This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Hindriks and Guala (2014) hope to provide a unified account of institutional theory that will combine the accounts of regulative rules, constitutive rules, and equilibria. I argue that only the constitutive rule approach has any possibility of success, and that the other two cannot even pose the right questions, much less answer them. Hindriks and Guala think constitutive rules can be reduced to regulative rules. I argue that their reduction is mistaken. The key to understanding social ontology is understanding status functions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John R. Searle (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: