BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 METHOD:PUBLISH PRODID:-//Telerik Inc.//Sitefinity CMS 15.1//EN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Eastern Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20251102T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=11 TZNAME:Eastern Standard Time TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20250301T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYHOUR=2;BYMINUTE=0;BYMONTH=3 TZNAME:Eastern Daylight Time TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DESCRIPTION:Event Series:Institutional Grammar Research Initiative | IGRI R esearch Seminar Series\, November 2025Presenter:Gerard Conway\, Brunel Uni versity of LondonAbstract:Ostrom’s institutional grammar provides an analy tical framework for identifying different rule-types used in the governanc e of commons\, in other words\, it provides a typology of rules for how co mmons can be regulated. Outside of Ostrom’s institutional grammar\, norm t ypology is also found in particular in legal theory\, most famously in Hoh feld’s oft-cited (though less often applied) study of jural relations (191 9)\, while a more recent example is Frändberg’s study of the foundations o f legal order (2018). By identifying the formal characteristics of rules i n general and of different rule types\, such analysis provides standards f or the appraisal of particular substantive rules. In particular\, Ostrom’s institutional grammar provides an overall framework for apprehending the range of possible rule types in the regulation of commons\, as well as des ign principles derived from empirical studies allowing optimal approaches to commons governance. Ostrom made some reference to Hohfeld’s work\, but did not use it extensively or compare her rule types to Hohfeld’s jural re lations\, while Ostrom’s work has been little cited in legal scholarship. Within literature inspired by Ostrom’s institutional grammar\, some author s have suggested adjusting aspects of Östrom’s typology (such as Siddiki e t al 2011)\, while others have not relied on Ostrom’ rule types\, instead adopting a considerably more detailed typology of rules (de Moor et al 201 6). This paper considers Ostrom’s institutional grammar in light of legal norm typology to assess to what extent the latter might be a basis for cri tiquing or supplementing Ostrom’s approach. DTEND:20251104T180000Z DTSTAMP:20260609T213552Z DTSTART:20251104T170000Z LOCATION: SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Norm Typology and the Study of Commons UID:RFCALITEM639166233522033591 X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

Event Series:

Institutional Grammar Research Initiative | IGRI Research Seminar Series\, November 2025

Presenter:

Gerard Conway\, Brunel University of London

Abstract:

Ostrom’s institutional grammar provides an analytical fr amework for identifying different rule-types used in the governance of com mons\, in other words\, it provides a typology of rules for how commons ca n be regulated. Outside of Ostrom’s institutional grammar\, norm typology is also found in particular in legal theory\, most famously in Hohfeld’s o ft-cited (though less often applied) study of jural relations (1919)\, whi le a more recent example is Frändberg’s study of the foundations of legal order (2018). By identifying the formal characteristics of rules in genera l and of different rule types\, such analysis provides standards for the a ppraisal of particular substantive rules. In particular\, Ostrom’s institu tional grammar provides an overall framework for apprehending the range of possible rule types in the regulation of commons\, as well as design prin ciples derived from empirical studies allowing optimal approaches to commo ns governance. Ostrom made some reference to Hohfeld’s work\, but did not use it extensively or compare her rule types to Hohfeld’s jural relations\ , while Ostrom’s work has been little cited in legal scholarship. Within l iterature inspired by Ostrom’s institutional grammar\, some authors have s uggested adjusting aspects of Östrom’s typology (such as Siddiki et al 201 1)\, while others have not relied on Ostrom’ rule types\, instead adopting a considerably more detailed typology of rules (de Moor et al 2016). This paper considers Ostrom’s institutional grammar in light of legal norm typ ology to assess to what extent the latter might be a basis for critiquing or supplementing Ostrom’s approach.

END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR