Deliberation, learning, and institutional change: the evolution of institutions in judicial settings
- 407 Downloads
Institutional change entails institutional design, assessment, and modification, which necessarily take place within the constraints and opportunities afforded by existing institutional arrangements. Viktor Vanberg has made major contributions to our understanding of how institutions evolve. We wish to contribute to this symposium in honor of Vanberg by analyzing how institutions for the management of water institutions in Southern California evolved primarily through the use of the courts as settings for deliberation, learning and institutional change.
KeywordsInstitutional evolution Institutional analysis Courts Equity Water resources
The authors are grateful to both sets of participants who commented on the paper. Additional comments from colleagues Daniel Cole, Peter Cullen, Jack Knight, Bruce Lankford, and Mike Young were very helpful and are appreciated. The support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is deeply appreciated.
- Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 18.Google Scholar
- Arizona Department of Water Resources (2001) “Arizona’s water supplies and water demands”. http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/content/publications/files/supplydemand.pdf.
- Blomquist, W. (1992). Dividing the waters: Governing groundwater in southern California. San Francisco: ICS Press.Google Scholar
- Blomquist, W., Schlager, E., & Heikkila, T. (2004). Common waters, diverging streams: Linking institutions and water management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Carter, J. (1959). Judicial control of the case and the limitations of discovery. Federal Rules Decisions, 23, 406.Google Scholar
- Checchio, E. (1988). Water farming: The promise and problems of water transfers in arizona. Water Resources Research Center Issue Paper No. 4. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center.Google Scholar
- Commonwealth of Australia. (2000). Water act 2000. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
- Gallogly, M. R. (2007). Arizona. Water Law Newsletter, 40(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
- Glennon, R. (2005). Water scarcity, marketing, and privatization. Texas Law Review, 83(7), 1–29.Google Scholar
- Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hundley, N. (2001). The great thirst: Californians and water, a history. revised edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Kahrl, W. (1982). Water and power: The conflict over Los Angeles’ water supply in the owens valley. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Leshy, J. D., & Belanger, J. 1988. Arizona law: Where ground and surface water meet. Arizona State Law Journal, 20(3), 657–748.Google Scholar
- Libecap, G. D. (2007). Owens valley revisited. A reassessment of the West’s first great water transfer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mann, D. (1963). The politics of water in Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
- McKay, J. (2005). Water institutional reforms in Australia. Water Policy, 7, 35–52.Google Scholar
- National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA) (2001). Australian water resources assessment 2000. Surface water and groundwater—availability and quality. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia National Land and Water Resources Audit.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, V. (1953). Water and politics. Los Angeles, CA: Haynes Foundation.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, V. (1962). The political economy of water development. American Economic Review, 52(2), 450–458.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, V. (1964). Property, proprietorship and politics: Law and the structure of strategic opportunities in the California water industry. Published by Resources for the Future, Reprint no. 47, June 1964. Online: http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/documents/dir0/00/00/01/23/dlc-00000123-00/vostr006.pdf [Last accessed April 25, 2007].
- Ostrom, E. (1965). Public entrepreneurship: A case study in ground water management. Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, V. (1971). Institutional arrangements for water resource development: The choice of institutional arrangements for water resource development, with special reference to the California water industry. Arlington, VA: National Water Commission.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1972). Legal and political conditions of water resource development. Land economics 48(1), 1–14. Reprinted in M. McGinnis (Ed.) (1999). Polycentric governance and development: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (pp. 42–59) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Pierce, R. J. Jr. (1999). Is standing law or politics? North Carolina Law Review, 77, 1741–1789.Google Scholar
- Stake, J. E. (2005). Evolution of rules in a common law system: Differential litigation of the fee tail and other perpetuities. Florida State Law Review, 32, 401–424.Google Scholar
- Steed, B., & Blomquist, W. (2006). Responses to ecological and human threats to a California water basin governance system. Presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. Bloomington, Indiana, October 25–27, 2006.Google Scholar
- Sterner, T., et al. (2006). Quick fixes for the environment: Part of the solution or part of the problem. Environment, 48(10), 20–27.Google Scholar
- Vanberg, V. J. (1992). Innovation, cultural evolution, and economic growth. In U. Witt (Ed.), Explaining process and change: Approaches to evolutionary economics (pp. 105–121). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Vanberg, V. J. (1994). Cultural evolution, collective learning, and constitutional design. In D. Reisman (Ed.), Economic thought and political theory (pp. 171–204). Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Yandle, T., & Dewees, C. M. (2003). Privatizing the commons … twelve years later: Fishers’ experiences with New Zealand’s market-based fisheries management. In N. Dolsak & E. Ostrom (Eds.), The commons in the new millennium. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Young, M. D. (2005). Sharing water: Options for the use of shares as a means to define groundwater entitlements in the South East of South Australia. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Working Paper. www.csiro.au.