Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:11:45.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PERCHÉ È DIFFICILE COSTRUIRE LE ISTITUZIONI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

Giovan Francesco Lanzara

Introduzione

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

La costruzione di un'istituzione, qualsiasi cosa possa significare, è comunque un processo che implica la formazione di una struttura, o codice, o pattern regolato di comportamenti che acquista legittimità e «funziona» in un contesto sociale specifico, fino a diventare un elemento costitutivo della vita sociale, stabile e persistente nel corso del tempo. Tale struttura può essere in parte il risultato di un progetto deliberato, in parte l'esito non intenzionale dell'azione umana e dell'interazione sociale. Il più delle volte è congiuntamente l'uno e l'altro, in combinazioni variabili a seconda delle contingenze. Se la struttura «funziona», essa potrà autosostenersi e riprodursi nel tempo. Ma in caso di «fallimento», provocato da un rendimento scadente o dall'erosione di legittimità morale e politica, non necessariamente verrà rimpiazzata in modo rapido e completo. Più verosimilmente le sue componenti fondamentali, anche se obsolete, continueranno a sopravvivere per lungo tempo «come frammenti di rotte catene, pendenti dalle volte di vecchi edifici» (Tocqueville 1969), senza alcuna funzione specifica, o forse subiranno un lento processo di mutamento, assumendo gradualmente nuove funzioni e significati col passare del tempo.

Summary

Summary

Why is institution building difficult? why it often turns out to be self-destructive? and how does it take place in spite of its difficulties? Extending an analytical framework developed by James March (1991), this paper tries to tackle these questions by examining the dilemma between the exploration of alternative institutional arrangements and the exploitation of current ones. Institution building is viewed as a problem of adaptive intelligence and learning in the intertemporal allocation of resources. Some basic self-destructive processes and failure cycles associated with the exploration/exploitation dilemma are identified and discussed; implications are drawn for four distinct domains: competency and resource endowments, self-interest, identity, and trust. In the second part of the paper three basic modes of institution building are illustrated: focal points, increasing returns, and bricolage. These are shown to be modest but viable mechanisms for countervailing self-destructive dynamics and for building institutions.

Type
Saggi
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , April 1997 , pp. 3 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Societ Italiana di Scienza Politica 

References

Riferimenti bibliografici

Abell, P. (1995), The New Institutionalism and Rational Choice Theory, in Scott, W.R. e Christensen, S. (a cura di), The Institutional Construction of Organizations, Thousands Oaks, Sage Publications, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Alberti, G. (1996), «Movimientismo» and Democracy: An Analytic Framework and the Peruvian Case Study, in Dinitz, Eli (a cura di), The Challenge of Democracy in Latin America, Rethinking State-Society Relationships, Rio de Janeiro, IPSA-IUPERJ.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. e Schon, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning II, revised edition, Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1988), Self-reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics, in Anderson, P.W. e Arrow, K.J. (a cura di), The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, Menlo Park, Calif., Addison-Wesley, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1989), Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events, in «The Economic Journal», 99 (394), marzo, pp. 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baldi, B. (1996), Institutional Change Vs. Institutional Persistence? The Transformation of the U.S. Regulatory Commission since Three Mile Island, preliminary paper, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, gennaio.Google Scholar
Bamberger, J. e Schon, D.A. (1983), Learning as Reflective Conversation with Materials, in «Art Education», marzo, pp. 68–73.Google Scholar
Ciborra, C. (1992), From Thinking to Tinkering: The Grassroots of Strategic Information Systems, in «The Information Society», 8, pp. 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciborra, C. e Lanzara, G.F. (1994), Formative Contexts and Information Technology. Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation in Organizations, in «Accounting, Management, and Information Technology», vol. 4, pp. 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, P. (1985), Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, in «American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings», maggio, pp. 332–337.Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1986), Understanding the Economics of QWERTY. The Necessity of History, in Parker, W. (a cura di), Economic History and the Modern Historian, London, Blackwell, pp. 30–49.Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1992), Why Institutions are the «Carriers of History». Notes on Path-dependence and the Evolution of Conventions, Organizations and Institutions, Stanford Institute for Theoretical Economics, Stanford University, mimeo, October, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1984), Ulysses and the Sirens, revised edition, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press (trad. it. Ulisse e le sirene. Indagini sulla razionalità e l'irrazionalità, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1983).Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1989), The Cement of Society. A Study of Social Order, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (trad. it. Il cemento della società. Uno studio sull'ordine sociale, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1995).Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1993), Political Psychology, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Etheredge, L.S. (1976), The Case of the Unreturned Cafeteria Trays, Washington, DC, American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Gambetta, D. (a cura di) (1988a), Trust. Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships, New York, Basil Blackwell (trad. it. Le strategie della fiducia, Torino, Einaudi, 1989).Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1988b), Can we Trust Trust? in Gambetta (1988a).Google Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1992), La mafia siciliana, Torino, Einaudi.Google Scholar
Garrett, G. e Weingast, B.R. (1993), Ideas, Interests, and Institutions: Constructing the European Community's Internal Market, in Goldstein, J. e Keohane, R.O. (a cura di), Ideas and Foreign Policy. Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, pp. 173–206.Google Scholar
Genschel, P. (1997), The Dynamics of Inertia: Institutional Persistence and Institutional Change in Telecommunications and Health Care, in «Governance» vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandori, A. (1995), Modelli di organizzazione pluralistica: il contributo europeo alla ricerca sui processi decisionali, in Bacharach, S.B., Gagliardi, P. e Mundell, B. (a cura di), Il pensiero organizzativo europeo, Milano, Guerini e Associati.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985), Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, in «American Journal of Sociology», 91, pp. 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, B.A. (1990), The Old and the New Economic Sociology: A History and an Agenda, in Friedland, R. e Robertson, A.F. (a cura di), Beyond the Marketplace. Rethinking Economy and Society, New York, Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Guarnieri, C. (1997), Magistratura e sistema politico nella Storia d'Italia, in Romanelli, R. (a cura di), Storia della Magistratura, Bologna, Il Mulino, in corso di stampa.Google Scholar
Jepperson, R.L. (1991), Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism, in Powell, W.W. e Dimaggio, P.J. (a cura di), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968), The Tragedy of the Commons, in «Science», 162 (13 december), pp. 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. e Thaler, R.H. (1991), The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias, in «Journal of Economic Perspectives», vol. 5, n. 1, pp. 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J.W. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. (1990), Corporate Culture and Economic Theory, in Alt, J. e Shepsle, K. (a cura di), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuran, T. (1988), The Tenacious Past: Theories of Personal and Collective Conservatism, in «Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization», 10, pp. 143–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lant, T.K. (1992), Aspiration Level Adaptation: An Empirical Exploration, in «Management Science», 38, pp. 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanzara, G.F. (1995), Tecnologia, sensemaking, e contesti formativi. Gli esperimenti di videoregistrazione del processo penale, in «Rivista Trimestrale di Scienza dell'Amministrazione», 1, pp. 77–109.Google Scholar
Levinthal, D.A. e March, J.G. (1993), The Myopia of Learning, in «Strategic Management Journal», 14, pp. 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi-Strauss, C. (1962), La pensée sauvage, Paris, Seuil (trad. it. Il pensiero selvaggio, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 1964).Google Scholar
Levitt, B. e March, J.G. (1988), Organizational Learning, in «Annual Review of Sociology», 1988, 14, pp. 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijparht, A. (1984), Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in 21 Countries, New Haven, Yale University Press (trad. it. Le democrazie contemporanee, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1988).Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
March, J.G. (1981), Footnotes to Organizational Change, in «Administrative Science Quarterly», 26, pp. 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G. (1988), Variable Risk Preferences and Adaptive Aspirations, in «Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization», 9, pp. 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G. (1991), Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, in «Organization Science», 2, 1, pp. 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G. e Olsen, J.P. (1984), The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life, in «American Political Science Review», 78, pp. 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G. e Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York, The Free Press (trad. it. Riscoprire le istituzioni, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1992).Google Scholar
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press (trad. it. Istituzioni, cambiamento istituzionale, evoluzione dell'economia, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1994).Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1992), Designing Institutions for East European Transitions, draft paper presented for the «Institutional Design Conference», The Australian National University, Research School of Social Science, 7-8 dicembre.Google Scholar
Olsen, J.P. (1992), Analysing Institutional Dynamics, in «Staatswissenschaften und Staatspraxis», Heft 2, 3. Jahrgang, pp. 247–271.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1966), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, Harvard University Press (trad. it. La logica dell'azione collettiva, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1983).Google Scholar
Orren, K. e Skowronek, S. (1991), Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a «New Institutionalism», in Dodd, L.C. e Jillson, C. (a cura di), The Dynamics of American Politics, Boulder, Westview Press, pp. 311–330.Google Scholar
Pagden, A. (1988), La distruzione della fiducia e le conseguenze economiche a Napoli nel XVIII secolo, in Gambetta (1988a), pp. 165–182.Google Scholar
Pizzorno, A. (1986a), Sul confronto intertemporale delle utilità, in «Stato e Mercato», 16, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
March, J.G. e Olsen, J.P. (1986b), Some Other Kind of Otherness: a Critique of «Rational Choice» Theories, in Foxley, A., McPherson, M., O'Donnell, G. (a cura di), Development, Democracy and the Art of Trespassing. Essays in Honor of Albert Hirschman, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
March, J.G. e Olsen, J.P. (1995), Note sull'uso della nozione di sé nell'indagine sociale, manoscritto non pubblicato, Istituto Universitario Europeo, San Domenico di Fiesole, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Poni, C. (1995), Standards, Trust, and Civil Society: Measuring the Thickness of Quality Silk Thread, saggio presentato al Seminario di ricerca su «Istituzioni e Institution Building», Dipartimento di Organizzazione e Sistema Politico, Università di Bologna, 4 dicembre.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (1993), Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, Princeton University Press (trad. it. La tradizione civica nelle regioni italiane, Milano, Mondadori, 1993).Google Scholar
Rice, R. e Rogers, E. (1980), Reinvention in the Innovation Process, in «Knowledge», I, 4, pp. 488–514.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1994), Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes, New York, Mcmillan Press (trad. it. Ingegneria istituzionale comparata, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1995).Google Scholar
Scazzieri, R. (1994), Sulla teoria economica della società civile, saggio presentato all'Accademia delle Scienze dell'Istituto di Bologna, Classe di Scienze Morali, Bologna, 4 febbraio.Google Scholar
Schelling, T.C. (1978), Micromotives and Macrobehavior, New York, W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
March, J.G. e Olsen, J.P. (1980), The Strategy of Conflict, revised edition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press (prima edizione 1964).Google Scholar
Skowronek, S. (1982), Building a New American State. The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities 1877-1920, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, D. (1994), Capitalismo su progetto? Nuove combinazioni tra pubblico e privato nell'Europa dell'Est, in «Stato e Mercato», 42, pp. 303–321.Google Scholar
Stark, D. (1996), Recombinant Property in East European Capitalism, in «American Journal of Sociology», vol. 101, gennaio.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A.L. (1968), Constructing Social Theories, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Sztompka, P. (1996), La fiducia nelle società post-comuniste. Una risorsa scomparsa, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (1987), The Possibility of Cooperation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tornasi di Lampedusa, G. (1958), Il gattopardo, Milano, Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, A. de (1969), Democracy in America, a cura di J.P. Mayer, tradotto da George Lawrence, Garden City, Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Toynbee, A. (1934-1959), A Study of History, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, R.M. (1987), Valse Necessity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warglien, M. e Masuch (a cura di), M. (1996), The Logic of Organizational Disorder, Berlino-New York, Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K.E. (1976), Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems, in «Administrative Science Quarterly», 21, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, D. (1993), Organizational Redesign as Improvisation, in Huber, G.P. e Glick, W.H. (a cura di), Organizational Change and Redesign, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 346–379.Google Scholar
Stark, D. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousands Oaks, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zhou, X. (1993), The Dynamics of Organizational Rules, in «American Journal of Sociology», 98, 5, pp. 1134–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar