Theory and methods

A big problem that dogs the current orthodox literature on institutions and development is its inability to clearly distinguish between the forms and functions of institutions
(Ha-joon Chang 2007:19)

The Credibility Thesis moots that when institutions persist in time and space they likely fulfill a function, if not, they would have atrophied, changed or become obsolete. The principle holds regardless their form – private/public, formal/informal, or secure/insecure – and implies the necessity for caution and restraint when considering the design and establishment of new institutions.

The immediate relevance of the theory for the understanding of policy is its refocusing from institutional form towards function, and its methodology that helps identifying different policy options in accordance with the role that institutions perform in a time and space-dependent context. This is particularly important when dealing with resource-poor and socially vulnerable groups, where land, housing and resources may play a crucial role in the provision of social insurance and welfare.

To understand what policy options might or might not work, it is important – before considering anything else – to establish the current levels of the “institutions-in-use”. To this end, a set of analytical tools have been developed under the Credibility Thesis:

    • The FAT Framework (Formal, Actual and Targeted Framework), which assesses credibility through perceptual divergences between “institutions-proclaimed”, “institutions-in-use”, and “institutions-desired”.
    • The Conflict Analysis Model (CAM), which examines credibility through a holistic, heuristic and multi-dimensional understanding of the conflict generated by institutions.
    • Institutional Archaeology, which establishes credibility by mapping of institutional history, change and dynamics via “multi-angulation” (pooling data from every possible source).
    • The CSI-Checklist (Credibility Scales and Intervention Checklist), which can aid academics, policy-makers and practitioners in predicting the success (or failure) of institutional interventions or policies.

For more information, see the FAQs and short videos.