The IAD Framework includes contextual factors which are identified in the framework as biophysical conditions and attributes of the community within which actors are embedded. The physical environment can include the natural environment or the man-made environment which includes physical structures, public infrastructure, parks, neighborhoods, institutions such as places of worship and schools. Attributes of the community includes the social, cultural and institutional dimensions of the community. It is also worth noting that community is not place-based but can include a community that is identity-based.
Rules are an important aspect of the framework and are conceptualized as barriers or incentives for engaging in change activities. The IAD Framework includes rules as a potential level of analysis and suggests analyzing rules related to:
- social roles
- action capacity ascribed to a particular position
- how interactions between participants result in final outcomes (voting schemes etc.)
- access to information and information channels available to participants in their respective positions
- likely rewards or punishments for participating in change activities
- criteria or requirements that exist for the final outcomes (policy adoption, sustaining resources, etc.)
The idea of interactions is woven throughout the definitions of the various types of rules that are part of the framework. Although not formally stated by Ostrom, one can glean that the framework supports the acknowledgement and analysis of power relations, conflicts and inequalities among actors and how those can impact interactions within and between groups.
Finally, the framework includes evaluative criteria. Evaluative criteria are applied to both the outcomes and the processes of achieving outcomes. The evaluative criteria that are the focus of the framework are outlined by Ostrom (2011) and include:
- economic efficiency
- equity through fiscal equivalence
- redistributional equity
- accountability
- conformance to values of local actors
- sustainability.
Each area impacts interactions among individuals as well as outcomes in the framework.
Economic efficiency is the estimation of the benefits and costs or rates of return on investments used to determine the economic feasibility or desirability of policies. Fiscal equivalence is the assessment of equity based on the concept that those who benefit from a service should bear the burden of financing that service or payment should be proportional based on assets. Perceptions of economic efficiency and fiscal equivalence, or a lack thereof, can affect the willingness of individuals to participate in change activities (Ostrom, 2011).
Policies that redistribute resources to poorer individuals, or redistributional equity, are also important to consider. Although efficiency may prescribe that scarce resources be used where they produce the greatest net benefit, a focus on equity goals may result in decisions and actions that benefit groups that have greater need. Meeting the goals of both fiscal equivalence and redistributional equity objectives may be in conflict in some settings (Ostrom, 2011).
According to Ostrom (2011), within this framework accountability is defined as those in power being liable for the development and use of public facilities and natural resources. There are two actors involved in accountability – the one accountable and the one to whom she is accountable. Moreover, there must be consequences for not fulfilling a commitment. What are the consequences of being irresponsible or irreverent?
In addition to accountability, one may wish to evaluate how outcomes fit the values of those involved or conform to the values of local actors. According to the theorist, achieving efficiency requires that information about the preferences of citizens be available to decision makers (Ostrom, 2011).
Finally, Ostrom (2011) asserts, unless institutional arrangements are able to respond to everchanging environments, sustainability is at-risk. Sustainability is impacted by how flexible or rigid institutional arrangements are. If processes or resources are centrally controlled it lacks the flexibility to respond to special circumstances and sustainability can be jeopardized.
The field of Social Work has six core values. These values serve as a guide for professional conduct and create a common culture among social workers and a common standard within social work practice. These standards promote the provision of safe and high-quality ethical conduct and care. The six core values that guide the social work profession are service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence.
Social Exchange Theory
Social Work values of human relationships, integrity, social justice are manifested in Social Exchange Theory. Social Exchange Theory’s foundation is built upon the importance of human relationships as a means to exchange commodities. Social workers are instrumental in encouraging positive human interactions (individual-individual, individual-organization, organization-organization) that result in mutually beneficial exchanges. Social workers recognize that healthy relationships can serve as a vehicle for enhancing well-being and creating positive change and maintaining desirable outcomes within individuals, families, organizations and communities.
Within Social Exchange Theory, trust and reliability are distinguished as key components in relationships and can be thought of as synonymous with the social work value of integrity. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. As social workers, integrity, honesty, trust and reliability are key to building and maintaining rapport with clients and building and maintaining the reputation of the profession.
Finally, social justice is highlighted as a significant component of the theory and an important social work value. Social justice is analogous to the theory’s explanation of equity among partners. Equity among partners is an equitable distribution of tangible and intangible resources such as wealth, power, privilege, access and opportunity. As social workers we are called to support efforts toward equality and inform those who are unaware of imbalances in society.
The Institutional Analysis Development Framework
The Institutional Analysis Development Framework is congruent with three of the six core social work values: human relationships, social justice/equity, and dignity and worth of the person. The IAD Framework has been applied to a variety of studies on how people collaborate and organize themselves across organizational and state boundaries to manage common resources. An emphasis on human relationships is inherent in collaboration.
Ostrom (2011) also emphasizes the importance of equity within the framework as it relates to evaluative criteria. The framework addresses fiscal equivalence and redistributional equity. Both concepts align with social work values of social justice since both concepts underscore the need to focus on creating balance where the potential for injustice exist. Likewise, social workers are tasked with addressing issues that disproportionately effect certain populations and to address all forms of injustice.
Finally, the frameworks treatment of conformance to values of local actors is analogous to dignity and worth of the person within the social work values. The framework and social work value take into account cultural and social values. Moreover, within the framework and among social workers, people and their perspectives and approaches are treated with dignity and respect and there is an acknowledgement of the individual’s, family’s, community’s capacity to act as its own agent in improving situations.
Social Exchange Theory gives little attention to issues of cross-cultural differences in the norms and rules that regulate social exchanges. Social Exchange Theory is based on a rewards concept. In some cultures, or individuals within a culture, a reward may not be the intended or expected outcome of a relationship. The assumptions about values, norms and rules of exchanges are based on a western concept of social exchanges and may lack generalizability to cultures who do not subscribe to the paradigm reflected in the theory.
