Institutional Operability: Outward Rule-Following, Inward Role-Playing
-
Abstract
Institutional operability refers to the normative conditions governing the exercise of power of office that makes an institution work. Because institutional action occurs by the interrelated actions of the officeholders, a focus on institutional operability requires the analysis and assessment of the officeholders’ conduct in their institutional capacity. This article distinguishes two perspectives on operability: ‘outward’ and ‘inward.’ The outward view emphasizes predefined instructions for efficient execution, focusing on rule-following to achieve institutional purposes. The inward perspective highlights role-playing and reflective engagement among officeholders to uphold an institution’s raison d’être. The inward perspective brings to the fore the relational aspect of institutional life and officeholders’ interrelated responsibility for guiding institutional action.
Funding source: Swiss National Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: 100012_197354
Acknowledgment
We discussed earlier versions of this paper at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2021, the Political Philosophy Colloquium of the University of Zurich, the Philosophy of Law Reading Group of the University of Berkley, the Staff Seminar of the University of Geneva, the Ethics and Political Philosophy Colloquium of the University of Fribourg, and the Research Seminar of the Artic University of Norway. We are grateful to those audiences for their feedback and to Alice Al-Wakil, Carla Bagnoli, Federica Liveriero, Andrei Poama, Thomas Sattler, Dennis Thompson, and the Editors and Reviewers of Analyse and Kritik for their written comments.
-
Research funding: The research for this paper was carried out within the framework of the EnTrust-Endogenous Institutional Trustworthiness research project funded by the Division 1 of the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no: 100012_197354/1).
References
Applbaum, A. I. 1999. Ethics for Adversaries. The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400822935Suche in Google Scholar
Blanco-Oliver, A., G. Veronesi, and I. Kirkpatrick. 2018. “Board Heterogeneity and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effects of Line Managers and Staff Satisfaction.” Journal of Business Ethics 152: 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3290-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 2014. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Behn, R. D. 2014. “PerformanceStat.” In The Oxford Handbooks of Public Accountability, edited by M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, and T. Schillemans, 456–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ceva, E. 2019. “Political Corruption as a Relational Injustice.” Social Philosophy and Policy 35 (2): 118–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052519000013.Suche in Google Scholar
Ceva, E., and M. P. Ferretti. 2021a. “An Ethics of Office Accountability for Well-Functioning Public Institutions.” Public Affairs Quarterly 35 (4): 277–96.Suche in Google Scholar
Ceva, E., and M. P. Ferretti. 2021b. Political Corruption. The Internal Enemy of Public Institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780197567869.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Copp, D. 1997. “Defending the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: Blameworthiness and Moral Responsibility.” Noûs 31 (4): 441–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00055.Suche in Google Scholar
Emmett, D. 1966. Rule, Roles and Relations. London: MacMillan.Suche in Google Scholar
Fassin, D., and P. Brown. 2015. At the Heart of the State. The Moral World of Institutions. London: Pluto Press.10.2307/j.ctt183p5tbSuche in Google Scholar
Ferretti, M. P. 2019. “A Taxonomy of Institutional Corruption.” Social Philosophy and Policy 35 (2): 242–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052519000086.Suche in Google Scholar
Gornitzka, Å., S. Kyvik, and I. M. Larsen. 1998. “The Bureaucratisation of Universities.” Minerva 36: 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004382403543.10.1023/A:1004382403543Suche in Google Scholar
Herzog, L. 2018. Reclaiming the System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198830405.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Hindriks, F., and F. Guala. 2021. “The Functions of Institutions: Etiology and Teleology.” Synthese 198: 2027–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02188-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Hood, C. 1991. “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration 69: 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Isaacs, T. 2011. Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782963.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Kirby, N. 2021a. What is Good Government? The Philosophy of Office, Institutions and Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kirby, N. 2021b. “An ‘Institution-First’ Conception of Public Integrity.” British Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 1620–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712342000006x.Suche in Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554476Suche in Google Scholar
Lane, J.-E. 2000. New Public Management. An Introduction. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Lock, G., and C. Lorenz. 2007. “Revisiting the University Front.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 26: 405–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9052-4.Suche in Google Scholar
Ludwig, K. 2017. From Plural to Institutional Agency: Collective Action II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198789994.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
McLaughlin, K., S. Osborne, and E. Ferlie. 2002. New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, S. 2019. “Social Institutions.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/social-institutions/.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, S. 2017. Institutional Corruption. A Study in Applied Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139025249Suche in Google Scholar
Oakland, J. S. 2003. Total Quality Management: Text with Cases. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Suche in Google Scholar
OECD. “Healthcare Quality and Outcomes.” https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-care-quality-and-outcomes.htm (accessed October 27, 2023).Suche in Google Scholar
Philp, M. 2007. Political Conduct. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674276802Suche in Google Scholar
Philp, M. 2010. “What is to be Done? Political Theory and Political Realism.” European Journal of Political Theory 9 (4): 466–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374010.Suche in Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Searle, J. 2018. “Status Functions.” In The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality, edited by M. Jankovic, and Kirk Ludwig. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315768571-28Suche in Google Scholar
Sher, G. 2006. In Praise of Blame. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195187423.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Thompson, D. F. 2017. “Designing Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands in Complex Organizations.” In The Design Turn in Applied Ethics, edited by J. van den Hoven, S. Miller, and T. Pogge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Thompson, D. F. 2005. Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2013. Social Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199978267.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
US Department of Defense. 2003. “Military Specification: Cookies, Oatmeal; and Brownies; Chocolate Covered.” https://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/mil-c-44072c.pdf (accesses October 27, 2023).Suche in Google Scholar
van Hees, M. 1997. “Explaining Institutions: A Defence of Reductionism.” European Journal of Political Research 32 (1): 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00331.Suche in Google Scholar
Waller, B. 2011. Against Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262016599.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Zacka, B. 2017. When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674981423Suche in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Focus: The Continuing Relevance of Beauvoir
- Thinking with Simone de Beauvoir Today
- Beauvoir or Butler? Comparing ‘Becoming a Woman’ with ‘Performing Gender’ Through the Life Course
- Beauvoir’s Myths as a Concept for Analyzing Gendered Asymmetries
- The Importance of Realism about Gender Kinds: Lessons from Beauvoir
- General Part
- Deliberative Procedures as Social Technology
- Institutional Operability: Outward Rule-Following, Inward Role-Playing
- Discussion
- Classical Realism in World Politics. Précis to a Symposium
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Focus: The Continuing Relevance of Beauvoir
- Thinking with Simone de Beauvoir Today
- Beauvoir or Butler? Comparing ‘Becoming a Woman’ with ‘Performing Gender’ Through the Life Course
- Beauvoir’s Myths as a Concept for Analyzing Gendered Asymmetries
- The Importance of Realism about Gender Kinds: Lessons from Beauvoir
- General Part
- Deliberative Procedures as Social Technology
- Institutional Operability: Outward Rule-Following, Inward Role-Playing
- Discussion
- Classical Realism in World Politics. Précis to a Symposium
