Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Institutional Operability: Outward Rule-Following, Inward Role-Playing

  • and EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 30, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information Explore this Subject
Analyse & Kritik
From the journal Analyse & Kritik Volume 45 Issue 2

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.

Keywords: institutions; institutional action; ethics of office; rule-following approach; role-playing approach
Corresponding author: Emanuela Ceva, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, E-mail:

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.

  1. 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.10.1515/9781400822935Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Bratman, M. 2014. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199897933.001.0001Search 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.Search 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.Search 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.Search 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/9780197567869.001.0001Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Emmett, D. 1966. Rule, Roles and Relations. London: MacMillan.Search 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.ctt183p5tbSearch 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.Search 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:1004382403543Search in Google Scholar

Herzog, L. 2018. Reclaiming the System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198830405.001.0001Search 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.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Isaacs, T. 2011. Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782963.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kirby, N. 2021a. What is Good Government? The Philosophy of Office, Institutions and Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Korsgaard, C. M. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554476Search in Google Scholar

Lane, J.-E. 2000. New Public Management. An Introduction. London: Routledge.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Ludwig, K. 2017. From Plural to Institutional Agency: Collective Action II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198789994.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

McLaughlin, K., S. Osborne, and E. Ferlie. 2002. New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London: Routledge.Search 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/.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, S. 2017. Institutional Corruption. A Study in Applied Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139025249Search in Google Scholar

Oakland, J. S. 2003. Total Quality Management: Text with Cases. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Search 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).Search in Google Scholar

Philp, M. 2007. Political Conduct. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674276802Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. 2018. “Status Functions.” In The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality, edited by M. Jankovic, and Kirk Ludwig. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315768571-28Search in Google Scholar

Sher, G. 2006. In Praise of Blame. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195187423.001.0001Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, D. F. 2005. Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tuomela, R. 2013. Social Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199978267.001.0001Search 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).Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Waller, B. 2011. Against Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262016599.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Zacka, B. 2017. When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674981423Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2023-11-30
Published in Print: 2023-11-27

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Editorial
  4. Focus: The Continuing Relevance of Beauvoir
  5. Thinking with Simone de Beauvoir Today
  6. Beauvoir or Butler? Comparing ‘Becoming a Woman’ with ‘Performing Gender’ Through the Life Course
  7. Beauvoir’s Myths as a Concept for Analyzing Gendered Asymmetries
  8. The Importance of Realism about Gender Kinds: Lessons from Beauvoir
  9. General Part
  10. Deliberative Procedures as Social Technology
  11. Institutional Operability: Outward Rule-Following, Inward Role-Playing
  12. Discussion
  13. Classical Realism in World Politics. Précis to a Symposium
https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2023-2015
Keywords for this article
institutions; institutional action; ethics of office; rule-following approach; role-playing approach

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Editorial
  4. Focus: The Continuing Relevance of Beauvoir
  5. Thinking with Simone de Beauvoir Today
  6. Beauvoir or Butler? Comparing ‘Becoming a Woman’ with ‘Performing Gender’ Through the Life Course
  7. Beauvoir’s Myths as a Concept for Analyzing Gendered Asymmetries
  8. The Importance of Realism about Gender Kinds: Lessons from Beauvoir
  9. General Part
  10. Deliberative Procedures as Social Technology
  11. Institutional Operability: Outward Rule-Following, Inward Role-Playing
  12. Discussion
  13. Classical Realism in World Politics. Précis to a Symposium
Downloaded on 1.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/auk-2023-2015/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button