Zusammenfassung
Steuerung durch Regeln bedeutet den Versuch, fundamentale durch regulatorische Unsicherheit zu ersetzen und so die Handlungen verschiedener Akteure zu koordinieren. Eine Form von regulatorischer Unsicherheit sind dabei die jeder Regel inhärenten Ambiguitäten, die den Versuch Unsicherheit zu reduzieren zumindest teilweise konterkarieren. Am Beispiel privater Standardisierungsbemühungen im Bereich des Urheberrechts versucht sich der vorliegende Beitrag an einer Beantwortung der Frage nach dem Zusammenhang zwischen dem Ausmaß regulatorischer Unsicherheit und der Koordinationswirkung einer Regel. Hierzu wird die regulatorische Konversation rund um eine konkrete Regel – dem Creative-Commons-Lizenzmodul der „nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung“ – sowohl hinsichtlich ihres organisationalen Entstehungskontextes (Regelsetzung) als auch im Zusammenhang mit der Adoption und Diffusion dieser Regel (Regelanwendung) analysiert. Es zeigt sich dabei, dass regulatorische Unsicherheit nicht notwendigerweise zur Ineffektivität oder gar Dysfunktionalität von Regeln führen muss, sondern auch produktiv genutzt und als eine, der Koordination dienliche, Leerstelle interpretiert werden kann. Im Ergebnis trägt die Ambiguität der hier untersuchten Regel entscheidend zu ihrer Verbreitung sowie zur Effektivität ihrer Steuerungswirkung bei.
Abstract
Implementing rules as a means of governance represents the attempt to replace fundamental uncertainty with regulatory uncertainty and thereby coordinate the conduct of different actors. One type of regulatory uncertainty is related to the ambiguities inherent in any rule, which, at least partially thwart the attempt to reduce uncertainty. Looking at private standardization efforts in the realm of copyright law, this paper investigates whether there is a relation between the degree of regulatory uncertainty and the coordination effect of a rule. More precisely, we analyze the regulatory conversation around a specific rule – the Creative Commons “non-commercial” license module – with regard to its organizational genesis (rule setting) as well as in relation to its adoption and diffusion (rule application). We find that regulatory uncertainty does not necessarily imply ineffectiveness or even dysfunctionality; rather, regulatory uncertainty can be used productively and thus be interpreted as a void or as a source of flexibility effectively supporting coordination. In the case under study, ambiguity contributed to standard diffusion as well as to the rule’s effectiveness in terms of governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literaturverzeichnis
Ahrne, G./Brunsson, N. (2006): Organizing the world. In: Djelic, M.-L./Sahlin-Andersson, K (Hrsg.): Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge, S. 74–94.
Ahrne, G./Brunsson, N. (2011): Organization outside organizations: The significance of partial organization. In: Organization 18 (1), S. 83–104.
Bach, D. (2004): The double punch of law and technology: Fighting music piracy or remaking copyright in a digital age? In: Business and Politics 6 (2), S. 1–33.
Becker, E./Buhse, W./Günnewig, D./Rump, N. (Hrsg.)(2003): Digital rights management: Technological, economic, legal andpolitical aspects. Berlin.
Beckert, J. (1996): Was ist soziologisch an der Wirtschaftssoziologie? Ungewißheit und die Einbettung wirtschaftlichen Handelns. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 25 (2), S. 125–146.
Black, J. (2002): Regulatory conversations. In: Journal of Law and Society 29 (1), S. 163–196.
Boje, D.M. (1991:) The storytelling organization: A study of performance in an office supply firm. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (1), S. 106–126.
Braithwaite, J. (2002): Rules and principles: A theory of legal certainty. In: Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27, S. 47–82.
Braithwaite, J./Drahos, P. (2000): Global business regulation. Cambridge.
Brown, J.S./Duguid, P. (1991): Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. In: Organization Science 2 (1), S. 40–57.
Creative Commons (CC 2009): Defining noncommercial. Full report and all appendices. Online: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/defining-noncommercial/Defining_noncommercial_fullreport.pdf [12.04.2011]
Dequech, D. (2000): Fundamental uncertainty and ambiguity. In: Eastern Economic Journal 26, S. 41–60.
Djelic, M.-L./Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Hrsg.)(2006): Transnational governance: Institutional
dynamics of regulation. Cambridge.
Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2010a): Epistemic communities and social movements: Transnational dynamics in the case of creative commons. In: Djelic, M.-L./Quack, S. (Hrsg.): Transnational communities: Shaping global economic governance. Cambridge, MA, S. 226–251.
Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2010b): Urheberrecht zwischen Kreativität und Verwertung: Transnationale Mobilisierung und private Regulierung. MPIfG Discussion Paper 10/6, Online: http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp10–6.pdf Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2011): Organisationale Netzwerke und digitale Gemeinschaften: Von Beiträgen zu Beteiligung? In: Managementforschung 21, S. 171–213.
Dobusch, L./Quack, S. (2012): Framing standards, mobilizing users: Copyright versus fair use in transnational regulation. In: Review of International Political Economy (im Druck).
Dolata, U. (2011): The music industry and the internet. A decade of disruptive and uncontrolled sectoral change. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Organisations- und Innovationsforschung 2011–02. Discussion Paper der Universität Stuttgart.
Engau, C./Hoffmann, V.H. (2011): Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: Evidence from uncertainty about post-Kyoto regulation. In: Policy Science 44 (1), S. 53–80.
Elkin-Koren, N. (2005): What contracts cannot do: The limits of private ordering in facilitating a creative commons. In: Fordham Law Review 74, S. 375–422.
Ellsberg, D. (1961): Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, S. 643–669.
Farrell, J./Saloner, G. (1987): Competition, compatibility and standards: The economics of horses, penguins and lemmings. In: Gabel, H.L. (Hrsg.): Product standardization and competitive strategy. Amsterdam, S. 1–21.
Feldman, M.S./Pentland, B.T. (2003): Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (1), S. 94–118.
Fish, S.E. (1976): Interpreting the „Variorum”. In: Critical Inquiry 2 (3), S. 465–485.
Fish, S.E. (1980): Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge.
Fischer-Lescano, A./Teubner, G. (2006): Regime-Kollisionen: Zur Fragmentierung des globalen
Rechts. Frankfurt a. M.
Gasser, U./Bambauer, D./Bragin, A./Harlow, J./Hoffmann, C./Hwang, R./Jackson, J./Krog G./Locke, E./Mohr, S./Reidel, I./Slater, C.D./Wilson, L./Palfrey, J. (2004): iTunes: How copyright,
contract, and technology shape the business of digital media – A case study Berkman
Publication Series No. 2004–07. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=556802
Giddens, A. (1984): The constitution of society. Cambridge.
Hardy, C./Lawrence, T.B./Phillips, N. (1998): Talk and action: Conversations and narrative in interorganizational collaboration. In: Grant, D./Keenoy, T./Oswick, C (Hrsg.): Discourse and organization. London, S. 65–83.
Hauser, T./Wenz, C. (2003): DRM under attack: Weaknesses in existing systems. In: Becker, E./Buhse, W./Günnewig,
D./Rump, N. (Hrsg.)(2003): Digital rights management: Technological, economic, legal and political aspects. Berlin, S. 206–223.
Hietanen, H. (2008): Creative commons’ approach to open content. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1162219 Hoffmann, V.H./Trautmann, T. (2006): The role of industry and uncertainty in regulatory
pressure and environmental strategy. In: Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings 2006, S. D1-D6.
Hoffmann, V.H./Trautmann, T./Hamprecht, J. (2009): Regulatory uncertainty – A reason to postpone investments? Not necessarily. In: Journal of Management Studies 46 (7), S. 1227–1253.
Hume, D. (1964[1742]): Eine Untersuchung über den menschlichen Verstand. Hamburg. Kerwer, D. (2005): Rules that many use: Standards and global regulation. In: Governance 18 (4), S. 611–632.
Keynes, J.M. (1937): The general theory of employment. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics 51, S. 209–223.
Kilduff, M./Mehra, A. (1997): Postmodernism and organizational research. In: Academy of Management Review 22 (2), S. 453–481.
Knight, F.R. (2002[1921]): Risk, uncertainty and profit. Washington.
Lemley, M.A. (2011): Is the sky falling on the content industries? In: Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 9, S. 125–135.
Majumdar, S.K./Marcus, A.A. (2001): Rules versus discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. In: Academy of Management Journal 44, S. 170–179.
Ortmann, G. (2003): Regel und Ausnahme: Paradoxien sozialer Ordnung. Frankfurt a. M.
Ortmann, G. (2008a): Organisation und Welterschließung: Dekonstruktionen. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden.
Ortmann, G. (2008b): Regeln der Klugheit? In: Scherzberg, A. (Hrsg.): Klugheit. Begriff, Konzepte, Anwendungen. Tübingen, S. 45–92.
Ortmann, G. (2010): On drifting rules and standards. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management 26, S. 204–214.
Philips, P.W.B./Kerr, W.A. (2002): Frustrating competition through regulatory uncertainty. In: World Competition 25 (1), S. 81–99.
Pisano, G. (2006): Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. In: Research Policy 35, S. 1122–1130.
Shapiro, C./Varian, H.R. (1999): Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston.
Sherkat, D.E. (1997): The cognitive structure of a moral crusade: Conservative protestantism
and opposition to pornography. In: Social Forces 75 (3), S. 957–980. Siwek, S.E. (2006): Copyright industries in the U.S. economy: The 2006 report. In: http://www.iipa.com/pdf/2006_siwek_full.pdf[10.03.2009]
Tamm Hallström, K. (2004): Organizing international standardization: ISO and the IASC in quest of authority. Cheltenham.
Tamm Hallström, K./Boström, M. (2010): Transnational multi-stakeholder standardization: Organizing fragile non-state authority. Cheltenham.
Timmermans, S./Epstein, S. (2010): A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. In: Annual Review of Sociology 36, S. 69–89.
Tsiavos, P. (2007): Cultivating creative commons: From creative regulation to regulatory commons. Doctoral thesis, Online: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/informationSystems/ pdf/theses/tsiavos.pdf [09.04.2011]
Vaughan, D. (1996): The challenger launch decision. Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago.
Vaughan, D. (2004): Theorizing disaster. Analogy, historical ethnography, and the challenger accident. In: Ethnography 5, S. 315–347.
Walgenbach, P. (2000): Die normgerechte Organisation. Eine Studie über die Entstehung, Verbreitung und Nutzung der DIN EN ISO 9000er Normenreihe. Stuttgart.
Witzel, A. (2000): Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (1), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1- 00/1–00witzel-d.htm [29.04.2006]
Wu, T. (2010): The master switch: The rise and fall of information empires. New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dobusch, L., Kapeller, J. (2012). Regulatorische Unsicherheit und private Standardisierung: Koordination durch Ambiguität. In: Conrad, P., Koch, J. (eds) Steuerung durch Regeln. Managementforschung. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-4349-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-4349-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-8349-4348-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-8349-4349-1
eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)