ADAPTING THE GRAMMAR OF INSTITUTIONS TO STUDY CONSTITUTIVE STATEMENTS: THE CASE OF FOREST LAWS IN PARAGUAY By Silvana Mabel Peralta Bogarin A THESIS Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements Submitted to for the degree of Community Sustainability—Master of Science 2020 ABSTRACT ADAPTING THE GRAMMAR OF INSTITUTIONS TO STUDY CONSTITUTIVE STATEMENTS: THE CASE OF FOREST LAWS IN PARAGUAY By Silvana Mabel Peralta Bogarin Individuals create institutions to shape their interactions with other individuals, groups and with the systems around them. These institutions go through a constant process of change. Crawford and Ostrom (1995) developed a theory to study institutions by delving into the study of institutional statements. The authors developed a logical tool that they called the “Grammar of Institutions” (a grammatical syntax) to generate structural descriptions of institutional statements (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). Crawford (2004) mentions that institutional statements can be expressed using two basic linguistic forms: constitutive statements and regulatory statements. The “Grammar of Institutions” has so far only been used to study regulatory statements. This thesis adapts the institutional grammar to study constitutive statements. To do so, I first created a new institutional grammar syntax for constitutive statements. Then, I applied this new grammar to a set of forest Laws from Paraguay with the objective of identifying all the main concepts crafted by Paraguayan forest legislations, and then analyzed the impact that these rules have on forests and their users. The contribution of this thesis is two-fold: first, it contributes to the development of tools for the systematic study of constitutive statements by approaching a field within institutions scholarship that has been ignored. Secondly, by applying the tool to the case of the forests laws of Paraguay, I draw attention to the fact that the use of forests is influenced by the policy-making processes, and that these processes have an impact over the biological composition of forests and the people that depend on them. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With deep gratitude and fondness, I dedicate this work to my parents and brother, who have been always supporting of my dreams, work, and adventures. They are the greatest source of joy in my life, and the treasure Icherish the most.I will always be thankful to them. I also want to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Maria Lopez who with care and patience challenged and helped me to explore and develop my ideas into the project it is now. I could have not asked for a more caring and supportive advisor. I extend my sincere thanks to the members of my committee Dr. Mark Axelrod and Dr. John Kerrwho have been equally supportive,and whose guidance have helped improve this study. I also appreciate the support of my dear friend Maria Alejandra who provided valuable feedback and insights for the growth of this project. I also acknowledge the irreplaceable support of the professors, and the friends and colleagues I made here at Michigan State University, in the Department of Community Sustainability, and in the States. They contributed to make this journey enjoyable and full of good experiences.Furthermore, many thanks to the Fulbright Program and Becas de Postgrado “Don Carlos Antonio Lopez” for funding and supporting my studies in the United States. Also, thanks to the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies at MSU who funded part of my research. Last but not least, I am deeply thankful to God who has blessed me with a loving family, plenty of good experiences, and the strength and opportunities to pursue my dreams and ideals. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………..................v 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………......…....1 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………………………….….....7 2.1. The Grammar of Institutions…...…………………………………………….….…...7 2.2. Previous studies using the Grammar of Institutions…………………………...……13 2.3. Crafting a way to code constitutive statements: the ESPECO syntax…………...….17 2.3.1. Constitutive statements: definition and structure……………………….....18 2.3.2. A new grammar syntax for constitutive statements…………………...…..20 3. METHODS……………………………………………………………………………...…….25 3.1. Data collection………………………………………………………………...…….26 3.2 Data analysis……………………………………………………………………...….28 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………………………….32 4.1. Result 1: Constitutive statements have different types and functions……………....32 4.2. Result 2: When laws are created, they have more constitutive statements as thingsneed to be defined. In the following laws, they have more regulatory statements………………………………………………………………………...……...35 4.3. Result 3: When the definition of forest changes, forest also changes……............…40 4.4. Result 4: Laws define forests, but they do not define users, uses or a SES System..46 5. CONCLUSIONS AND THEORETICAL AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS…….….49 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………….53 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Components of the syntax of the Grammar of Institutions or ADICO syntax. Adapted from Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 584) and from Siddiki et al. (2011, 85) ……..….....9 Table 2. Summary of the components and description of the grammar syntax for constitutive statements…………………………………………….…………………………………………..23 Table 3. Legislation of forests in Paraguay, organized by year……...…………………………..27 Table 4. Summary of different types of constitutive statements found in the analysis.................33 Table 5. Frequency of the different types of constitutive statements and ratios…………………38 Table 6. Definition of Forests and its evolution over time and across legislations……………...42 Table 7. Definitions that affect or are affected by the Forests’ concept-formation by Paraguayan laws………………………………………………………………………………….44 Table 8. Showcase of the attributes of Forests valued and protected by Paraguayan laws of forests…………………………………………………………………………………....48 v 1. INTRODUCTION Institutions are understood “as the rules of the game” (North, 1990), and they are important because they have the power to structure, constrain, and enable both individual and collective behavior (North, 1990; Ostrom, 1992). Hodgson (2006), states that institutions are generally understood as the set of established and prevalent social rules, norms and/or shared strategies that structure social interactions. Different authors have studied institutions in the context of natural resources. Elinor Ostrom’s book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990) is central to understand the role of institutions in the governance of natural resource shared by a group of people. In particular, she focused on communities managing common-pool resources (CPR) such as forest, or irrigation systems. Ostrom (1990) studied how different groups of people devised and crafted institutional arrangements to manage CPRs, but also how groups follow and enforce those institutions (Ostrom, 1990). Ostrom (1990) listed a series of eight design principles that characterizes the kind of institutions communities create and follow to manage their CPRs in a successful way. Different authors have studied those design principles and complemented them (Agrawal, 2001, Cox et al., 2010, Cox et al., 2016). A group of institutional scholars (Ostrom and Basurto, 2011; Basurto et al., 2011; Siddiki et al., 2011) studied institutional statements and how they relate to institutions. According to Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 583), “institutional statement refers to the shared linguistic constraint or opportunity that prescribes, permits, or advises actions or outcomes for actors (both individual and corporate). Institutional statements are spoken, written, or tacitly understood in a form intelligible to actors in an empirical setting.”Institutional statements are not always an 1 institution, neither they are always relevant (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). Institutional statements are different from institutions because they are the vehicle to transmit the prescriptions devised by a group of actors to govern a particular setting. In other words, institutional statements communicate the rules of the game, though they are not always an institution per se. An institutional statement encompasses all three building blocks or paramount concepts of institutions: strategies, norms and rules (Ostrom, 2005). Strategies are conceptualized as “the regularized plans that individuals make within the structure of incentives produced by rules, norms, and expectations of the likely behavior of others in a situation affected by relevant physical and material conditions” (Ostrom, 2007, p.23) According to Ostrom and Basurto (2011) norms and rules contain prescriptions such as must, must not. Norms are the “share prescriptions that tend to be enforced by the participants themselves through internally and externally imposed costs and inducements” (Ostrom, 2007, p.23). These norms according to Ostrom and Basurto (2011, p322) are prescriptions that often are “acquired in the context of a community in which the individual frequently interacts”. Rules are defined as “shared prescriptions (must, must not, may) that are mutually understood and predictably enforced in particular situations by agents responsible for monitoring conduct and for imposing sanctions” (Ostrom, 2007, p.23). According to Ostrom and Basurto (2011), rules are similar to norms, but they entail a sanction in case the behavior is observed by an enforcer. With the distinction of the different institutions in mind, Crawford and Ostrom (1995) developed a theory to study institutions through institutional statements. They developed a logical tool that they called the “grammar of institutions” -a grammatical syntax- to generate structural descriptions of institutional statements, and then unravel the fundamental components 2 of institutions. The authors created this novel approach to study institutional statements through linguistics (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). According to Crawford (2004), scoping linguistic statements provides a useful tool for analyzing the influences of institutions on behavior and the resulting policy outcomes. These linguistic statements are what they called institutional statements. Crawford (2004) mentions that institutional statements can be expressed using two basic linguistic forms: constitutive statements and regulatory statements. Constitutive statements declare either a specified entity or position or outline conditions/outcomes that ought to exist (Ostrom, 2005), whereas regulatory statements, prescribe, prohibit, allow, and forbid actions for different types of actorswithin certain parameters and context (Hodgson, 2015). In 2010, Basurto et al., used for the first time Crawford and Ostrom’s grammatical syntax to code institutional statements. Prior to this work, the grammar of institutions was not applied due to the lack of guidelines and explanations on how to use it. Basurto et al. (2010) developed guidelines to separateconstitutive statements and regulatory statements,and then they developed other guidelines to code regulatory statements. To do that the authors started by “(1) identifying institutional statements; (2) coding the institutional regulatory statements as strategies, norms, and/or rules and, (3) conducting a nested analysis of the coded institutional statements” (Basurto et al., 2010, 524). The authors started with two pieces of US legislation. The grammatical syntax is the core of the Grammar of Institutions, a tool that helps us to understand regulatory rules -and other institutional statements- by understanding their structure and elements. The syntax of the Grammar of Institutions has been used by different authors to study formal institutions. Particularly how regulatory statements prescribe different type of interactions, for different kind of actors, and under a variety of exogenous conditions (Basurto et al., 2010, Carter et al., 2016, Siddiki et al., 2011). However, it has not been used to study 3 constitutive statements. The reason is because the Grammar of Institutions falls short when trying to apply the syntax for constitutive statements, since the linguistic structureof these statements are different than the components of regulatory statements. Constitutive statements are important because they establish definitions for the actors, and actions, that are going to be regulated by the regulatory statements or in-form institution (Siddiki et al., 2019). In other words, constitutive statements outline the authorized social construction of reality (Searle, cited by Siddiki et al., 2019). Given the importance of constitutive statements, this thesis adapts the Institutional Grammar to study them. This new grammar is called the ESPECO syntax (Extent, Subject, Predicate, Est, Conditions, Or else). The utility of a grammar‐based analysis is to provide a basis for identifying specific elements that are part of more general and abstract concepts that fit together in meaningful patterns, thereby enabling theoretically driven analysis (Chomsky, 1957). The ESPECO syntax for constitutive statements is inspired by the institutional grammar created by Ostrom and Crawford (1995) and then adapted by Basurto et al (2010) and Siddiki et al. (2011). The ESPECO syntax has a more nuanced depiction of constitutive statements; that is, depictions that reflect not only the overarching institutional definition, but also their specific design, which will allow one to understand how concepts are continuously ‘produced’ through the definitions established during policy making process. Afterwards, I apply this new grammar on a set of forest Laws from Paraguay, with the objective of identifying all the main concepts crafted by the Paraguayan forest legislations, and then analyze the impact that these concepts/rules have on forests’ change over the years: loss or conservation. The research questions motivating this study are: a) Will theESPECO syntax -the adaptedGrammar of 4 Institutions to study constitutive statements- teach us something about those statements? b) Will the application of the ESPECO syntax teach us something about the forest Laws in Paraguay and its applications? I chose to study Forest laws in Paraguay due to the complex nature of the forestas a social-ecological system (SES), how important these SES are for users in Paraguay and the fact that these legislations are understudied from a policy design perspective. The definition of forests has puzzled researchers for a long time, since forests are defined, and valued through different perspectives (Chazdon et al. 2016), but how the legislation defines them may affect management decision such as reforestation andmonitoring.In Paraguay, the definition of forest has changed over time, and this study seeks to understand how the definition has changed and explore some of the consequences of those changes.I choose to focus on Paraguay, because the country has experienced massive changes in forest cover over the last several decades (FAO, 2011). In fact, despite a raft of policies targeting forest conservation, Paraguay has yet to stem forest loss decline (Grossman, 2020). Then, I want to draw attention to the role that legislation and in particular constitutive statements may have on forests’ changes, by exploring if the rules themselves could be the origin of the problems jeopardizing forest protection. The contribution of this thesis is two-fold: first, it contributeswith the ESPECO syntaxto the development of tools for the systematic study of constitutive statements. This is a field within institutions scholarship that has been ignored. In the past, authors have studied how players cope with prescriptions (regulatory statements), but not how concept-formationstatements (constitutive statements) could have an impact themselves. The application of the ESPECO syntax may result in a better understanding of the nature and role of constitutive statements in the policy-making process.Secondly, by applying the tool to the case of Forest of Paraguay, I aim to 5 unravel the constitutive statements outlining the definition and characteristics of forests, and whether they help to legitimize and protect forests, or rather potentially harm the native forest resources of the country. This thesis aims to show, by looking at constitutive statements, that ‘nature’ and ‘the environment’ are continuously ‘produced’ through the definitions established by environmental policies. This thesis is organized as follows: the next section presents the Theoretical Framework of this research in particular the Grammar of Institutions, and previous studies using it. Then it introduces the ESPECO syntax. Following that it contains the methods, the results and discussion and finally in the last section there is a conclusion summarizing our findings, as well as providing a few recommendations for future studies. 6 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 The Grammar of Institutions Crawford and Ostrom (1995) developed the “Grammar of Institutions” as a logical tool to study institutions through institutional statements focusing on their linguistic. In particular, the “Grammar of Institutions” centers its attention on the linguistic content of statements that encapsulate shared social constructs (Crawford, 2004). In fact, the Grammar of Institutions, or Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT), -as it is now called- was developed to study institutional phenomena, mainly looking to study the way individuals/groups solve collective-action dilemmas. According to Crawford (2004), scoping linguistic statements of institutions provides a useful tool for the analysis of the influences of these on behavior and the resulting policy outcomes.Crawford and Ostrom (1995) claim that institutions are build up on institutional statements. An institutional statement is for instance, a statement written in a policy document, such as: “The Agriculture Board must select a chairperson every two years”. The Grammar of Institutions is inspired by the work by von Wright (1968), which is centered on deontic logic or the study of the level of permissibility of actions (what is allowed, forbidden or prohibited). It is also based on the study of institutional statements which can be classified into two basic linguistic forms: constitutive statements and regulatory statements (Crawford, 2004). Constitutive statements hold a generative nature/form: let there be an X. This kind of statements are rules that create positions (e.g., users, regulators) or organized bodies (e.g., the ministry of environment) or definitions (Searle, 1965). Hindricks (2009, p. 254) provides the 7 following example of a constitutive statement: “money is a means of exchange’ or “money counts as means of exchange”. An example of constitutive statements from the forest Laws of Paraguay is: “Forest lands are those ecosystems that have a tree crown density of 10% or more and are stocked with trees capable of producing timber or other wood products”. Regulatory statements follow a “X do Y syntax” and they prescribed, prohibited, allowed, and forbidden activities within certain parameters for different types of actors (Hodgson, 2015). For example, Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 584) use the following example: “all male U.S. citizens, 18 years of age and older, must register with the Selective Service by filling out a form at the U.S. Post Office. In the case of the Forest Laws of Paraguay an example of regulatory statement is: “The Director of the Forest Protection Agency must declare what areas will be designed as national parks”. In order to study institutional phenomena, the Grammar of Institutions summarizes and analyzes “the content of institutional statements, distinguishing between types of institutional statements, and studying the formation and evolution of institutional statements" (Crawford, 2004,139). The grammar of institutions is operationalized through a syntax developed by Crawford and Ostrom (1995) that helps generate structural descriptions of institutional statements. The syntax of the grammar, or ADICO syntax, accommodates five components that work as the building blocks of institutional statements (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). The components of the general syntax of this grammar are as follows: Attribute (A), Deontic (D), aIm (I), Conditions (C), and the Or else (O) (see Table 1), their initials give name to the ADICO syntax. The ADICO syntax assists in explaining institutions through the examination of the linguistic content of the institutional statements (Watkins and Westphal, 2015). Table 8 1summarizes the components of the ADICO syntax.The last component in Table 1, the oBject was not an element from the Grammar of Institutions devised by Crawford and Ostrom (1995). It was introduced by Siddiki et al. in 2011 to resolve some ambiguities in the grammar when an Attribute was not explicit, and to allow for a clearer distinction between the actor and what actor is acting upon. After this addition, the ADICO syntax is now known as ADIBCO syntax. Table 1. Components of the syntax of the Grammar of Institutions or ADICO syntax. Adapted from Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 584) and from Siddiki et al. (2011, 85). Component Attribute (A) Deontic (D) aIm (I) Condition (C) Or else. (O) oBject. (B) Description “The animate -or inanimate- actor to whom the institutional statement applies. It is a holder for any value of a participant-level variable that specifies to whom the institutional statement applies.” “The prescriptive operator that indicates whether the action indicated in the institutional statement is required, allowed, or forbidden. Usually represented by the words: Must, may, shall, shall not, will, should, etc.” “Describes particular actions or outcomes to which the deontic is assigned. An aIm may include a formula specifying an amount of action or outcome or a description of a process for an action. It is also understood as the goal or action to which Deontic refers.” “Those variables that define when and where an action or outcome is permitted, obligatory, or forbidden.” “Explains the assigned consequence for not following a rule. It is the punitive sanction resulting from noncompliance with the institution.” “Inanimate or animate part of a statement that receives the action.” The example bellowwill show how to use the ADICO syntax to dissect the aninstitutional (regulatory) statement into its components. 9 Forestry industries must submit annually a permit renewal application or pay a fine. - Attribute: Forestry industries - Deontic: must - aIm: submit - oBject: a permit renewal application - Conditions: annually - Or else: or pay a fine The Institutional Grammar allows to differentiate grammatically the different types of institutions: strategies, norms and rules (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995): 1. Strategies contain these components from the ADIBCO syntax: Attribute, aIm, and Condition (AIC) (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). Strategies may contain or not an oBject. Some examples of strategies are: Rangers [A] patrol protected areas[I] from the dawn to sunset[C] Rangers [A] finish [I] their patrol [O] before sunset 2. Norms have the same components as strategies in addition of a Deontic (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). Thus, they are ADIC: Attribute, Deontic, Aim, Condition. As in the case of strategies, they can or cannot not have an oBject. Example of norms are: All visitors [A] must [D] avoid [I] throwing garbage in the trails [C]. Rangers [A] must [D] submit [I] their report to the Park Manager [B] before 5 pm in Fridays [C] 10 3. Rules are made up of all previous components plus adding a sanction (Or else) (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995). Thus, they are ADICO: Attribute(s), Deontic, Aim, Condition and Or else. They may contain or not an oBject Examples of rules are: All visitors[A] must not [D] trespass under any circumstances [C], or else pay a fine [O]. Another example, containing an object: The Park Manager (A) must (D) hire (I) rangers (B) based on merits (C) , or be fired (O) As seen in the previous examples, the oBject, is a component that does not change the nature of the institutional statement. As mentioned earlier, the oBject was devised, and added to the syntax, aiming to help distinguish the actor (Attribute) from what the actor is acting upon (oBject) (Siddiki et al 2011). For instance, for the following institutional statement: The final paper must be submitted by June 15, or it will not be graded. See the dissection using the ADIBCO syntax: - Attribute: not explicit in the sentence (by any member of the class) - oBject: the final paper; - Deontic: must; - aIm: be submitted; - Conditions: by June 15; - Or else: or it will not be graded 11 As seen in the example, it is not clearly stated who the actor is (the attribute is not explicit). Therefore, someone coding this statement might be confused and think “the final paper” is the attribute, however it is not. It is only the recipient of the action. Adding the oBject, help coders to differentiate who is exercising the action, and who or what is receiving the action. Nowadays, the Grammar of Institutions/ Institutional Grammar Tool is applied as a tool that provides a way to systematically study and categorize the content of formal institutions, such as policy documents (Carter et al. 2016). A clear categorization of the elements that constitutepolicies with the ABDICO syntax is paramount for sound policy analysis. According to Siddiki et al. (2012) the syntax assist researchers in identifying: 1. Actions or activities that are required or forbidden 2. The players designated to a particular activity 3. The boundaries or conditions in which these activities take place, and, in some cases 4. The punitive measures associated with noncompliance From there, the researcher can create configurations of these elements toward a goal of understanding a particular action situation (Siddiki et al. 2012), or to understand the underlying logic of policy designs. In summary, the Grammar of Institutions/ Institutional Grammar helps reveal the internal skeleton of policies --and other formal institutions-- by issuing a detailed depiction of what actions are allowed, permitted, and forbidden under specific conditions and/or under specific sanctions for actors (Siddiki et al. 2011). 12 2.2 Previous studies using the Grammar of Institutions Ever since the seminal idea developed by Crawford and Ostrom (1995), numerous researchers have been engaged with the development of empirical applications of the Grammar of Institutions/ Institutional Grammar Tool. After the addition of the Object component by Siddiki et al. (2011), the Grammar of Institutions/ Institutional Grammar has been used by institutional scholars to answer a wide variety of research questions. For instance, Carter et al (2016) mentioned that the Institutional Grammar can be a powerful analytical tool for the advancement of the policy analysis scholarship since it creates a systematic way to study, organize, and understand the content and design of a given policy, or compare them. Below, I present a description of the most relevant papers using the Institutional Grammar: Siddiki et al. (2012) examined policy compliance through a case study of aquaculture regulations in Colorado, in the United States. In particular, the authors looked at the Colorado Aquaculture Act Statute and the Rules pertaining to the Administration and Enforcement of the Colorado Aquaculture Act. The study explored whether the design of a policy affects the degree of individuals compliance with the policy. To do this, the authors first used the Institutional Grammar to code aquaculture regulations from the State. The coding aimed to identify all the actors addressed by the policy, the action-situations and also the prescribed set of formal required, allowable, and forbidden actions. Afterwards, the authors interviewed a group of individuals to understand how actors weigh compliance motivations when determining whether or not to follow the policies. The authors found that the degree of compliance is determined by perceptions of the appropriateness of the regulations, the level of participation by the actors in 13 the policy design, and the personal or/and group beliefs, such us feelings of guilt and social pressure. Feiock et al. (2014) used the Institutional Grammar to capture structural and functional diversity in city charters. City charters are the equivalent of a municipal constitution, a document that contains the powers, functions and essential procedures of a city government. The authors studied the diversity in types and configurations of the rules underlying charter designs. Their exploratory analysis assessed institutional arrangements of strong mayor cities (those with directly elected mayors), and weak cities (those where the mayor is selected from a commission). The authors found that strong and weak mayor cities vary considerably in the functions given to mayors measured thru the city charters., more particularly in : authority to enforce laws, or vote on the commission or council at all times. Weible and Carter (2015) used the Institutional Grammar to assess policy change through analyzing the textual composition of a policy. The study looks at the change in smoking ban policies in Colorado. The IGT was adopted to assess the composition of these policies. The authors identified the components of rules and action-situations, particularly aiming to understand the causal theory behind the policy composition and design. The main theoretical contribution of this paper was the advancement of systematic methodologies for the evaluation of compositional policy change. In terms of practical contribution, the authors documented that bars and taverns took advantage of the way “cigar bars” were defined under Colorado's 2006 smoking ban. Thus, they exempted themselves from the policy altogether. The authors then conclude,that to improve the behavior of those regulated, it is needed to pay attention to the policy composition and designing as well. 14 Carter et al. (2016) used the Institutional Grammar, in combination with the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) with the objective of uncovering the logic upon which policies are built-up. The authors start by coding a policy document, the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program regulation. By using the IGT, they deconstructed the policy into its attributes, deontic, aims, and sanctions to identify the actors and actions regulated by the policy, along with the means and ways of regulation. Afterwards, they classified the rules according to the classifications provided by the IAD, this unveiling the different processes and situations through which stakeholders must pass through, so that they can be improved. The study concludes that using the IGT in addition with a framework such as the IAD result in a systematic approach for analyzing policy designs. To sum up, the majority of the uses of the Institutional Grammar has been associated with policy change or policy design, however it has been used also to look at natural resource management (Watskin and Westphal, 2015). In addition to these studies, the Institutional Grammar has been used in combination with methods such as agent-based modelling to assess endogenous emergence of rules (Smajgl et al., 2012). This allow to better understand whether people adopt norms based on experiences of rewards and social learning, or based on deontological ethics (where individuals act with respect to a known ‘Right’, as opposed to ‘Wrong’), which requires the existence of pre-imposed norms (Frantz et al., 2013) So far, most of the analysis found in the literature has used the Institutional Grammar withformal institutions such as laws and regulations (Siddiki et al., 2019; Basurto et al., 2010; Carter, 2015). The rationale behind this is clear; formal institutions are written, and therefore they use formal levels of language that follow all grammatical structures. This helps to ease the identification of institutional statements and applying the grammar syntax. However, as stated 15 by North (1990) and Ostrom (1990) humans follow both formal and informal institutions in their daily lives. Therefore, some authors draw attention to the necessity to work on methodological strategies to adapt theInstitutional Grammar for in-use institutions/ informal institutions. Some authors are using the Institutional Grammar to study informal institutions, because as Watkins and Westphal (2015) claim “people don't talk in institutional statements" (p. 23). In studies such as the ones by Watkins and Westphal (2015) and Watkins et al. (2015) authors have used the Institutional Grammar to study informal institutions in the context of ecological restoration decision-making. To do that, the authors have to devise creative ways to get from what people describe to institutional statements. In both cases, the authors draw their institutional statements from in‐depth interviews and participant observationinstead of written official documents. They did this by asking participants to describe anecdotes and personal assessments using probes such as “how things get done” (Watkins and Westphal, 2015, p.8), and how the interviewees felt about the way things were done. Once the institutional statement was identified, the authors followed the coding instructions developed by Basurto et al (2011) to identify the attribute, the object, the deontic, the aim, the conditions and or else. These researchers gave birth to novel guidelines and notes on how to conduct research using the institutional grammar to analyze informal institutions. This was an important achievement because researcher could now use the IGT to explain factors shaping decisions and people’s behavior. In addition, the Institutional Grammar was devised to work most effectively with those statements attempting to influence choices by either encouraging or discouraging particular activities, actions or outcomes (Crawford, 2004). Therefore, regulatory statements accommodate nicely in this definition; since they define what actions or outcomes are appropriate for actors in 16 what positions, and under what positions. In fact, the majority of institutional statements are interpreted in this manner. However, constitutive statements do not fit with this definition since they create an identity or position without a direct attempt to regulate behavior (Crawford, 2004). Constitutive statements are important because they play an important role in “setting the stage” for regulatory statements (Siddiki et al., 2019, p. 5). As described by Siddiki et al (2019), constitutive statements establish definitions for the actors, actions, and items that are vested to occupy the syntactic elements comprising regulatory statements. Constitutive statements are of immense practical importance. 2.3.Crafting a way to code constitutive statements:the ESPECO syntax The Grammar of Institutions by Crawford and Ostrom (1995) is based on deontic logic and grammar. Deontic logic is an area of logic that investigates normative concepts, systems of norms, and normative reasoning, and it is a branch of modal logic (Von Wright, 1968, Crawford, 2004). It specifies a) the features of rules crucial to their directive aims and effects, and b) they make visible their logical relations on the other (Von Wright, 1968). Since I aim to develop a grammar for constitutive statements, it will not have an explicit deontic logic, because those statements do not prescribe behavior. However, I aim to draw upon the grammatical and syntactical structures to identify the elements that build constitutive statements. Based on them, I devise a grammar to study these types of statements. 17 2.3.1 Constitutive Statements: definition and structure Institutional statements can be categorized as being regulatory or constitutive, according to their syntactic structure. In few words, regulatory statements follow an X do Y form, while constitutive statements have a X is Y or let there be an X structure. Meaning that constitutive statements are characterizedby the presence of the verb “is” or “to be” in its third form (singular), while regulatory statements are recognized for action verbs that “do” something. Thus, identifying institutional statements is a fundamental part of using the institutional grammar. In past studies, researchers have identified and recorded regulatory and constitutive statements. However only regulatory statements had been analyzed using the Grammar of Institutions, following the ABDICO syntax. Constitutive statements were left alone since there was not an appropriate syntax or methodology to analyze them. The ADIBCO syntax was crafted to study statements influencing choices and stimulating or constraining outcomes or actions such as the regulatory statements. The ADIBCO syntax does not fit constitutive statements because these do not attempt to regulate behavior, at least not directly. They are generally definitional in character; thus, there is not a clear actor nor an action. In fact, some researchers documented it was not possible for them to identify an aIm (action) or an attribute(actor/agent) in constitutive statements (Lien et al. 2018, Basurto et al. 2010). According to Grossi et al (2007), constitutive rules are definitional in character, thus, constitutional statements are attributed to be the non-regulative component of institutional statements. In fact, there is a claim that institutions cannot exist without constitutive rules: “institutions are systems of constitutive rules” (Searle, 1969, p. 51). 18 I will draw on the work of Searle (1969, pp.51-52) to characterize and describe the syntactical structure of constitutional statements. According to him, constitutive statements can be represented by the syntactical form: “X counts as Y in context C”, and “X counts as Y”. Therefore, I claim that constitutive statements are made up of up to four tiers. I found this by deconstructing the syntactical form into each of its components, and as a result of this I have now identified the tiers composing constitutive statements: tier i(X), tier ii (is/counts as), tier iii (Y), tier iv (context/conditions). See below for further explanation: i) The subject containing the element that is being “constituted”, or granted a definition, characteristic or meaning ii) A connector element whose function is only to link the element with its meaning/definition, iii) The meaning/set of characteristics that are being granted, iv) The set of conditions under which the element and its meaning hold their properties. The following examples allow us to identify each one of the tiers. 1) “Environmental services are services generated by human activities of management and conservation of ecosystem functions, in accordance with what is established by this law” Tier i: Environmental services Tier ii: are Tier iii: services generated by human activities of management and conservation of ecosystem functions Tier iv: in accordance with what is established by this law 19 2) A forest is a large area covered with trees Tier i: A forest Tier ii: is Tier iii: a large area covered with trees 2.3.2 A new grammar syntax for constitutive statements To create a new grammar syntax for constitutive statements, I draw on grammatical and syntactical structures to define the tiers and building blocks of constitutive statements. With the four tiers presented in section 3.1, I translate them into a grammar syntax that suits the configuration of constitutive statements. I called if the ESPECO syntax to study Constitutive statements. In the same way that grammar helps us construct statements by using a combination of at least three elements/tiers: subject, verb, and predicate (and sometimes other elements, such us: direct and indirect object, direct and indirect complement, among others). Thus, I take advantage of the extended knowledge of grammar structure and logic of language, to translate our four tiers into a grammar syntax that suits the configuration of constitutive statements. See below using the tiers identified in the previous section: Tier i) The subject containing the element that is being “constituted”. It is made up of the following two elements: - Subject (S): is the animate or inanimate actor to be defined. Using the example we used before: Environmental services are services generated by human activities of management and conservation of ecosystem functions. The subject is: 20 Environmental services. In some cases, the Subject could also have modifier,which is an attribute of the Subject. I called it a Subject Extent (E) - Subject Extent (E):a specific dimension of the subject to be defined. For example, in the statement: The rational use of forests is of public interest, the subject is: forests, and the subject extent is:the rational use (Forest Resources law, 1995) The use of the Subject Extent helps in sentences where the identification of the subject might be complicated due to multiple words in the tier corresponding to the subject. Then, one separates the nuclear subject from words that are only complimenting the subject. Tier ii) A connector element whose function is only to link the element with its meaning/definition - Est:since constitutive statements are definitional in character, the aim is always featured in the third person of the verb “to be.” Iborrow the term “Est” fromLatin, because it is the verb “to be,” in its third person. The verb to be acts as the connector between what is being defined and the definitional statement. Constitutive statements also contain other kind of verbs, particularly linking verbs that lack action as for example: means, defines, counts.For the most cases, it is going to use the verb “is/are”, either alone or followed by an infinitive verb, or a participle. See for example: 1) Money is a means of exchange, Est= is; Money is understood asa means of exchange. 21 Tier iii) The meaning/set of characteristics that are being granted -Predicate (P): it is the part of the sentence that explains the characteristics of the subject or define the subject. For the statement,A forest is a large area covered with trees. the subject is: a forest, the verb is: is, andthe predicate is: a large area covered with trees. Tier iv) The set of conditions under which the element and its meaning hold their properties. - Conditions (C): The temporal, geographical, or contextual qualifiers of a constitutional statement under which a concept gains its properties/meaning. This means that conditions can apply to either the subject or the predicate, because both of them are operators providing a concept. Both are equally important, and significant, so one needs to be careful identify thegiven words in an institutional statement that constitute qualifying descriptors of the subject or of the predicate. Take, for instance a prior example: “Environmental services are services generated by human activities of management and conservation of ecosystem functions, in accordance with the what is established by this law”, here the conditions are: “in accordance with what the established by this law” - Or else Condition: All constitutive statements have an“or else condition” that is implicit. Meaning that the subject must hold to the predicate and conditions to have its properties and definition. If the properties do not exist, then the subject does not exist. For the statement, “A forest is a large area covered with trees” The tacit or else can be expressed as follow: or else it is not a forest, and it is not recognized by these regulations” 22 In summary, the ESPECO syntax is a new grammar of institutions to study constitutive statements. The ESPECO syntax consist of the following elements: Subject (S), Verb (Est), and Predicate. In can also have Subject Extent and Conditions. Table 2 summarizes this and provides more examples. Table 2.Summary of the components and description of the grammar syntax for constitutive statements Component Extent (E) Description A specific dimension of the subject that is being taking into consideration Subject(S) The animate or inanimate act or actor that is being defined Est. (E) Predicate (P) It acts as the connector between what is being defined and the definitional statement. It is the part of the sentence that defines the characteristics/properties of the subject. 23 Examples 1-The rational management of (E) Forests (S) is mandatory for every citizen 2- The protection of (E) the country's forest resources (S) is in the public interest 1-Forest (S)is any vegetal grouping where trees predominate, it also includes soils, waters and wildlife. 1-Reforestation is the act of planting trees in a location where a forest has disappeared. 2-Plantations count as (E) forests 1- The National System of Protected Wild Areas, is the set of Protected Wild Areas of ecological and social relevance(P) Table 2 (cont’d) Condition (C)* Or else condition (O) The spatial, temporal, and procedural circumstances under which the subject hold its properties and meaning Tacit. Constitutive rules have an implicit or else 1- Deforestation is prohibited only in the Eastern Region of the country(C) 1-Forestis any vegetal grouping where trees must predominate[or else it is not considered to be a forest] *i) Conditions can apply to either the subject or the predicate, and they have a variety of types. See for instance: - Conditioner of the subject: The protection of the forest resources under public domainis obligatory. - Conditioner of the predicate: A forest is a valuable resource when providing profits for the landowner *ii) There are many types of conditions. Besides the Or else condition, I identified 4 other types of conditions - What conditions.The what condition is the “thing” that defines the purpose or characteristics under which the subject keeps its meaning/properties. The “what” condition can be thought as answering questions such as “what makes it what it is? Example: Forest is any vegetal grouping in which trees predominate, it also includes soils, waters and wildlife - When Conditions.Sometimes a statement will give an explicit time/aspect when the subject or predicate entertain their properties. Example:Forests are susceptible of expropriation when they are necessary for the protection of water causes. 24 - Where Conditions.A statement has a where condition when it explicitly states a particular place in which the subject or predicate own/keep their properties or meaning. Example:“In Paraguay, environmental services are services generated by human activities o, conservation of ecosystem functions” - How Conditions.Sometimes a statement will include information regarding how a particular subject keeps its properties/characteristics/definitions. Example: Production forests are those whose main use makes it possible to obtain an annual income through[the how]the orderly use of them 25 3. METHODS Institutional analysis assesses how various types of institutions are created or designed and how they affect human choices and societal outcomes (Ostrom, 1986).In this study, I want to add the utility/potential of the grammar to analyze/depict the constitutive rules which will allows one to understand how concepts are continuously ‘produced’ through the definitions established during policy making process. In the previous section, Iidentified the syntactical form/structure (syntax) of constitutive statements. The ESPECO syntax identifies and defines the common components of constitutive statements to help codify them. 3.1. Data Collection In order to test the ESPECO syntax, I analyze the constitutive statements of the Forest Laws of Paraguay with the purpose of understanding the role of constitutive rules in policy- making and the formation of concepts pertaining to forests laws . To search for the Forest Laws of Paraguay, I did a search in online data-base of the Biblioteca y Archivo Central del Congreso Nacional (BACCN) -National Library and Central Archive of the Paraguayan Congress-, which is the agency in charge of storing all legislative documents of the country (BACCN webpage: https://www.bacn.gov.py/quienes-somos). In my search I use words related to forests, environment, and their users: forests, forest resources, forestry, natural resources, environment, environmental services, forest land, and forest users. This search came up with 15 legislations (see table 3). 26 Once I identified all the Lawsfrom year 1973 to year 2013, I did a quick read to exclude the Laws that were the result of an international treaty or agreement. I did that because the definition of forest in those Laws may come from “outside” and therefore be different than the definitions of the constitutive statements formulated in Paraguay. Table 3 contains a list of the 15 Laws that I analyze for my thesis. It is important to mention that Paraguay is a Spanish speaking country (and Guarani speaking), then the legislations are written in Spanish. The analysis was done in Spanish and I translated the content of these legislations to English to add the quotes in this thesis. Table 3.Legislation of Forests in Paraguay, organized by year Year Title of the Law 1973. 1981 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996. 1996 2002 Ley 422/73. Ley forestal - Forest Law Ley 9001/81. Estatuto de comunidades indigenas – Indigenous Communities Statute Ley 294/93. Ley de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental – Assesment of Environmental Impact Law Ley 515/94. Prohibición de la exportación y trafico de rollos, trozos y vigas de madera – Prohibition of traffic and exportation of forest products Ley 352/94. Ley de Areas Silvestres Protegidas – Protected Areas Law Ley 542/95 de recursos forestales- Forest Resources Law Ley 693/95 Fomento a la forestación y reforestación. Promotion of Afforestation and Reforestation Ley 716/96 Delitos contra el medio ambiente – Sanctions for Crimes Against the Environment Ley 816/1996. Medidas de defensa de los recursos naturales – Strategies for the Protection of Natural Resources Ley 1863/92 Estatuto Agrario – Agrarian Statute 27 Table 3 (cont’d) 2004 2006 2008 2010 2013 Ley 2425/04. Deforestación cero – Zero Deforestation Law Ley 3001/06 Ley de Servicios ambientales – Environmental Services Law Ley 3464/08 Ley de creacion del Instituto Forestal Nacional (NFONA) – Creation of the National Institute for Forests Ley 4241/10. Reestablecimiento de bosques protectores de cauces hídricos – Establishment of Forests Protecting Water Basins Ley 4890/13. Derecho real de superficie forestal - Forest land rights 3.2. Data analysis The data, in this case the Laws, are analyzed through a two-step coding process following some of the guidelines developed by Basurto et al. (2010), and Brady et al. (2018), but updating those for the ESPECO syntax: Step 1 identification and extraction of institutional statements. Step2 differentiating the statements in between constitutive and regulatory statements. According to Brady et al. (2018)’ guidelines, Step 3, I use the ESPECOsyntaxto partition the constitutive statements. It is noted that I did not do any coding of the regulatory statements. Step 1. Identifying institutional statements (taken from Basurto et al (2010, p. 4p)) a- Identify all titles, and headings and disregard them for coding purposes Titles and headings are discarded first because they are fairly easy to locate and rarely constitute an institutional statement of theoretical interest. 28 b- Identify “outline indicators” of the bill These outline indicators will work as initial separators/indicators of units of observation.Outline indicators are titles, subheadings, a capital letter or lowercase letters, colons, semicolons, or Roman numerals used to separate sections from subsections and subsections from sub-subsections, and so on. These sub-sections and sub-subsections are called initial units of observation, that are temporary, and will be divided into the final units of observation as explain below. c- Subdivide all initial section or subsection units from the previous step into single sentence-based units of observation. Usually sections and subsections are made up of multiple sentences. Turn these into sentence-based units of observation. Turn these multiple sentences in the section or subsection into single sentences. These single sentences are what we call institutional statements and they are the final units of observation. How to turn multiple sentences into single sentences? The key procedure to turn multiple sentences into single ones is the identification of the verb. In my procedure to identify the institutional statements in the different Laws I coded; the most important thing was to identify the verb in the sentence. Each verb corresponds to an institutional statement. Finally, how to recognize the boundaries of an institutional statement? This procedure is done by looking for outline indicators marking/indicating the logical end of the sentence, as for instance a comma, period or semi-colon. 29 Step 2- Identifying constitutive statements. Adapted from Brady et al. (2018) The determination of whether an institutional statement is constitutive or regulatory is made based on the nature of the sentence verb and the syntactical structure of the sentence. Regulative rules are characterized by a X do Y syntactical structure, which is recognized by the presence of action verbs. Crawford and Ostrom (1995, 2005) named these action verbs as “aIms” in their grammar of institutions. Additionally, the syntax of regulatory statements is characterized by the presence of five other components: Attribute, oBject, Deontic, Conditions and Or else. This syntactical structure of regulatory statements is known as the ABDICO syntax. Constitutive rules follow an X is Y syntactical structure, and they are recognized by the presence of verbs that lack action, in general the verb to be, or verbs that define or characterize something. Since constitutive rules does not have action verbs, they do not have aIms, and all the other elements related to the aim in regulatory rules, such as attributes, and objects. (Attributes are defined as the actor charged to carry out an action (aIm), and the oBject is the receptor of this action). Therefore, constitutive statements have a syntax quite different from regulatory statements. This syntax is comprised by these components: extent (E), subject (S), predicate (P), est. (E), conditions (Con), or else (O) Identify institutional statements that follow the X is Y syntax.The main indicator is the presence of the verb “to be” in its present form, third person. In less common cases, it can also be accompanied by infinitive verbs or participles. See below: - A Environmental Impact Assessment is requiredin order to carry out public or private projects such as highways, industrial drilling, etc. 30 - The duty of the Enforcement Authority is to promote the creation of associations that support Protected Wild Areas Step 3. Coding constitutive statements For the analysis of constitutive statements, I will use the ESPECO syntaxpresented in the previous section and summarize in Table 2. Step 4. Data analysis Once identified all relevant institutional statements along with their partitioning into its components, I proceeded to the aggregation and organization of these data, looking for patterns that unveil the logic underlying the policy design. One way of doing this is through frequency tables displaying the most relevant themes found. Another approach could be analyzing the linkages and relationships among the components --within and across policy documents-- aiming to find the properties, conceptualization, and relationships between these main themes/components, that could help identify and study institutional change, and ultimately, anticipate outcomes of institutional reform. 31 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Result 1: Constitutive statements have differenttypes and functions It is commonly accepted that constitutive statements have a role in the construction of social reality (Lorini et al. 2012). Social reality is understood as the portions of the real world that exist only by human agreement, as for instance marriage, government, property rights, etc. (Searle, 1969). Constitutive statements, in their function of creating concepts or entities, define the boundaries of the world they govern, so they act as building blocks of a given social reality. People live their lives in a world of common-sense knowledge which is produced and modified by formal or informal institutions through their constitutive rules (Buttle, 1998). However, authors such as Hindrix (2009) indicate that often constitutive statements are not well understood. Thus, the first aim of the results is to determine the functions and characteristics of constitutive statements, so that we can understand them better. From the codification done with the ESPECO syntax, I noticed some constitutive statements shared characteristics with ones, but differed with others. Then, I proceeded to classify constitutive statements according to their characteristics, and I found that constitutive statements can have different characteristics, hence there are different types of constitutive statements. Thus,I identified the following different types of constitutional statements: a type that creates a concept, a type that defines a concept, a type that establish characteristics, and a type that define/establish chores or functions. Those types of constitutive statements, together with a description of each type and examples are presented in Table 4. 32 Table 4. Summary of different types of constitutive statements found in the analysis Type Create a concept Provide a definition Description This kind of statement declares the creation of a new entity, concept, or classification. It creates something new, but it does not elaborate on explaining what it is. It is characterized by the presence of the verb “to be” plus a participle indicating creation/craft, such as: is created, is integrated by, and it is constituted. Also, verbs as: establish, declare, and create. This kind of statement provides a definition: it explains the meaning of a given entity, concept, classification or else. It does so by using a verb to link the concept with its meaning/definition, or by relation using the form like: counts as, is understood as, and is considered as. Examples -The National Service of Protected Areasis created, which will have a strategic plan and its corresponding policies and guidelines. -The classification of forests is established as follows: production forests, protective forests, and special forests - Forest is any vegetal grouping in which trees predominate, it also includes soils, waters and wildlife - A protected Area is understood as any portion of the national territory comprised within well-defined limits, that is submitted to a rational management of its resources to guarantee the conservation, defense and improvement of the environment and the natural resources 33 Table 4. (cont’d). Establish characteristics Define/establish chores, responsibilities or functions - The forests are of public utility - Forests are susceptible to expropriation - The protection of National Forests is mandatory -The attributions of the Enforcement Authority are to promote and encourage the creation of local groups to support National Protected Areas The kind of statement that declares/vests the attributes or characteristics of a given concept, entity or anything else. It does not provide a meaning, nor describes functions. What it does provide is a series of attributes for a given thing. These statements define what are the functions of the concepts crafted by a given law, policy or any other formal institution. They vest functions for the concepts created. It is characterized for usingthe verb to be + infinitive verb. Furthermore, and generally the subject has a modifier that indicates attributions, functions, etc. As seen in Table 4, different than what is normally assumed (Searle, 1960; Buttle, 1998; Rawl, 1955), constitutive statements do not only provide definitions of a concept (X is Y –type of forms). My findings show that they also create a concept and entities, define functions, chores, and attributes/characteristics. This coincides with Grossi et al. (2008) claims that constitutive rules besides explaining a concept, they are also classificatory and qualificatory. This coincides with the examples provided in Table 4. Furthermore, we found that some kind of constitutive statements can be turned into regulatory statements and then interpreted/analyzed as such. For instance, the statement “The 34 attributions of the Enforcement Authority are to promote the creation of local groups to support National Protected Areas” is a) establishing a chore and b) establishing for whom. Taking into account the ADICO syntax, a chore can be considered as an action to be carried out (aIm), and the who counts as an actor (Attribute) to execute the action. As this chore and actor are established by law, this statement implies a -tacit- deontic power (D). Thus, this statementcan be translated into “The Enforcement Authority may promote and encourage the creation of local groups to support National Protected Areas”. So, considering the above example, we have now an Attribute (Enforcement Authority), a Deontic (may) and an aIm (promote). We have, then, the three basic elements of a regulatory statements. I found that, then, constitutive statements that are of the type “Defining a chore/function” can be turned into regulatory statements. Some scholars claim that all rules are constitutive, and that the difference between constitutive rules and regulative rules, is merely linguistic (Hindrix et al. 2009). However, while the constitutive statements that follow under the type “Defining a chore/function” might support this point; the other types of constitutive statements are both linguistically different, and functionally different than regulatory statements. See, for instance, in Table 3 that the categories “create a concept”,“provide a definition”, and “establish characteristics”share particular features that differentiate them from regulatory statements: they all lack action verbs and consequentially they lack actors executing actions. Thus, these three different types of constitutive statements cannot be turned into regulatory statements. Furthermore, they have different functions since constitutive statements have the function of creating something new (an entity, concept, or situation) or “setting the stage” (Siddiki et al. 2019, p. 5), while regulatory statements only regulate pre-existent settings/situations. In fact, the 35 objective of this kind of statements is to provide a definition, or create a new concept/entity, and not to state who is allowed or not to do a particular action (regulation of behavior). Result 1 shows that using the ESPECO syntax allows me to determine the functions and characteristics of constitutive statements. I expanded the definition of constitutive statements from X is Y –type of form, andI found that constitutive statements can have four different types of statements. In addition, I found that when a constitutive rule is creating/establishing a function/chore/actions, it could be turned into a regulatory rule, and thus the ADICO syntax can be used to study it. Furthermore, I recommend that constitutive statements defining actions/functions to be treated as regulatory statements, because, for the purposes of institutional analysis, it would be more helpful to analyze them for their role in regulating behavior. I also recommend that when studying constitutional statements to focus on statements that create entities, concepts, and attributes for the study of the constitution/construction of a given social reality. Finally, I show that constitutive statements are different to regulatory statements both linguistically and in terms of their function, except for the case of constitutive statements “defining a chore/function”. 4.2. Result 2: When Laws are created, they have more constitutive statements as things need to be defined.In thefollowing lawsthey have more regulatory statements The ADICO syntax has been used as a tool to analyze data by aggregating and organizing it into frequency tables or configuration analysis. Most commonly the authors have analyzed the percentage of institutional statements functioning as: shared strategies, norms or rules, and from there they discuss the percentages of each of these in the regulations. That allows them to study the consequences of having a certain number of rules, norms and shared strategies. Moore and Lockwood (2015, p. 11) for instance refers that a regulation based mostly on norms, rather than 36 rules as a “soft approach to policy design”, since arrangements are built on shared understanding of what is proper or improper behavior, instead of sanctions and rewards that will be case with a regulation based on rules. I follow that way to analyze the data with the ESPECO syntax. I aggregated and organized the data from the different Laws aiming to find descriptive patterns that could provide us information about the mechanics of constitutive statements and how does it speak about the way policies are designed. In table 4, I display the different type of constitutive statements that I found per Law. I also added a ratio: which is the proportion between constitutive and total institutional statements by Law. The ratio represents the underlying design of the Laws and how constitutive institutions function/work. The column “Types of Constitutive Statements”, showcases that not all Laws contained all four types of constitutive statements. Indeed, only five of the 15 Laws studied have all four types. However, these five documents happen to be the “paramount” documents of the forest laws in Paraguay. I will call them “paramount rules”. These are the laws defining forests, forest resources, protected areas, and the organism in charge of governing/monitoring them. They create concepts, as for instance new classifications or mechanisms that did not exist before, they provide definitions and characteristics of forests and related elements, and they declare the organisms/authors in charge of enforcing these laws and define their functions. 37 Table 5.Frequency of the different types of constitutive statements and ratios Law/year 1973. Forest law Types of Constitutive Statements Create a concept= 4 Provide a definition = 16 Establish characteristics= 31 Define chores/functions= 26 1981. Statute of indigenous communities (Only section dedicated to forests) Create a concept= 0 Provide a definition = 2 Establish characteristics= 0 Define chores/functions= 4 1993. Law for Evaluation of Environmental Impact 1994. Protected Wild Areas Law 1995. Forest Resources Law Create a concept= 1 Provide a definition = 3 Establish characteristics= 24 Define chores/functions= 1 Create a concept= 17 Provide a definition = 38 Establish characteristics= 3 Define chores/functions= 58 Create a concept= 10 Provide a definition = 22 Establish characteristics= 45 Define chores/functions= 38 1995. Law for the Promotion of Afforestation and Reforestation Create a concept= 0 Provide a definition = 5 Establish characteristics= 0 Define chores/functions= 0 1996. Environmental crimes Create a concept= 0 Provide a definition = 5 Establish characteristics= 0 Define chores/functions= 1 Total statements Ratio 0.6 0.25 0.6 0.54 0.55 0.07 0.3 Total constitutional statements= 77 Total institutional statements = 127 Total constitutional statements= 6 Total institutional statements = 24 Total constitutional statements= 29 Total institutional statements = 48 Total constitutional statements= 116 Total institutional statements = 213 Total constitutional statements: 115 Total institutional statements = 207 Total constitutional statements= 5 Total institutional statements = 63 Total constitutional statements= 6 Total institutional statements = 20 38 Table 5 (cont’d) 1996. Strategies for the Protection of Natural Resources 2002. Agrarian Statute (Only section dedicated to forests) 2004. Zero Deforestation Law 2006. Environmental Services Law 2008. National Forestry Institute 2010. Forests protecting water resources 2013. Forest Land Right Create a concept= 1 Provide a definition = 0 Establish characteristics= 11 Define chores/functions= 0 Create a concept= 2 Provide a definition = 14 Establish characteristics= 1 Define chores/functions= 0 0.3 0.65 Total constitutional statements= 12 Total institutional statements = 39 Total constitutional statements= 17 Total institutional statements = 26 Create a concept= 0 Provide a definition = 2 Establish characteristics= 2 Define chores/functions= 1 Total constitutional statements= 5 Total institutional statements = 11 0.45 Create a concept= 1 Provide a definition = 10 Establish characteristics= 9 Define chores/functions= 0 Total constitutional statements= 20 Total institutional statements = 52 0.38 Create a concept= 1 Provide a definition = 10 Establish characteristics= 6 Define chores/functions= 41 Create a concept= 0 Provide a definition = 2 Establish characteristics= 2 Define chores/functions= 1 Total constitutional statements= 58 Total institutional statements = 101 Total constitutional statements= 5 Total institutional statements = 28 0.57 0.18 Create a concept= 0 Provide a definition = 2 Establish characteristics= 3 Define chores/functions= 0 0.19 Total constitutional statements= 5 Total institutional statements = 26 These “paramount rules” are the ones with balanced ratios (around 0.5 – 0.6), meaning they present a balanced amount of regulatory and constitutive rules. Apart from these 39 “paramount laws”, the remaining laws, -what I’ll call branch rules-- in terms of constitutive statements, they only provide more details on established definitions, and sometimes adding functions or chores; thus, they do not create new concepts or entities. This translates into having an unbalanced number of constitutive statements with regards to regulatory statements (the former is surpassed in number by the latter). However, this does not mean that rules with lower ratios are not important. In fact, for instance, the definition of “Forest” has been upgraded thanks to one of these laws (Zero Deforestation law) which does not create new concepts/entities, but only updates a prior definition. This analysis of ratios showcases the underlying mechanics of the policy-making process, --particularly in the relationship between constitutive and regulatory statements. It depicts that the amount of constitutive and regulatory statements is not always balanced, and that they change across time and legislations. At the beginning stages they are balanced, because new concepts are created, and the regulation processes are established. Over time, however the emphasis in the policy-making processes focuses more on shaping and re-shaping regulations than on creating new definitions, concepts or entities. This support the theory that constitutive rules “set the stage” and, from then onwards, regulatory statements are in charge of shaping the normative/prescriptive parts of legislations or policies. 40 4.3. Result 3: When the definition of forest changes the forest also changes In this section, I applied the ESPECO syntax to study the concept-formation of forests. To do so, I focused on the type of constitutive statements that creates concepts, entities, characteristics and/or definitions. Particularly, I was interested on identifying the conditions and characteristics that are adopted during the policy-making process of defining “forests”. Forests are understood, defined, studied, and valued through a myriad of different perspectives. For instance, forests can be perceived as a provider of timber and its products, as an ecosystem composed by trees along with the diverse biological forms cohabitating there, a home for indigenous communities, a reservoir for carbon storage, a source of multiple environmental and ecosystem services, and/or as a wide social-ecological system,. A forest can be devoid of trees, at least temporarily (Chazdon et al., 2016). The wayforests are defined influences how we assess and interpret forest transitions, as for instance forest loss or gain, and what is protected or not within a geographic region. Table 6 depicts the concepts given to forest by Paraguayan Laws, their descriptions, and evolution. The “subject”, “predicate”, and “conditions” were gathered through the application of the ESPECO syntax. We can see how the definition of forest has changed through the years, and across legislations as well. The most outstanding changes are seen in the conditions column: the concept went from having a single and broad condition to a much more detailed set of conditions, resulting in a narrower definition of forest. In 1995, a forest was “any vegetal grouping” (predicate) “in which trees predominate” (conditions). In 2004, for a forest to be considered legally a forest (to hold its definition), it must meet the following conditions: a 41 minimum of 2 hectares of land extension, a minimum dossals/crown of trees (50%), and a minimum density of trees per hectare. Table 6. Definition of Forests and its evolution (change) over time and across legislations Subject Forest Forest Predicate Conditions Law/year Is any vegetal grouping in which trees predominate 1995. Forest Resources Law is a native ecosystem, intervened or not, regenerated by natural succession or other forest techniques 2004. Zero Deforestation Law - occupying a minimum area of two hectares, - characterized by the presence of mature trees of different ages, species and varied bearing, - with one or more canopies covering more than 50% (fifty percent) of that surface and - where there are more than sixty trees per hectare of fifteen or more centimeters in diameter at breast height (DBH) The study of the definition of forest across laws and time, is not only important because it showcases how the meaning has changed or evolved, it also shows how it affects -or is interconnected to- other concepts and processes derived from it and how it can affect the physical coverage.For instance, since the first definition from 1994, the concept of forest has been changing from a broad definition that could fit almost any land covered with trees, to being 42 a much more specific definition. The definition from 2004 could be perceived as more sophisticated, since it provides more specificity on certain characteristics such as: land extension, coverage, and diversity. In particular the conditions of what is to be included/recognized as a forest are very detailed. Then, this new concept-formation seems to be oriented more on preserving numbers/coverage of trees, than in preserving the native forests/ original composition of Paraguay’s forests, and along with it the biodiversity and livelihoods that depends on it. An important change that has ecological implications is the inclusion of “exotic trees” as an attribute of forests. That will be shown with the help of Table 6. Since the first definition of forest, the most striking change has been the incorporation of “exotic trees” as an attribute of forests. Indeed, it is said that a forest can be re-established through the plantation of exotic trees, just as lawfully as if they were with native trees. As seen in Table 7 “Reforestation is the action of establishing forests, in lands that lack them or where they are insufficient with either native or exotic species”. Thus, a plantation of exotic trees, completely different from the original native ecosystem, can be lawfully considered as a forest. Table 7.Definitions that affect or are affected by the Forests’ concept-formation by Paraguayan laws Subject Predicate Conditions Law/year Forestation The action of establishing forests, in lands that lack them or where they are insufficient with trees of native or exotic species 1995. Promotion of Afforestation and Reforestation 43 Table 7 (cont’d) Reforestation The action of populating with tree species, a previously wooded land that has been subject to extractive exploitation. by planting, regeneration or seeding 1995. Promotion of Afforestation and Reforestation Reforestation Plantations implanted on land that was deforested is considered as reforestation for all legal purposes. As long as the plan is approved by the National Forest Service 1995. Promotion of Afforestation and Reforestation As a result of this change in the definition of forests, plantations have increased in Paraguay. Over the last decades, plantations have increased more than doubling planted forest coverage to 48,000 ha since 1990 (FAO, 2010a; FAO, 2010b). In Paraguay and adjacent regions of Brazil and Argentina, “fast- wood forestry” (Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003), the generally monotypic, even-aged, short-rotation cultivation of fast-growing exotics, has become the silvicultural practice of choice among forest landowners. And the majority of plantations in the region – 80% in Paraguay (Grossman, 2020) is composed by Eucalyptus. This might be problematic, since it is believed that eucalyptus cultivation dries out the edaphic environment and depletes groundwater (Doughty, 2000), degrades soil when planted in exotic environments (Couto and Dube, 2001). In addition, the majority of eucalyptus species are at least somehow allelopathic, meaning they release chemicals into their environment which inhibit the growth of nearby plants (Kohli et al., 2006).Thus, the specificity of the condition in the Law had the potential to harm the ecosystem by encouraging the installment of monocultures, under the concept of “forests” or “reforestation.” 44 In fact, as seen in Table 8 forests (as the Subject) has been recognized by Paraguayan Laws with many predicates: “of public interest”, along with its “rational management”, with “fundamental objective of this law”, and “incorporation to the national economy”. Table 8. Showcase of the attributes of Forests valued and protected by Paraguayan laws of forests Extent The rational management of Protection and conservation of The promotion of The incorporation to national economy of The rational management of Protection and conservation of The transformation of Subject Forests Forests Forestation and Reforestation Forests Forest resources forest resources Forests Predicate Is of public interest Is of public interest Is fundamental objective of this law Is a fundamental objective of this law Is of social interest Is of social interest Is prohibited […] Conditions Law -------- 1972. Forest law ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ In the Eastern Region of Paraguay 1972. Forest Law 1972. Forest Law 1994. Forest resources 1994.Forest Resources 1994. Forest resources law 2004. Zero Deforestation law Furthermore, as seen in Table 8, the Zero Deforestation Law, in its 2nd article states that: “It is prohibited in the Eastern Region to carry out activities of transformation or conversion of areas with forest coverage, into areas allocated for agricultural use in any of its modalities; or to surfaces allocated for human settlements; as well as the production, transport and commercialization of wood, firewood, charcoal and any forest by-product originated from the illegal clearance.” This has caused peasants’ groups to protest against this article, because this law forbids any conversion of forested lands, including the activities carried out in the countryside on a daily basis by both Paraguayan subsistence farmers and agribusiness interests 45 alike (Yanosky and Cabrera, 2003). Thus, while this law somehow emphasizes the conservation of native forests, it does not recognize their role in peasantry livelihoods. It is still failing to engage the social-ecological complexity of forests: they are not only home to variety of fauna and flora, they are also important for the subsistence and livelihoods of rural communities who rely on them for timber, wood, and other forest products. Furthermore, forests in other regions of the country are left to depredation. Paraguay is considered a unique area due to the diversity of its ecosystems: the Interior Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado, the Pantanal, the Humid Chaco and the Chaco Woodland (Cartes and Yanosky, 2003; Huang et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2009). The Atlantic Forest rests on the largest underground freshwater reserves in the world, the Guarani aquifer (Facetti, 2003). However, only the forests in the Eastern Region (the Atlantic Forest, and the Cerrado) are subject of protection. Nowadays, the forest loss is largely concentrated in the semi-arid Western Paraguay (Chaco) (Global Forest Watch, 2016), where the depredation of forests is not punished by law. I am finding that forest definitions provided in the constitutive statements have changed over time. In linguistic terms the definition has become more sophisticated, but in practice this new definition is problematic. I show how the inclusion of exotic species is not responding to biological or ecological definitions of forest, and I argue that the definition may be influenced by other interests that are possible because of the linguistics used in the statements. The definitions provided in the constitutive statements, thus, have been proved to be very important because they provide the conceptual, institutional, legal, and operational basis for the policies and monitoring systems that drive or enable deforestation, forest degradation, reforestation, and forest restoration (van Noordwijk and Minang, 2009). 46 4.4. Result 4: Laws define forests, but Laws do not define users, uses or a SES system As described in result 1, with the help of the ESPECO syntax, I identified four different types of constitutional statements: a type that creates a concept, a type that defines a concept, a type that establishes characteristics, and a type that defines/establishes chores or functions. In my analysis of the Laws, I found that forest and forest resources are defined or conceptualized with these different types of constitutional statements. However, many other definitions/ concepts around forests are missing. The Laws do not have constitutive statements to describe users, uses, livelihoods. One of the definitions of forest says something about “social interest”. But that social interest is not defined. Therefore, many questions emerge: What is the role of forest in people’s livelihoods? In people’s religion? What are the rights of people to use and have forest around? Are there different users’ groups? Are there different uses of the forest and its resources? The Laws used constitutional statements to establish that forests are important for “the national interest”, and “social interest” but are shorth to explain what national and social interests are. Other aspects like ecological and cultural importance associated with forest are rarely mentioned. Certainly, forests are not conceived as a social-ecological system in which actors, resources units, resources systems and a governance system are all part of it (Ostrom, 2007; 2009). Will this mean that forests are defined (with constitutive statements), and users, resources units, and uses are “regulated” with regulatory statements? This shows that the Laws conceive forest as “providers of”, instead of a system where the relation do not go only in one direction. 47 5. CONCLUSIONS AND THEORETICAL AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this studyhave theoretical/methodological contributions as well as practical contributions. I crafted the ESPECOsyntax that allow to systematically study a fundamental part of formal institutions: the constitutive statements, which have been ignoredwhen studying institutional statements. The application of ESPECOsyntax for constitutive statement came up with interesting findings in the very nature of constitutive statements. For instance, I found that constitutive statements besides creating concepts and entities, they can also define actions such as functions and chores. This broader understanding of constitutive statements helps to shed clarity on the debate on whether constitutive and regulatory statements are only different in linguistic terms.Indeed, the results of this study shows that they are functionally different also. The exception to the rule is, however,that constitutive statements defining functions/chorescan be turned into regulatory statements and, thus, work as such. The ESPECO syntax allowed me tobetter understand the mechanics behind policy-making processes, regarding Paraguayan forest laws. In the beginning stages, when the pioneer laws are crafted (what we called “paramount laws”) the amount of constitutive statements is greater. Over time, other laws (“branch rules”) are created to complement these paramount rules, focusing more on updating definitions and functions, and less in creating new concepts or entities, thus featuring few numbers of constitutive statements. This supportsour claim that constitutive statements play an important rule on shaping and setting the policy-making process. 48 Furthermore, theESPECO syntax helped identify that some elements within the concept- formation of “forest” are failing to preserve Paraguayan forests and overlook the population that dependson the forest for their livelihoods. The use of the syntax draws attention that the addition of certain elements to a concept, as for instance being more detailed on conditions or attributes does not translate into a more efficient tool. In fact, I found that current policy-making processes might have the potential on turning into tools to “bureaucratize” nature. Meaning that governments –or any power organization-- might use policies to imposeconvenient definitions and measurements in ways that nature can be administered to benefit/fulfill particular agendas or actors. Looking at the conditioners of the ESPECO syntaxhas been very informative. I have spotted that the addition of “exotic trees” as a condition of forests has had important consequences in the forest coverage in the country. This shows that the constitutive statement has “opened” the possibility for behavior that does not protect the ecosystem. The change in the definition, the addition of more conditions that initially could be perceived as more sophisticated (in the sense of being more detailed and incorporating new elements) does not translate into policies that are better. Under the current policies, for instance, there is a great loss of native forests as opposed to the advance of monoculture-like plantations of exotic trees. Therefore, the definition of forest by the present laws does not seem to be effective to protect Paraguayan forests. Regarding the Paraguayan forest laws, dissecting the constitutive statements allowed us to identify that the definition of forests and forest resources used are missing many important elements, such as the acknowledgement that forest users exist. Also, the conceptualization of “forests” should better encompass and recognize the biological diversity of Paraguayan forests, 49 and the different users those forest have. As mentioned before, it should recognize the social- ecological system. The laws I studied clearly stated what a forest encompasses in terms of land extension, and even the number per hectare and the maturity of trees per land. However, many otherconditions or attributes are lacking. I propose that the concept-formation of what is a “Forest”, what is to be protected, why does it need to be protected and for whom, should be incorporated in the Laws to represent the complexity and diversity of forest social-ecological systems, that is: to considers users, governance systems, social and ecological features of forests. Much has been discussed about the about the complexity and the impacts of pricing/trading nature (Liverman, 2008). It is equally important the policy-making processes involved in defining nature, what is to be protected and recognized as “nature,” in our particular case forests. This is another outcome of our research that we expect to gain attention and undergo further study and explanation. This thesis ends with some recommendations of future research. In the Laws I studied, did not include international treaties, as for instance the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Protocol of San Salvador. Then, I recommend that future studies could compare definitions crafted by international compound of laws -or policies-, to the definitions devised by national and local governments. It could be studied, for instance, how international policies influence local legislations and/or policies. In this research, I found that forests are defined by constitutive statements, but important elements of the system are not (I predict that those were regulated by regulatory statements). Additionally, it will be great to do a study looking at how constitutive statements and regulatory statements interact. It would be interesting to learn, for instance, what are the processes someone or something has to undergo in order to be granted a definition or category. It can be the case that 50 a definition is very inclusive and considerate of all users, but however the processes required in order to be granted as a holder of the benefits of such definition are exclusive. For instance, in the case of environmental services in Paraguay, one must endure a costly process to be certified that one’s land is providing environmental services. So, what are these processes and how they might affect different users? Finally, as the ESPECO syntax was crafted as a systematic logical tool, we expect to see studies applying it to different contexts, such as: different countries, different legislation or policy topics, and even different languages. 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY 52 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8 Basurto, X., Kingsley, G., McQueen, K., Smith, M., & Weible, C. M. (2010). A Systematic Approach to Institutional Analysis: Applying Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909334430 Buttle, F. (1998) Rules Theory: Understanding The Social Construction Of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Marketing Management, 14:1-3, 63-94, DOI: 10.1362/026725798784959336 Carter, D. P., Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N., & Basurto, X. (2016). Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629815603494 Cartes, J.L., Yanosky, A. (2003). Dynamics of biodiversity loss in the Paraguayan Atlantic Forest: an introduction. Galindo-Leal, C., Camara, I.d.G. (Eds.), The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook, Island Press, Washington, DC (2003), pp. 267-269 Chazdon, R.L., Brancalion, P.H.S., Laestadius, L. et al. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 45, 538–550 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y Clement, S., Moore, S.A., and Lockwood, M. (2015). “Authority, Responsibility and Process in Australian Biodiversity Policy.” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 32, no. 2: 93–114. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Cossalter, C. and C. Pye-Smith. 2003. Fast-wood forestry: myths and realities. Jakarta: Center for International Forestry Research. Cox, M., Arnold, G., &Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource. Ecology and Society, 15(4). Cox, M., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Epstein, G., Evans, L., Ban, N. C., Fleischman, F., …& Garcia- resource management and theories of natural Lopez, G. governance. Global Environmental Change, 39, 45-56. (2016). Synthesizing 53 Crawford, S. An institutional grammar of mores. Prepared for presentation at the Workshop on the Workshop, Bloomington, IN (2004) Crawford, S, Ostrom, E (1995) A grammar of institutions. The American Political Science Review 89(3): 582–600. Doughty, R.W. 2000. The Eucalyptus: a natural and commercial history of the gum tree. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. FAO. (2015). Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales 2015. Informe Nacional, FAO, Paraguay, Rome. Facetti, J. ‘The guarani aquifer: a regional environmental service. C. Galindo-Leal, I.d.G. Camara (Eds.), The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook, Island Press, Washington, DC (2003), pp. 323-325 Feiock, R. C., Weible, C. M., Carter, D. P., Curley, C., Deslatte, A., & Heikkila, T. (2016). Capturing Structural and Functional Diversity Through Institutional Analysis: The Mayor Position 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414555999 Charters. Review, Urban Affairs in City 52(1), Frantz, C.K., Purvis, M.K., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., and Nowostawski, M.. 2015. “Modeling Dynamic Normative Understanding in Agent Societies.” Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 16 (4): 355–78 Grossi, D., Meyer, JJCh., Dignum, F. (2008). The many faces of counts-as: a formal analysis of constitutive rules. J. Appl. Log., 6 (2008), pp. 192-217 Grossman, J.J. (2012). A case study of smallholder eucalyptus plantation silviculture in Eastern Paraguay. The Forestry Chronicle, 2012, 88:528-534, https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2012-101 Hindriks, F. (2009) ‘Constitutive Rules, Language, and Ontology’, Erkenntnis,71:253–75. Hodgson, G.M. (2015). “On Defining Institutions: Rules versus Equilibria.” Journal of Institutional Economics 11 (3): 497–505. Huang, C.S.,Kim, K., Song,J.R. , Townshend, P.G., Altstatt, D.A., Rodas,O., Yanosky,A., Clay, R., Tucker, C.J., Musinsky, J. (2009).‘Assessment of Paraguay’s forest cover change using Landsat observations’ Glob. Planet. Change, 67 (2009), pp. 1-12 Huang, C., Kim, S., Altstatt, A., Townshend, J.R.G., Davis, P., Song, K., Tucker, C.J.,Rodas, O., Yanosky, A., Clay, R., Musinsky, J., 2007. Rapid loss of Paraguay´sAtlantic forest and the status of protected areas – a landsat assessment. RemoteSensing of Environment 106, 460–466. 54 Kohli, R.K., D.R. Battish, and H.P. Singh. 2006. Allelopathic interactions in agroecosystems. In Allelopathy: A Physiological Process with Ecological Implications, M. J. Reigosa, N. Pedrol, and L. Gonzalez, eds. Dordrecht: Springer. Liverman, D. (2004). Who Governs, at What Scale and at What Price? Geography, Environmental Governance, and the Commodification of Nature, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94:4, 734-738, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00428.x Lorini, G. (2012). Can Constitutive Rules Create a Practice?Praxis Filosófica, (34), 139-148. from Retrieved http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120- 46882012000100008&lng=en&tlng=en. June 25, 2020, North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press Ostrom, E. (2007). "A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 104(39): 15181 - 15187. Ostrom, E. (2009). "A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems." Science 325(5939): 419-422. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., and Basurto, X. (2011). “Crafting Analytical Tools to Study Institutional Change.” Journal of Institutional Economics 7 (3): 317–43. Siddiki, S., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M., Pacheco-Vega, R., Carter, D., Curley, C., Deslatte, A., Bennett, A. (2019). Institutional analysis with the institutional grammarPolicy Stud. J. (2019), pp. 1-25, 10.1111/psj.12361 Siddiki, S, Basurto, X, Weible, C. (2012). Using the institutional grammar tool to understand regulatory compliance: the case of Colorado aquaculture. Regulation & Governance 6(2): 167– 188. Siddiki, S, Weible, CM, Basurto, X. (2011) Dissecting policy designs: an application of the institutional grammar tool. Policy Studies Journal 39(1): 79–103. Smajgl, Alex. , Luis R. Izquierdo , and Marco Huigen. 2008. Modeling endogenous rule changes in an institutional context: The ADICO sequence. Advances in Complex Systems 11 (2): 199- 215 55 Searle, John R. 1964. “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’.” The Philosophical Review 73 (1): 43– 58 Von Wright, G.H. (1951). Deontic Logic. Mind 60: 58-74 Watkins, Cristy, and Lynn M. Westphal. 2015. “People Don't Talk in Institutional Statements: A Methodological Case Study of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 44: 98S–122S. 122S. Watkins, C., Westphal, L.M., Gobster, P.H., Vining, Joanna.,Wali, A., and Tudor, M.( 2015). “Shared Principles of Restoration Practice in the Chicago Wilderness Region.” Human Ecology 21 (1): 155–77. Weible, Christopher M., and David P. Carter. 2015. “The Composition of Policy Change: Colorado's 1977 and 2006 Smoking Bans.” Policy Sciences 48 (2): 207–31 Yanosky, A. and E. Cabrera. 2003. Conservation capacity in the Interior Atlantic Forest of Paraguay. In The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook, C. Galindo-Leal and I. de GusmaoCamara, eds. Washington: Island Press. 56