|
Abstract:
|
"The research is oriented to understand the challenge that demands to govern organizations sharing common use resources (CUR). For it, the contributions of Elinor Ostrom are taken as basis, both at the level of the development of the institutional analysis framework and the approach of the design principles characteristic of long-term institutions of the CUR; to then identify the pending challenges in this line of research, showing the contributions that could derive from the joint work with the anthropological model based on the theory of human action
proposed by Juan Antonio Pérez López. 1. The similarities between the approaches of E. Ostrom and Pérez López
are: the orientation towards the solution of real problems, the consideration of the diverse motivations of the
human being, the recognition of the existence of a social learning process and the strong influence of the decisions
of individuals, as well as influence of environmental conditions. 2. The use of the anthropological model poses a
new orientation to the approaches carried out so far. In this way, there is a leap from resource management and
definition of rules to the govern of human organizations. 3. The anthropological model proposes a new orientation
regarding the type of system to which an organization corresponds and its solidity. In this way there is a jump in
the approach from a homeostatic or ultra-stable system to a system of free adaptation, which implies the
incorporation of negative learning that can lead to the self-destruction of the organization. E. Ostrom does not
consider the verification of consistency with respect to internal learning, the lack of consistency would
compromise the institutional future of interaction. 4. Design principles proposed by E. Ostrom are focused on
defining the formal arrangement that makes it possible coordination. The control mechanisms and sanctions have
practical limits and more in highly adaptive environments such as CUR systems. 5. Addressing the organizational
problem requires more than the institutional arrangement. The approach of E. Ostrom does not answer ¿Who
will lead that organization? ¿Who are those that will keep it alive and adaptable to the different situations? ¿Who
are the ones that will keep the communication channels alive? ¿Who are those that will keep alive the necessary
motivation to achieve the results? The omission of the leadership for the self-preservation of the organization,
the doubts about the incentives of the person in charge of supervision lead to reduce the executive role to a level
of verifier of compliance with rules, commitments and establishment of sanctions. 6. The statements made by E.
Ostrom and Pérez López can be complementary, taking as a starting point the object of solving real problems,
and the methodology of decision analysis; the adjustments would require coming from the side of the consistency of the action over time. If these contributions, then serve to address with greater completeness the resolution of problems of organizations using common use resources, then we will have taken a step towards their solution (a contribution towards public policy)."
|