Thesis (doctoral)--Harvard University, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 289-310).

This dissertation explores how the social and political consequences of armed conflict affect legal pluralism; specifically, the coexistence of Russian state law, Sharia, and customary law in Chechnya. The study draws on qualitative and quantitative data gathered during seven months of fieldwork in Chechnya. The data include over one hundred semistructured interviews with legal authorities and religious and traditional leaders; an original survey of the population; and a novel dataset of all civil and criminal cases heard in state courts. First, the dissertation argues that armed conflict disrupted traditional social hierarchies in Chechnya, which paved the way for state penetration into Chechen society. The conflict particularly disrupted gender hierarchies. As a result of the highly gendered nature of the conflict, women in Chechnya became breadwinners in their families and gained experience in serving important social roles, most notably as interlocutors between communities and different armed groups. This change in women’s bargaining power within households and increase in their social status came into conflict with the patriarchal social order, which was based on men’s rigid interpretations of religious and customary norms. In response, women started utilizing the state legal system, a system that at least formally acknowledges gender equality, in contrast to customary law and Sharia. State law is corrupt, inefficient, slow, and its use is associated with community and family ostracism. Nevertheless, this dissertation shows that many Chechen women use and support state law. Second, the dissertation establishes that the political context of the conflict moderates the effect of war on legal pluralism. The penetration of state law through disruption of social hierarchies is driven by the Second Chechen War (1999-2009). In contrast, communities that were exposed to violence during the First Chechen War (1994-1996) ultimately rejected Russian state law and rely predominantly on Sharia and customary law. In these communities, the structural effects of disrupted hierarchies were overpowered by alienation from the Russian state. The study explains this discrepancy by showing how communities victimized during the First War developed strong collective identities that filtered blame for the war. Third, the dissertation shows that war-induced female empowerment in Chechnya faced a strong backlash from the Chechen government. The most notorious manifestations of the neotraditionalist policies of the Chechen government are the semiformal introduction of polygamy, support for the practice of honor killings, and a restrictive female dress code. Furthermore, the officials in charge of state law actively disrupt its functioning in gendered cases. The study finds that state officials in Chechnya are less supportive of state law than the average Chechen. This is the result of the incorporation of former rebels into the government, which is a structural legacy of the conflict. In addition, the dissertation argues that the Chechen regional government promotes legal pluralism and undermines state law strategically, as part of its coalition-building effort. The government allows men to keep control over their families, relying on custom and religion in exchange for their political loyalty. Finally, the dissertation suggests that government promotion of legal pluralism is a political strategy that has several objectives: (1) it allows the government to borrow legitimacy from tradition and religion, which both have large appeal among the Chechen population; (2) it increases the government’s discretion and allows it to cherry-pick norms across alternative orders while avoiding regulations embedded in them; and (3) it gives the regional government additional leverage vis-à-vis the federal center by signaling to the Kremlin that it cannot rule Chechnya directly and that its local intermediaries are indispensable. Overall, the dissertation shows that legal pluralism is not just a reflection of ‘political culture’ or ‘weak state capacity,’ but rather is an inherently political phenomenon, an arena for the pursuit of interests by the government and individuals alike.

In capital-intensive organizations formed to plan new infrastructure development projects, the promoter of the project (as a single organization or as part of a coalition) rarely controls all of the critical resources required to achieve the system-level goal. Instead, the direct control of interdependent resources is diffused across multiple legally independent stakeholders (Lundrigan, Gil and Puranam, 2015). As such, the core structure in these so-called 'megaproject' meta-organizations is a classic empirical instantiation of a pluralistic setting (Denis, Langley and Rouleau, 2007). In pluralistic settings, the authority to make strategic decisions is diffused across actors with heterogeneous objectives, interests, values and expertise. Hence, to achieve the goal, the promoter needs to cooperate with multiple stakeholders. Since some critical resources are not transactional or measurable, the cooperation problem is not a 'buy' problem. Instead, resolving the cooperation problem necessitates a search for mutually consensual solutions that reconcile conflicting interests. Moreover, this search unfolds without recourse to top-down authority characteristic of unitary organizations. Therefore, the promoter has to play a coordinating role that traverses organizational boundaries to coalesce competing preferences into a one-off plan. Against this backdrop, this doctoral research investigates how designed rules and structures influence consensus-building during the collective development process. We conduct the research by drawing on two cognitive lenses consolidated in two vast bodies of literature that have remained largely disparate: organization design (Puranam, Alexy and Reitzig, 2014; Burton & Obel, 1984; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; March & Simon, 1958; Mintzberg, 1979) and collective action (Ostrom 1990, 2005). Combining these two research streams allows us to investigate how to resolve the coordination and cooperation problems inherent in pluralistic settings. Our research method is a single case study with embedded units of analysis. This method allows us to probe deeply into operational details while maintaining the holistic features of the focal phenomena (Yin, 2009; Yin, 2013; Siggelkow, 2007; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Our focal case is the planning stage of High Speed 2 (HS2), a new multi-billion-pound cross-country railway project in the UK. The scheme is promoted by the UK Government. However, the planning effort has required that the Government share local decision rights for planning choices related to the stations along the route with multiple local authorities. These local authorities are independent, resource-rich stakeholders who are impacted by local choices, and they have deep knowledge of local needs and constraints. Thus, in the HS2 case, organizing for collective action is a prerequisite for achieving the system-goal. Our research presents two major theoretical contributions. First, we contribute to organizational design literature by advancing our knowledge of how organizations can be designed to achieve system-level goals when decision-making authority is diffused across multiple organizational boundaries. Specifically, we advance our conceptual understanding of polycentric systems--a form of organizing that distributes decision-making authority across multiple local groups of independent stakeholders. As such, we illuminate the designed processes and structures that enable the core actors in a polycentric system to integrate effort and reconcile their differences over time. Organization design choices are about designing governance structures that enable and constrain collective action. Hence, we also contribute to the project management literature with insights on the governance of the planning stage of megaprojects. Specifically, we offer a deeper understanding of how to organize an inter-organizational setting to make planning decisions and manage interdependencies with the environment. Furthermore, we reveal that ambiguous evaluations of megaproject performance are rooted in collective efforts to resolve coordination and cooperation problems. Our research is grounded in the planning effort for the HS2 project and thus embedded in the UK context. We, therefore, encourage future studies to investigate the generalizability of our claims on organizing for collective action in other institutional contexts.

This thesis explores the potential of the theory of legal pluralism. It examines the extent to which such a theory can contribute to an understanding of the regulatory crisis of the nation-state and serve as a point of departure for new regulatory approaches. A historical overview which looks at the disciplinary origins of legal pluralism is followed by an analysis of several legal pluralist concepts. This analysis serves as the basis for an elaboration of the descriptive and normative aspects of legal pluralism. The concept is compared with other social theories which are concerned with similar questions as legal pluralism. To illustrate the legal pluralist approach, same specific examples from the media sector are introduced. The thesis concludes by showing where a legal pluralist analysis might be appropriate and, moreover, how the theory can contribute to regulatory ways alternative to direct state intervention and market conceptions.

No description available.

Cette thèse étudie la coordination des équipes et la polycentricité en proposant une approche ératique d’une analyse institutionnelle de la coordination. En effet, la définition de la coordination n’est pas aisée même si le terme est utilisé quotidiennement dans différents domaines et tout particulièrement celui de la santé. La coordination s’appliquerait aujourd’hui aussi bien aux actions, qu’aux acteurs ou aux éléments d’une activité. Malone et Crowston (1994) relèvent que la coordination est tellement présente dans notre quotidien que nous ne la percevons principalement que lorsqu’elle est défaillante. Pour affiner la compréhension de la coordination étudiée à l’aide des théories des organisations et des théories des comportements organisationnels, de récentes contributions ont privilégié une analyse du caractère micro social, continu et situé de la coordination. Elles examinent les pratiques de coordination développées par les acteurs sur le terrain (par exemple, Faraj, Xiao 2006 ; Bechky, 2006; Kellogg et al., 2006; Jarzabkowski, et al., 2012; Harrison et Rouse, 2014; Schakel et al., 2016; Ben-Menahem et al., 2016; Wolbers et al., 2017 ; Bouty et Drucker-Godard, 2018). L’analyse de la coordination s’inscrirait ainsi dans l’examen des effets récursifs entre pratiques concrètes de coordination et influences institutionnelles. Pour autant, force est de constater que la littérature peine à démontrer ces influences réciproques. L’environnement institutionnel est complexe : de nombreux centres de décisions peuvent être identifiés et sont interdépendants (Ostrom V. et al, 1961). Pour investiguer ces environnements, OstromE (2005) proposent une conception polycentrique de la diversité institutionnelle qui permet de comprendre comment l’on peut mettre en lien l’organisation des moyens pour réaliser une action collective, coordonnée au niveau institutionnel aussi divers soit-il, et les pratiques des acteurs au sein d’arènes d’action. Cette thèse montre que l’approche pratique de l’analyse et développement institutionnel (ADI) proposée par Ostrom E. permet de combiner les différentes analyses de la coordination menées jusqu’à présent dans la littérature gestionnaire au sein d’un même modèle. A l’aide d’une recherche qualitative compréhensive de la coordination des équipes du secours d’urgence pré-hospitalier, nous proposons un cadre d’analyse de la coordination intégrant les différentes approches de la coordination développées en sciences de gestion. Nous détaillons ainsi un élément central du cadre ADI d’Ostrom E. : l’arène d’action qui est le lieu de pratiques de coordination. La prise en compte de la diversité institutionnelle en action amène à repenser l’équipe en méta-collectif. Il est une formation spécifique faite d’interrelations entre de multiples participants d’arènes d’action intriquées. La déclinaison du concept de polycentricité en gestion nous permet également de concevoir des systèmes où un rapport à une ressource est la base d’un système fait d’interrelations vigilantes et responsables. Cette thèse montre également l’importance de composer avec la diversité institutionnelle pour faire face à l’ensemble des situations possibles dans des contextes complexes comme ceux du secours d’urgence pré-hospitalier. Nous proposons de sortir de la logique d’unification comme seule possibilité d’efficience tant les systèmes multi-institutionnels sont flexibles, résilients et sûrs notamment grâce aux retours d’expériences formalisés ou informels qu’il faut encourager. Cependant, dans ces contextes polycentriques un système de règles robuste et adaptable doit être préservé. Le système peut s’adapter de lui-même par modification régulière des dispositions pour agir. L’attention doit alors se porter sur le passage de « règles en usages » au stade « règles institutionnalisées » pour assurer la fiabilité du système. / This thesis studies team coordination and polycentricity by proposing a practical approach to an institutional analysis of coordination. Indeed, the definition of coordination is not easy even if the term is used daily in different areas and especially that of health. Coordination would apply today to actions, actors or elements of an activity. Malone and Crowston (1994) note that coordination is so much present in our daily lives that we only perceive it mainly when it is failing. To refine the understanding of the coordination, studied using organization theory or organizational behavior theory, recent contributions have recognized an analysis of the microsocial, continuous and situated nature of coordination. They examine the coordination practices developed by the actors in the field (e.g. Faraj, Xiao 2006 ; Bechky, 2006; Kellogg and al., 2006; Jarzabkowski, and al., 2012; Harrison and Rouse, 2014; Schakel and al., 2016; BenMenahem and al., 2016; Wolbers and al., 2017 ; Bouty and Drucker-Godard, 2018). The analysis of coordination would thus be part of the examination of the recursive effects between concrete practices of coordination and institutional influences. However, it is clear that the literature struggles to demonstrate these reciprocal influences. The institutional environment is complex, many decision centers can be identified and are interdependent (Ostrom et al, 1961). In order to investigate these environments, Ostrom (2005) propose a polycentric conception of institutional diversity which enables us to understand how we can link the organization of the means to achieve a collective action, coordinated at institutional level as diverse as it can be, and the practices of the actors within action arenas. This thesis shows that the practical approach of the analysis and institutional development framework (ADI) proposed by Ostrom makes possible the combination of the different coordination analyzes carried out so far in the management literature within the same model. Using a comprehensive qualitative research on the coordination of pre-hospital emergency teams, we propose a coordination analysis framework integrating the different approaches to coordination developed in management sciences. We detail a central element of Ostrom's IAD framework: the action arena which is the place of coordination practices. Taking into account institutional diversity in action, leads us to rethink the team in meta-collective. It is a specific training made of interrelationships between multiple participants of intricate action arenas. The concept of polycentricity in management also allows us to design systems where a relationship to a resource is the basis of a system of vigilant and responsible interrelationships. This thesis also demonstrates the importance of dealing with institutional diversity, to deal with all possible situations in complex contexts, such as pre-hospital emergency relief. We propose to leave the logic of unification as the only possibility of efficiency as the multi-institutional systems are flexible, resilient and safe, especially thanks to the formalized or informal feedback that must be encouraged. However, in these polycentric contexts a robust and adaptable rule system must be preserved. The system can adapt itself by regularly changing the provisions for action. Attention must then be turned to the transition from "rules in use" to the stage of "institutionalized rules" to ensure the reliability of the system.

No description available.

This research takes steps towards developing a new theory of organizational information management based on the idea that information creates ordering effects in transactions and on the idea that there are multiple centers of authority in organizations. The rationale for developing this theory is the empirical observation that hospitals have great difficulty in managing information relating to transactions with patients. The research illustrates the detailed workings of an initial conceptual framework based on an action research project into the revenue cycle of a hospital. The framework facilitates a deeper understanding of how information technology can help transform information management practices in complex organizations, such as hospitals. At the same time, this research adds to the literature on Polycentricity Theory by linking its two core concepts – multiple nested centers of decision-making and context-dependent governance – with Transaction Cost Theory and information management theories to establish a new foundation for understanding the role of information technology in organizational contexts.

Multi-religious and multi-ethnic democracies face the challenge of constructing accommodative arrangements that can both facilitate cultural diversity and ensure women's rights within religio-cultural groups. This thesis is an investigation of the Indian state's policy of legal pluralism in recognition of religious family laws in India. The Indian state has adopted a model of what I have termed "shared adjudication" in which the state shares its adjudicative authority with internally heterogeneous religious groups and civil society in the regulation of marriage among Hindus and Muslims. / Combining theoretical frameworks of state-society relations, feminist theory, and legal pluralism, and drawing from ethnographic research conducted in state courts, caste and sect councils, and "doorstep law courts," I pay analytical attention to state-society interactions at the interface of religious family laws. State and non-state sources of legal authority construct internally contested and heterogeneous notions of the conjugal family, gender relations, and religious membership, and they transmit them across legal spheres. These dynamic processes of communication reconstitute the interiors of religious, state, and civic legal orders, and they fracture the homogenised religious identities grounded in hierarchical gender relations within the conjugal family. / Within the interstices of state and society---which are used imaginatively by state and societal actors---the Indian model points towards an open-ended and process-oriented conception of state-society relations that encompasses not only the binary of conflict and cooperation, but also communication between state and society. The "shared adjudication" model facilitates diversity as it allows the construction of hybrid religious identities, creates fissures in ossified group boundaries, and provides institutional spaces for ongoing inter-societal dialogue between religious groups, civil society, and the state. This pluralized legal sphere, governed by ideologically diverse legal actors, can thus increase women's rights in law, and despite its limitations, the transformative potential of women's collective agency effects institutional change.

This thesis investigates the history and phenomenon of legal pluralism in Indonesia. The need to explore this topic has been urged by the revival there of Islamic law and adat law, the two greatest non-state normative orderings, in the last two decades. At the same time the ideal of modernity in Indonesia has been characterized by a state-driven effort in the post-colonial era to make the institution of law an inseparable part of national development. The result has been a conception of law as a homogenous system in which the ideology of legal positivism represents the basic tool for lawmaking. This, however, has led to an impasse, seeing that pluralism and multiculturalism are in fact self-evident phenomena in the society. The state has been obliged, therefore, to accommodate these non-state normative orderings. / The discussion of Indonesian legal pluralism in this thesis focuses on understanding the state's attitude and behavior towards the three largest legal traditions currently operative in the society, i.e., adat law, Islamic law and civil law. Socio-political factors are shown to have much influenced the relations between state and non-state laws. The state's strategy of accommodation of legal pluralism has in fact largely depended on the extent to which those legal traditions have been able to conform to national ideology. Certain "national legal postulates" have functioned as a yardstick by which the country's legislative and judicial institutions have measured the extent of their accommodation of legal pluralism, although they have had little choice but to do so. / Influenced by Masaji Chiba's theory of "three levels of law" (i.e., official law, unofficial law and legal postulates), this thesis analyzes two aspects of legal pluralism in Indonesia: the political and "conflictual" domains of legal pluralism. The analysis is thus generally based on the state policy of legal pluralism reflected in the legal and political strategies confronting the issue of unofficial laws as well as the conflicts arising from such situations. The first aspect is addressed by looking at a number of statutes and regulations promulgated specifically to deal with Islamic law and adat law, while the second is analyzed in terms of actual cases of private interpersonal law arising from conflict between state and non-state legal traditions, as reflected in legislation and court decisions. From a discussion of these two aspects, the thesis concludes that, although the form of the relations between official and unofficial laws may have changed in conjunction with the socio-political situation of the country, the logic behind legal pluralism has in fact never altered, i.e., to use law as a tool of state modernism. Thus conflicts arising from the encounter between different legal traditions will usually be resolved by means of "national legal postulates," making the unofficial laws more susceptible to the state's domination of legal interpretation and resolution.