Kruse Kronicle

Rulers, communities, and revolution

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Aid Watch: Rulers, communities, and revolution

… What does this (ridiculously whimsical) example teach us about institutional rules in development? Some have had a simplistic view of institutions in development as deriving only from top-down formal rules and laws. This example and much research indicates otherwise.

First, formal rules that are incompatible with community norms often have no effect (this extends to things like trying to have registered land titles when the local community already has customary allocation of land rights, research on paper land titles in Africa confirms they have little effect on anything).

Second, if the rulers are especially oppressive they could enforce the incompatible formal rules by force, which would make communities worse off. But in a free society, the community can resist the rulers, which is part of the benefit of a free society.

Third, most rules we live by in a free society are more the product of community norms than they are of formal laws. (Fancy version: Rules emerge out of complex social interactions in a spontaneous order.) This is a good thing, as it makes the rules more responsive to local circumstances and needs. Down with arbitrary rules, up with community norms.

Comments

4 responses to “Rulers, communities, and revolution”

  1. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    Community norms like, say, segregation?

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    But also Prohibition … or the way Roe v. Wade “settled” the abortion issue?
    I think therein lies the lesson. Desegregation wasn’t accomplished purely by changing the rules. (In fact, in many cases it was simply enforcing rules that were already on the books.) There was persistent parallel movement of people to change the hearts and minds of folks.
    It’s a messy challenge, isn’t it?

    Reply
  3. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    It is. Obviously some problems are more easily addressed through things like legislation than others. Some shouldn’t be addressed through legislation at all.
    But, “Down with arbitrary rules, up with community norms”? That’s pretty simplistic.
    Prohibition may be more of an example of how not to address a problem (alcoholism) through legislation rather than why you shouldn’t address a problem through legislation. We stopped banning alcohol, but we do tax the crap out of it, as well as ban drunk driving, publicly fund alcohol treatment, and so forth.
    How do we know when arguments to just “change hearts and minds” are truly a recognition the limits of legislation, and when they are merely an excuse for moral complacency?

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    If we knew that, we could start our own consulting firm. 🙂
    I do think it is important to note that Easterly was writing about cultural norms relating to trade, economics, and politics in particular. Moving into a nation and imposing democracy, or American style property rights, or U.S. trade practices contrary to cultural norms is at best risky, as I think George Bush learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Easterly has written that the emergence of widespread prosperity is what tends to generate other reforms. Policy and legislation needs to emerge, not be imposed, to sustainably effective.
    I agree with your qualifications but I think we can look at our recent past and learn something about creating change through legislation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading