sanchayan nath, evolution in nature of collective action around water-bodies in bangalore

© Sanchayan Nath 2015

Evolution in nature of collective action around water-bodies in Bangalore

Sanchayan Nath Indiana University Bloomington

06-Nov-2015

The 1st IASC Urban Commons Conference, Bologna, Italy

This research has been funded by grants from the IU Office of Sustainability, the Tobias Center for Leadership Excellence, the Ostrom Workshop and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Bloomington, USA.

Source of image: Facebook group named ichangemycity, accessed on the 30th of October, 2015


Structure of Ppt.

• Some theoretical background

• Connecting the dots – proposed theoretical framework

• Some background from the site

• Using the theoretical framework to explain ground realities


Social-ecological system (SES)

I use the definition proposed by Anderies et al. 2004

A SES is an ecological system intricately linked with and affected by one or more social systems.

An ecological system can loosely be defined as an interdependent system of organisms or biological units.

Social systems can be thought of as interdependent systems of organisms.

Thus, both social and ecological systems contain units that interact interdependently and each may contain interactive subsystems as well.

“SES” refers to the subset of social systems in which some of the “interdependent relationshipsamong humans are mediated through interactions with biophysical and non-human biological units.”

The behavior of SESs is adaptive in nature due to the presence of feedback loops in the system(Holling 2001).

The ability of social institutions to adapt to the feedback loops in the ecological system leads toeffective governance of the system (Folke et al. 2005).


Institutions, social systems and ecological systems

Social and ecological systems are components of an “integrated” entity (Folke et al 2007; Folke et al1998).

Institutions are “humanly defined constraints”.

They link the social to the ecological system – “institutions … are mechanisms people use to controltheir use of the environment and their behavior toward each other” (Folke et al 1998).

Many institutions developed by society, in use currently for ecological management practices,however do not take into the account the complex adaptive nature of ecosystems.

This results in crisis at the social-ecological level which can trigger institutional learning if “agentsbreak through dense or encrusted institutional structures to achieve useful innovations”.

Such behavior by agents can lead to the design of institutions in social systems which fit thecorresponding ecological system.


Collective Action Scenarios

A collective action scenario arises when actors with common or conflicting interests cooperate tosolve a problem of common interest.

Decision making in such cases “relies on learning and adaptation”.

Actors “learn norms, heuristics and full analytical strategies from one another, from feedback fromthe world and from … self-reflection … They are capable of designing new tools – includinginstitutions – that can … change the structures of the world they face” (Poteete, Janssen and Ostrom2010; pp. 220-221).


Mental models and ideologies

I define mental models and ideologies as proposed by Arthur and North (1994)

Ideologies are “the shared framework of mental models that groups of individuals possess thatprovide both an interpretation of the environment and a prescription as to how that environmentshould be structured”

Mental models are “are the internal representations that individual cognitive systems create tointerpret the environment”.

Institutions are the “external mechanisms (that) individuals create to structure and order theenvironment”.

An individual’s mental model develops gradually over time based on the individual’s experiences inlife, his perceptions about his surroundings and the resulting “memory of analytic results andexperiences”.

His mental model gradually evolves over time via learning in the form of the feedbacks from hissurroundings which may strengthen certain aspects of his mental model or lead to the modification ofother aspects.

An individual’s mental model is also influenced by the ideologies of the various groups to which hebelongs.


Mental models, ideologies and institutions

Over time, the mental models of individuals who share a common ideology may gradually convergeover time.

An ideology develops as individuals communicate with each other.

An individual’s mental model or the ideology shared by a group of individuals remains stable overlong stretches of time.

They evolve incrementally as learning leads to changes in some aspects of the mental models.

However, differences in belief systems for interpreting the environment and differences in languagesfor communication may often bring groups, with different ideologies, in conflict with each other.

During such times, ideologies or mental models may be characterized by “relatively short periods ofdramatic changes”

As communication leads to a change in ideologies, institutions too change “in a co-evolutionaryprocess” (Arthur and North 1994).


Strategic Action Fields (SAFs)

In 2011, Fligstein and McAdam proposed a general theory of strategic action fields to explain collective strategic action – i.e. in order to explain how social order and social change result from the strategic behavior demonstrated by collective actors as they interact with other actors.

In other words, SAFs are the “fundamental units of collective action in society”.

Society consists of multiple SAFs with each SAF representing a potential site for the depiction of a collection action scenario. SAFs provide “a view of social life as dominated by a complex web of strategic action fields”.

The theory of strategic action seeks to explain decision making by actors in collective action scenarios as choice-making (trade-off) behavior, “rather than another, respond in one way to events rather than in others” (Jasper 2004)

Jasper (2004) proposes that while institutions, cultural variables and environmental structures influence how actors perceive the options available to them, outcomes cannot be explained “without looking at the choices made, the interactions, and the results”.

A SAF is a “socially constructed” arena “within which actors with varying resource endowments vie for advantage” (Fligstein and McAdam 2011).

The boundaries of a SAF are fluid in nature, and vary as actors interests within the field change or as actors enter or leave the field.


Strategic Action Fields (SAFs)

The principal characteristic of a SAF is that a “consensus” or a shared “understanding” exists withinthe field about the “rules” within the field.

According to Fligstein and McAdam (2011), SAFs are emergent in nature – i.e. SAFs arise or are created dynamically within society due to interactions between “proximate” or “distant” SAFs are as conditions change within society.

These adjustments are conceived as different forms of organizational learning.

Similarly, order within a SAF too in a state of continuous “flux”.

Distinct forms of governance exist with each SAF. SAFs may also be subject to “external” governance systems which might exist within society.

A SAF may be subject to a “crisis” arising out of “an exogenous shock emanating from a proximate field”.

A “genuine transformation” may occur with a SAF after being affected by a crisis. A transformation is conceived of as a “restructuring of relationships” with the SAF (Fligstein and McAdam 2011).


Adaptive Governance

Aligica and Boettke (2009; pp. 56-58) observe that, according to Vincent Ostrom, the human ability to exercise choice is the “source of social order and social change”

The process which generates adaptive human behavior is learning.

The emergence of institutions of governance through this process of learning is the result of adaptivehuman behavior.

Thus, “an account of human society” is an account of learning “manifested through choice”.

Folke et al. (2005) observe that change (disturbance) in a SES can be turbulent due to the presence of feedback loops.

Effective governance of such changes therefore requires the development of institutions which can develop or maintain the capacity of the system to absorb such changes

Therefore, according to Folke et al. (2005) effective adaptive governance is creating conditions for “ordered rule”, for “collective action” and for emergence of “institutions of social coordination” by managing and monitoring the feedback processes within the system.

Effective adaptive governance also requires that “a diverse set of stakeholders, operating at different levels” work together to “resolve issues concerning dynamic ecosystems” through “polycentric institutional arrangements” (Folke et al. 2005).


Connecting the dots – proposed theoretical framework

• Social-ecological system (SES)

• Institutions, social systems and ecological systems

• Collective Action Scenarios

• Mental models, ideologies and institutions

• Strategic Action Fields (SAFs)

• Adaptive Governance

Actors

SES

SAF1SAF2

SAF3

Interaction

Interactions

Turbulence

Learning

Change in Shared

Mental Model

Change in Institutions

Feedback

Adaptive Polycentric Governance

© Sanchayan Nath 2015Source: Google Maps, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015; Wikipedia, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015;

Lakes in Bangalore, India



Source: Google Maps, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015; Wikipedia, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015;



Source: http://cseindia.org/userfiles/Bangalores_Lakes_Bhargavi.pdf, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015;

These slides have been taken from a presentation by Bhargavi S Rao of the Environment Support Group, Bangalore as cited below


Current state of Lakes in Bangalore, India

Source: Google Maps, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015; Wikipedia, accessed on the 9th of September, 2015;


Thank you!

sanchayan nath, evolution in nature of collective action around water-bodies in bangalore

Government & Nonprofit