ABSTRACT
The distinction between ‘rules-in-form’ and ‘rules-in-use’ can mislead social scientists into disregarding the former as insignificant. For example, Kingston and Cabelleros (2009, p. 158) refer to rules-in-form as ‘dead letters’ (and misattribute that view to Ostrom). Consequently, it might have been better for Ostrom to rely exclusively on her alternative conception of ‘working rules’, which intuitively seems more inclusive. Ostrom (2005, p. 19) defined ‘working rules’ as ‘the set of rules to which participants would make reference if asked to explain and justify their actions to fellow participants’. Such reasons and justifications obviously might include references to either social norms or formal legal rules.
