Policies and Perceptions: Using the Institutional Grammar Tool to Assess Policy Design, Appropriateness, and Coerciveness

Abstract

A necessary pursuit in public policy scholarship is better understanding of the language of policies intended to structure behavior and the implications thereof. Currently lacking in this literature are methodological approaches that yield micro-level depictions of the linguistic elements constituting policies, while at the same time supporting analyses of macro-level governance questions, such as (i) what is the perceived appropriateness of policies; and (ii) are there differences between actual and perceived policy coerciveness? In this paper, these questions are answered in the context of U.S. aquaculture. Data were obtained through a coding of state level aquaculture policies in Virginia and Florida using the institutional grammar tool (IGT) and semi-structured interviews involving a Q-Sort exercise with thirty members of the aquaculture communities in the two study states. Overall, the findings from this research indicate that policies are likely to be perceived as being less coercive than they really are when policy directives are ambiguous, when they are perceived as being inappropriate, and when enforcement of policies is non-stringent. Further, another finding from this research is that perceptions of policy coerciveness vary based on the substantive focus of policy directives.