Elinor Ostrom, reader of Herbert A. Simon: <i>The Sciences of the Artificial</i> as a methodological guide ‘To deal with complexity’

Abstract This article revisits the methodological foundations of Elinor Ostrom’s institutionalism by examining the role of ‘complexity’ in her work and the conceptual influence of Herbert A. Simon. While Simon was not Ostrom’s most frequently cited reference, his thought – particularly as articulated in The Sciences of the Artificial – exerted a formative and enduring influence on her analytical framework. Drawing on Ostrom’s later writings, in which she offers a retrospective account of her intellectual trajectory, we show how Simon’s systems-engineering perspective provides a coherent framework for understanding her approach to institutional complexity, despite notable differences in their respective research objects and theoretical priorities. For Ostrom, institutions evolve incrementally as ‘boundedly’ rational individuals attempt to resolve collective problems through successive modifications of rule structures within complex social systems. In contrast to top-down optimisation models, her work emphasises adaptive responses and practical problem-solving. Interpreting Ostrom’s methodology through a Simonian lens not only deepens our understanding of her contribution to institutional economics but also illustrates the value of interdisciplinary approaches informed by complexity theory for the field.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Institutional Economics
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137425100295
Primary Topic
Economic Theory and Institutions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Elinor Ostrom, reader of Herbert A. Simon: The Sciences of the Artificial as a methodological guide ‘To deal with complexity’

Massimo Cervesato
Journal of Institutional Economics
Economic Theory and Institutions
article

Elinor Ostrom, reader of Herbert A. Simon: The Sciences of the Artificial as a methodological guide ‘To deal with complexity’

Massimo Cervesato
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article revisits the methodological foundations of Elinor Ostrom’s institutionalism by examining the role of ‘complexity’ in her work and the conceptual influence of Herbert A. Simon. While Simon was not Ostrom’s most frequently cited reference, his thought – particularly as articulated in The Sciences of the Artificial – exerted a formative and enduring influence on her analytical framework. Drawing on Ostrom’s later writings, in which she offers a retrospective account of her intellectual trajectory, we show how Simon’s systems-engineering perspective provides a coherent framework for understanding her approach to institutional complexity, despite notable differences in their respective research objects and theoretical priorities. For Ostrom, institutions evolve incrementally as ‘boundedly’ rational individuals attempt to resolve collective problems through successive modifications of rule structures within complex social systems. In contrast to top-down optimisation models, her work emphasises adaptive responses and practical problem-solving. Interpreting Ostrom’s methodology through a Simonian lens not only deepens our understanding of her contribution to institutional economics but also illustrates the value of interdisciplinary approaches informed by complexity theory for the field.

Journal of Institutional EconomicsVol. 21
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Economic Theory and Institutions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.