The practice of institutions

The preceding chapters have shown how governability, complexity, and institutional design can be analyzed analytically. Yet an important dimension of reality remains insufficiently visible: the way in which rules and institutions are actually used, interpreted, and adapted in practice [1].

Formal institutions rarely function exactly as they are designed on paper. Actors attribute meaning to rules, seek room for maneuver within formal frameworks, and develop informal practices to cope with tensions and ambiguities. To understand collective action, attention must therefore be paid to the everyday practices through which institutions are enacted [2].

Structuration theory: the duality of structure and agency

A central theoretical contribution to understanding this practice dimension is Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration. This theory rejects the idea that structures simply determine behavior. Instead, it argues that structures are both the outcome of human action and the conditions under which that action takes place [3].

Rules and institutions exist only insofar as they are reproduced through action. At the same time, they constrain and enable that action. This duality explains why identical rules can lead to very different outcomes in different contexts.

Institutional bricolage

Frances Cleaver built on these insights with her concept of institutional bricolage. She shows that institutions in practice often emerge as hybrid assemblages of formal rules, informal norms, traditions, and power relations [4]. Actors draw on existing social repertoires to construct new institutional arrangements.

This perspective corrects rationalistic design approaches that assume coherent, deliberately designed institutions. In reality, institutions are historically evolved, internally inconsistent, and situationally adapted. It is precisely this flexibility that can contribute to their durability.

Power, exclusion, and legitimacy

Institutional bricolage does not imply that all actors have equal influence over institutional outcomes. Power plays a central role in the creation and maintenance of rules. Some voices are systematically heard more than others, and informal practices can be both inclusive and exclusive [5].

Legitimacy is a crucial concept in this regard. Rules that are perceived as fair and appropriate are complied with without continuous enforcement. Conversely, rules that are experienced as unjust or alien give rise to resistance, avoidance, or merely symbolic compliance [6].

Tensions between design and practice

Insights from structuration theory and institutional bricolage make clear that institutional design always involves a tension between intention and practice. Designers can create boundary conditions, but cannot enforce behavior without social embedding.

Attempts to resolve this tension through ever more detailed rules often lead to bureaucratic overload and a loss of legitimacy. Effective design therefore requires modesty, reflexivity, and attention to learning processes [7].

Implications for collective action

For collective action in complex systems, this means that institutions must be not only technically robust, but also socially supported. Legitimacy, inclusiveness, and adaptability are not peripheral conditions, but core elements of sustainable governance.

These insights form an essential building block of the theoretical framework and prepare the ground for the analysis of formal mechanisms and allocation in the following chapter.

References

[1] Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.

[2] March, J.G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making. Free Press.

[3] Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Polity Press.

[4] Cleaver, F. (2012). Development Through Bricolage. Palgrave Macmillan.

[5] Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View. Palgrave Macmillan.

[6] Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.

[7] Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books.