Elinor Ostrom and Sue Crawford, in developing a grammar of institutions, intentionally focused on regulative statements, although they recognized the importance of constitutive statements. In consequence, most empirical applications of the grammar of institutions have largely focused on regulative statements, either omitting or understudying constitutive statements. Not until the development of the institutional grammar 2.0 by Saba Siddiki and Christopher Frantz, did scholars have a grammar for constitutive statements, allowing for the possibility of both statement types to be analyzed, compared, and integrated into a single approach. In this paper, we incorporate constitutive rules into the IAD framework by 1) extending the Ostrom rule typology to encompass constitutive statements, and 2) adding to and revising the components of the action situation to include constitutive statements. The c rule typology provides a classification scheme for constitutive statements like that for regulative statements, or what we label the r rule typology. Constitutive statements create the artifacts and contexts on and in which regulative statements operate. Conceptually, the c rule typology provides a systematic way for aligning related types of constitutive and regulative statements. Empirically, it allows institutional analyses to include the full set of institutional statements present in a rule document, providing more accurate depictions of the design or change of a policy. The c rule typology also requires the revision of the action situation, levels of action, and linked action situations, as constitutive rules bring into existence action situations and artifacts found and used in action situations, which are not currently accounted for. We use both the c and r rule typologies and revised action situations to empirically analyze a set of policies, identifying how constitutive and regulative statements and types interact to create linked action situations, and how the interactions change over time. Our findings showcase the utility of the c rule typology and revised action situations for better capturing institutional designs and understanding processes of institutional change.
