Ostrom seems to take the best and leave the worst from the Chicago and Austrian schools. From Chicago she shares an affinity for rational choice behavioral assumptions. And the patterns of functional institutions she describes garner much of the same political economy implications as spontaneous order theory. It is difficult to plan better than the patterns of institutional diversity that emerge naturally because many of the forms and stocks of knowledge that contribute to the development and adaption of functional institutions are inherently tacit processes.
Her unique contribution: knowledge problems occur when institutions are centrally planned as they occur when production is centralized.
Her case study approach leaves aside modeling formalism and strictly deductive methods.
Is this the result of the Bloomington school’s appreciation for methodological pluralism and interdisciplinary research? If not then what?