," the more accurate are segregative rules. The more a particular governance problem is characterized by complexity the more accurate are integrative rules. Many of the sustainability problems of today take the form of complex problems. Prominent contemporary scientific discourses like for example the discussion about Multifunctionality, Multi-Level Governance in Europe, Polycentricity, Biodiversity, or Cross Compliance take the form of very complex governance problems characterised by the felt lack of knowledge about cross level relationships and effects. In line with our argumentation it is easy to show that increased knowledge about our environment has already induced a paradigm shift towards more integrative rules for which sustainability serves as a "regulative idea." The proposed dichotomy between segregative and integrative institutions is already at work.


BIO: Prof. Dr. Konrad Hagedorn is the head of the Division of Resource Economics and Director of the Berlin Institute of Co-operative Studies at Humboldt University of Berlin. He has outstanding experience in agricultural and environmental policy research as well as political economy studies and concentrates on the combination of institutional economics, environmental policies, and transformation issues. His research emphasizes the forces and outcomes of institutional change and political reforms and focuses on the political and institutional aspects of natural resources and environmental protection. This includes CAP reform and EU enlargement processes as well as developing and transition countries. His main interest is oriented towards the development of theoretical and empirical approaches that are able to improve the understanding and the design of institutions required for sustainable resource and environmental management.


Paper in PDF


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Monday, October 24, 2005


The creation of informal structures in fiscal intergovernmental relations, the case of mÉxico


Presented by Professor Rigoberto Soria Romo, Universidad de Occidente, Unidad Culiacán, Sinaloa, México, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: When we observe changes in the political system and in the economy, the rules and institutions in use suffer unbalances and insufficiencies. This causes institutional and power vacuums that promote the appearance of new actors and new organizations that tend to occupy such vacuums.


In this article we claim that the long term crisis of the Mexican economy and the changes in the political system have caused the appearance of new actors and organizations whose interests include  the reallocation of resources, responsibilities and functions within the intergovernmental system. One of these emerging actors is the National Conference of Governors (CONAGO).


Here we show that CONAGO has created an ample informal structure that has surpassed the organisms, rules and institutions of the National Fiscal Coordination System. This informal structure has given technical support to the CONAGO proposals presented outside the formal channels established by the said system.


We conclude with two proposals: To change the ways and mechanisms for the decision making process which follows a top-down approach, from the federation to the states and municipalities, and the design and instrumentation of a new fiscal institutional architecture for the Mexican federalism.


Key words: Public administration, systems and government structures and conduction of policy.


BIO: Rigoberto Soria is Professor at the Graduate Division of Western University (Universidad de Occidente) at Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. He received his M.A. in Public Administration from the Center of Research and Teaching in Economics in México City. He also has a M.A. in Economics fro New School University in New York City and a Doctorate in Organizational Studies from the Autonomus Metropolitan University at Iztapalapa in México City. He has worked at the University of Guadalajara, The Sonoran College (Colegio de Sonora) and The Metropolitan Autonomus University at Iztapalapa. Rigoberto Soria is especially interested in public policy and local public finance in states and municipalities in México.


Paper in PDF


Thursday, October 27, 2005 (Special Session, Mini-Series)


Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions


Presented by Professor Daniel W. Bromley, Anderson-Bascom Professor of Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison


Abstract: Volitional pragmatism is advanced as a theory of human action, and as a plausible way of thinking about the evolution of economic institutions.  All economies are constructed domains of individual and group action.  It is the economic institutions that define opportunity sets—choice domains—for individuals as they go about their daily life.  Standard economic accounts see institutions as mere constraints on otherwise autonomous individual action.  Some approaches to institutional economics—the “new” institutional economics—suggest that economic institutions emerge spontaneously from the voluntary interaction of economic agents as they go about pursuing their best advantage.  This account misses the central fact that economic institutions are the explicit and intended result of authoritative agents—sitting as legislators, judges, administrative officers, heads of states, village leaders—volitionally deciding upon working rules and entitlement regimes whose very purpose is to induce behaviors (and hence plausible outcomes) that constitute the sufficient reasons for the institutional arrangements they construct.  Volitional pragmatism avoids the prescriptive consequentialism of the “new” institutional economics and asks, instead, that we see these emergent and evolving institutions as the reasons for the individual and aggregate behavior their very adoption anticipates.  These hoped-for outcomes in the future comprise sufficient reasons for the passing of laws and decrees and administrative rulings which then become instrumental to the realization of desired individual behaviors and thus aggregate outcomes.  


The theory of human action developed here builds on: (1) the pragmatism of Charles Sanders Peirce; (2) the classical institutionalism of John R. Commons; (3) the ways of “knowing” attributable to John Dewey, William James, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Richard Rorty; and (4) the jurisprudence of Oliver Wendell Holmes.


Pragmatism offers a promising theory of individual action.  Volitional pragmatism extends this account to the legislatures and the courts where the legal parameters of a market economy are worked out.  The economy is always in the process of becoming.  Here is a theory of how an economy becomes.


The talk is based on my forthcoming book Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions, Princeton University Press (2006).


BIO: Daniel W. Bromley is Anderson-Bascom Professor of applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  Professor Bromley has published extensively on: (1) the institutional foundations of the economy; (2) legal and philosophical dimensions of property rights; (3) economics of natural resources and the environment; and (4) economic development.  He has been editor of the journal Land Economics since 1974.  He is a Fellow of the American Agricultural Economics Association, and is listed in Who’s Who in Economics.  He is currently serving as Chair of the U. S. Federal Advisory Committee on Marine Protected Areas.


He has been a consultant to the Global Environment Facility; the World Bank; the Ford Foundation; the U.S. Agency for International Development; the Asian Development Bank; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and the Ministry for the Environment in New Zealand.  He has worked and lectured in over 20 countries around the world.  He is currently advising the new government of Southern Sudan on economic development strategies following over 20 years of civil war.


Professor Bromley has written and edited eleven books, the most recent of which are:


Economic Interests and Institutions: Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy (Blackwell, 1989).

Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy (Blackwell, 1991).

The Social Response to Environmental Risk (Kluwer, 1992). (with Kathleen Segerson)

Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy (ICS Press, 1992).

The Handbook of Environmental Economics (Blackwell, 1995).

Sustaining Development: Environmental Resources in Developing Countries (Elgar, 1999).

Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy (Blackwell, 2002) (with Jouni Päävola).


His latest book, Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions, will be published in 2006 by Princeton University Press.


Due to copyright issues, a copy of Professor Bromley’s paper “Reconsidering Environmental Policy: Prescriptive Consequentialism and Volitional Pragmatism” will not be available on our website.  However, for those at IU, the paper can be found through the IU Libraries Website using the Online Full-Text Journals by searching for the journal Environmental Resource Economics or go to and click on May 2004; Vol.28, Iss.1.  Hard copies are available. 


Co-sponsored by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, West European Studies,; and SPEA's Global Initiatives (SGI),, Indiana University, Bloomington.


Monday, October 31, 2005


Water Managed as a Common property in the Rural Rocky Mountains: Traces in Local Water Law Tradition, and New Potential in Times of Change


Presented by Professor Anne MacKinnon, Assistant Adjunct Professor, School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, Casper, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: Water law and management has developed out of distinct local conditions and experience in the Rocky Mountains of the Western U.S., in the communities built by the European settlers who supplanted indigenous peoples forced off the land. In the northern Rockies, Wyoming is an example of a very rural state whose water law has elements of a system of managing water as a common property. This presentation examines those elements and their development and change over time. It also takes a look at current challenges to which the system has so far not responded well.  It suggests how local people may be able to draw on their traditions to keep their water management system from being marginalized, and to help keep their communities alive in a rapidly transforming U.S. economy.


BIO: Anne MacKinnon is assistant adjunct professor at the University of Wyoming’s Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources. She is also a member of the state Water Development Commission in Wyoming. She received her B.A., cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in History and Literature/England, at Harvard University in 1973, and her J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1981, with an AmJur Award in property law. A lifelong interest in issues of natural resource development and industrialization in rural areas took her from research and paralegal work tied to the Appalachian Mountains in Kentucky to journalism and public work in Wyoming. From 1981 to 1995, she was reporter, assistant editor, and then editor in chief of the statewide daily newspaper in Wyoming, where she was a one of a two-person team named runner-up for a Pulitzer Prize in 1985. Since 1995 she has conducted field courses and chaired a public lecture series on natural resources for the University of Wyoming, with an emphasis on water management and policy. With the aid of a grant in legal history from Harvard Law School, her research and publications have focused on the interaction of people and place as reflected in the development of water law in Wyoming.


Paper in PDF


Monday, November 7, 2005




Presented by Uta Schuchmann, Ph.D. Candidate, Institute of Political Science, Free University, Berlin, Germany, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: I will present findings of the empirical part of my PhD thesis.  The study analyses political institutions that regulate the local governance of marine resources.  It addresses the research question how these institutions promote or hinder collective action in favour of conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs.


Coral reefs are the most productive and diverse marine ecosystem.  They provide a number of goods and services that are ecologically and socially important on local to global scales.  Worldwide the majority of reefs are at risk caused by human induced pressures, both local-scale stresses such as overfishing as well as global-scale impacts resulting from climate change.


My doctoral thesis focuses on national and local responses to the reef crisis. Most of the reefs are located within territorial seas and exclusive economic zones and can be classified as common pool resources (CPR).  Coral reefs face a CPR dilemma in areas where population growth and particularly large-scale economic exploitation in combination with technological development has resulted in high pressure on coastal resources.  The Philippines is one of the megadiversity countries and an epicenter of coral species and global marine biodiversity.  About two-thirds of the Philippines´ 70 Million population live in coastal areas.  Many people exclusively depend on reefs as a source of food and income.  The country has practised modern state management of the marine environment for several decades now.  Nevertheless, the ecological and social crisis is deteriorating rapidly on the Philippine coasts, where an estimated 70 percent of the reefs are at high or very high risk.  This jeopardizes particularly the subsistence of marginalized fisherfolks.


The presentation discusses two different legal frameworks that provide distinctive opportunities for conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in the Philippines.  In a next step, I ask (1) how these legal frameworks are implemented at two rural coastal sites in the province of Palawan (Western Philippines) and (2) how effective the local institutional arrangement has turned out to be in resolving typical conflicts of reef resource use. The findings of my research substantiate my core assumption which reads as follows:  Cooperation among coastal stakeholders is more likely promoted when political institutions are based on anti-elitist and anti-authoritarian values, enable local stakeholder participation and self-governance and strengthen horizontal social capital of local communities.


BIO: Uta Schuchmann is a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, during fall 2005 and a Ph.D. candidate at the Otto-Suhr-Institute of Political Science, Free University Berlin.  Her PhD thesis was supported by a doctoral fellowship of the Hans Böckler Foundation.  She is research fellow at the Global Governance Project, a joint programme of German and Dutch research organizations.  Aside from her academic work, she has been engaged in various projects in the peace, ecological and women’s movement.


Paper in PDF


Monday, November 14, 2005


Trust and Trust in Organizations


Presented by Prof. Dr. Antonio M. Jaime Castillo, Department of Sociology, University of Granada, Spain, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: Studies about trust and cooperation has been traditionally oriented toward inter-personal trust, focusing on dyadic relationships between individuals. Although there are some controversies about the possibility of extending the concept of trust to trust in institutions, it is also important to pay attention to these relationships between individuals and institutions. In the markets, or in the political arena people use to interact with different kind of organizations, like enterprises and governmental bureaucracies. Those interactions imply trust like interactions between individuals, but are different in nature. I assume that the interaction individual-organization is asymmetric in essence. Nevertheless, organizations need to generate trust as a mean to secure the future value of the relationship. In the model, the degree of asymmetry between organizations and individuals depends on the extent that the organization posses valuable resources to the individual. The degree of asymmetry in turn affects the behavior of the organization and the expectations the individuals about the organization. I finish stressing some important similarities and differences between inter-personal trust and trust in organizations.

BIO: Antonio M. Jaime Castillo is Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology, University of Granada (Spain), where he teaches courses about social structure and political behavior. He is a Post-doc Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis of Indiana University. He has done research at the Norwegian Social Science Data Services, University of Bergen (Norway) and the ZA-Eurolab, University of Cologne (Germany). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Granada in 2003. His dissertation was a comparative study about trust in political institutions in different European countries. His fields of research are positive political theory, game theoretical models for the analysis of institutions and statistical methodology for comparative social research. He is actually working on institutional design, and the development of trust and cooperation within different institutional settings and social networks. He is also interested in multilevel modeling of social and political process, where people are nested in social structures.

Paper in PDF


Thursday, November 17, 2005 (Special Training Session)


Presented by Professor Steven R. Brown, Department of Political Science, Kent State University, Ohio


Workshop on Q Methodology


This workshop will provide an introduction to Q methodology, which is a research procedure and conceptual framework for the scientific study of subjectivity.  Following an historical introduction and presentation of basic principles, participants will be led through a Q-sorting session, the data from which will be used to demonstrate the PQMethod software program for data entry and analysis.  Analysis will include the correlation and factor analysis of data, the rotation of factors, and the calculation of factor scores, followed by data interpretation.  Within time limits, additional applications will be presented to indicate the range of problems to which Q methodology can be applied.


BIO: Professor Brown's research revolves around a central interest in subjectivity, as described most thoroughly in his Political Subjectivity. He was a founder of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity and for more than 15 years was editor of its journal, Operant Subjectivity. He was also a founder of the International Society of Political Psychology, for 10 years was Book Review Editor for its journal, Political Psychology, and served as the Society's Executive Director. He has also served as a member of the Editorial Boards of Public Opinion Quarterly, Experimental Study of Politics, Political Methodology, Journal of Melanie Klein and Object Relations, and Electronic Journal of Communication, and as contributing editor to Communication Yearbook. His methodological interests can be seen in his co-authored monograph on Experimental Design and Analysis. Professor Brown's interest in the role of subjectivity in political and social life is manifest in articles and book chapters on topics such as political psychology, group psychology, literature, policy sciences, and theory and methodology. He is a past editor of Policy Sciences and was one of the founding members of the Society for Policy Sciences.  He is currently at work on projects on value clarification, the quantum foundations of subjectivity, Q methodology and decision making, and the history and future of Q methodology, among others.


Monday, November 28, 2005




Presented by Professor Johnny Goldfinger, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI) (coauthors: Professor Margaret R. Ferguson, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, and Professor Brian Vargus, Department of Political Science, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis - IUPUI)


Abstract: Researchers have identified a positive relationship between social capital and managerial performance for governments at local, state, and national levels.  No study, however, has looked at this relationship in large cities. Our study fills this gap in the literature.  It examines the effects of two forms of social capital, generalized reciprocity and civic engagement, on governmental performance in 18 large American cities.  On the whole, our measures of generalized reciprocity were consistently significant.  This finding is typical of similar studies.  However, virtually none of our indicators of civic engagement were statistical significant.  This result contradicts the findings of other research, but is not necessarily unexpected.  It reflects the ambiguous effects of civic engagement on personal behavior and dispositions.




Margaret R. Ferguson is an associate professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.  She received her Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Her research interests include governors, legislatures and lawmaking in the states, executive branch politics, leadership and personality and social capital and the quality of government.  Her research has been published in the Journal of Politics, Women and Politics, Political Psychology, and State Politics and Policy Quarterly. Professor Ferguson teaches courses on state politics, southern politics, Congress, and the Presidency.


Johnny Goldfinger is an assistant professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, where he teaches courses in political theory.  He received his Ph.D. from Duke University in August 2003.  His dissertation, “Deliberative Democracy, Preference Change, and Social Choice,” looks at the political theories of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas from the perspective of social choice theory.  Johnny’s recent publications include “The Value of Social Choice Theory for Normative Political Theorists” (The Good Society) and “Thoughts on the Internet as an Ideal Speech Situation” (Politics and Information Systems: Technology and Applications).  His current research projects focus on a variety of issues.  They include a look at the implications of voter rationality for minor party campaign strategies, an examination of the parallels in the political theories of Rawls and Jean Jacque Rousseau, and a reconsideration of intellectual property rights in light of music sampling by hip-hop artists.


Paper in PDF


Monday, December 5, 2005


Development AND BIO-DIVERSITY in East Africa and India


Presented by Dr. Emil Uddhammar, Department of Government, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: To preserve wildlife and its habitats, the effectiveness of national and local authorities is necessary. Management of protected areas and also of tourist opportunities is intensely local. International norms, national laws and NGO recommendations can be modified, ignored or enforced by civil servants and communities locally to fit circumstances.


The main task of this research project will be a systematic evaluation of institutional performance in and around four protected areas in Kenya, Tanzania and two states in India with regard to (1) human development, with a focus on poverty reduction, and (2) biodiversity protection. How has the relationship between conservation and the village economy developed over time?


We will use a "retrospective" longitudinal interview and survey method used successfully by Krishna (2004) in villages in Rajastan, India, to assess who escaped poverty and who became poor and why. We will also ask questions about changes in bio-diversity and land use.


I invite suggestions and critical comments from the seminar, as this project is still in its early phase.


BIO: Emil Uddhammar received his PhD in Political Science from Uppsala University in 1993. Starting with political institutions in Sweden, his research then took him to the area of norms (trust and reciprocity) in civil society and eventually into his present research on institutions and development. His most recent research project on institutions, biodiversity and development in East Africa and India (with Fanuel Shechambo and Nilanjan Ghosh) is financed by the Swedish Research Council. Another current research topic is democratic institutions and the rule of law in East Africa. Dr. Uddhammar has published and edited several books, working papers, and articles in Sweden and internationally. He has been a research director at the City University of Stockholm, at the Johnson Foundation and a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Since 2002 he is an Associate Professor at the Department of Government, Uppsala University.


Paper in PDF


Back to index

Back to the Workshop Homepage
Copyright 2004, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
Last updated: