Institutional Analysis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Icon tools.svg

This item has been on the quality assurance side of the portal sociology entered. This is done in order to bring the quality of the articles on the subject of sociology to an acceptable level. Help eliminate the shortcomings in this article and participate in the discussion . ( Enter article )
Reason: Unclear what it is actually about. There is talk of an "approach". In the Method section, the institutional analysis is then equated with the delta analysis , which luckily does not seem to be correct, otherwise the article would be redundant by definition. The literature is completely unsuitable. - Zulu55 ( discussion ) ignorance 10:33, 25 Aug 2014 (CEST)

The institutional analysis is a social science methodology to analyze social phenomena. It is usually carried out with the aim of explaining the causes of deficits in the achievement of societal goals in order to identify options for changing the institutional framework on this basis. When it comes to changing legal norms , the institutional analysis offers a behavioral science- based basis for a legal impact assessment (GFA). The analysis of institutions is concerned with economics , political science and also sociology and law .

Methodical elements

Institutional analysis is based on methodological individualism. In relation to specific actors, it asks about factors that influence their behavior (behavior-determining factors): In addition to the incentives , the obstacles that make it more difficult for the actors to behave in accordance with the requirements of the institutional context must also be considered would correspond. This "incentive and obstacle analysis " constitutes the core of the institutional analysis .

Institutional analysis is empirically oriented and uses the entire range of methods of the social sciences. It is therefore usually designed to be interdisciplinary. If the empirical studies also include the relevant actors, the institutional analysis can also be carried out in a transdisciplinary manner.

The procedure consists of seven basic steps, which aim to identify "target / actual deviations" and to develop design options that lead to the expectation of higher target achievement (and thus a reduction in the "delta"):

  1. Formulate target description (normative): politically defined, derived from legal requirements (e.g. the Basic Law ) or defined by the respective organization .
  2. Identify relevant actors: Which actors are important - in terms of target achievement - in which constellations? With what weighting?
  3. Determine behavioral contributions to achieving the regulatory objective: who has to do what and when? Who to cooperate with? ("Should")
  4. Analyze preferences as well as incentives and barriers for the actual behavior and thus explain the behavior ("actual")
  5. Determination of the delta (target / actual comparison: step 3 minus step 4)
  6. Develop design options for reducing the delta: changing the institutional framework (responsive regulation)
  7. If necessary: ​​Estimate the remaining delta (3 minus 4 and consideration of 6)

The "as-is analysis" in the fourth basic step includes the "incentive and obstacle analysis" (AHA for short). This requires a foundation in behavioral science. The behavioral assumptions of Homo Oeconomicus Institutionalis , as developed in interdisciplinary cooperation by the "Collaborative Research Group on Institutional Analysis" (Sofia), are ideal for this. This approach is based on a step heuristic , which gradually expands the range of assumptions on the behavior-determining factors in order to base the empiricism on hypotheses that explain the behavior of the actors under consideration. However, other behavioral approaches can also be considered.

See also

literature

  • Hensel, S./Bizer, K./Führ, M. (Ed.), Legal Impact Assessment in Application - Perspectives and Development Trends, Baden-Baden 2010 (Nomos, Interdisciplinary Studies on Law and the State)
  • Bizer, K./Lechner, S./Führ, M. (eds.), The European Impact Assessment and the Environment, Springer-Verlag, series Ökonomische Analyze des Rechts / Law & Economics (Heidelberg et al. 2010 * Bizer, Kilian / Gubaydullina , Zulia (2009): On the Future of Economics - Behavioral Governance, Wirtschaftsdienst - Journal for Economic Policy 89 (7), 447–450, 2009.
  • Führ, M./Bizer, K./Feindt, PH (Ed.), Images of Man and Models of Behavior in Scientific Policy Advice - Possibilities and Limits of Interdisciplinary Understanding, Baden-Baden 2007 (Nomos), Interdisciplinary Studies on Law and the State, Volume 43, ISBN 978-3-8329-2563-5
  • Haase, M. (2004). Knowledge and information: basic assumptions of economics and their importance for institutional analysis. Held, M .; Kubon-Gilke, G .; Sturn, R, 67-96.
  • Responsive Regulation - Contributions to interdisciplinary institutional analysis and legal impact assessment, Bizer, K./Führ, M./Hüttig, C. (Ed.), Tübingen 2002 (Mohr-Siebeck)
  • Schmidt, VH (1995). Sociological analysis of justice as empirical institutional analysis. In Social Inequality and Social Justice (pp. 173–194). VS publishing house for social sciences.
  • Gretschmann, K. (1990). New economic institutional analysis. Yearbook for Political and Administrative Science. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 339–358.
  • Elsner, W. (1986). Economic Institutional Analysis (No. 367). Duncker & Humblot.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Kilian Bizer, Martin Führ , Christoph Hüttig: Responsive regulation - contributions to interdisciplinary institutional analysis and legal impact assessment . Tübingen 2002
  2. ↑ Kilian Bizer, Zulia Gubaydullina: The behavior model of the interdisciplinary institutional analysis in the legal impact assessment, in: Führ, M./Bizer, K./Feindt, PH (eds.), Images of man and behavioral models in scientific policy advice - possibilities and limits of interdisciplinary understanding , Baden-Baden 2007