Institutional design through the lens of social philosophy: analytical framework and conceptual foundations
Philosophy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2025-4-565-575Keywords:
design thinking, wicked problems, uncertainty, values, policyAbstract
Today, the concept of institutional design is widely used in the international academic literature, but its content is often undefined and varies in a wide range of meanings. This article aims to provide a socio-philosophical conceptualization of institutional design in the specific context of design thinking as the most consistent approach to applying design principles to social practice. The paper reconstructs the evo-lution of design thinking, with industrial design approaches transferred to organizational and political practices, which was possible due to the intrinsic connection between design practice and «wicked prob-lems». The focus of design thinking on shaping the powers and roles of stakeholders as well as the rules of their interaction with regard to the problem situation allows us to talk about the institutional nature of design thinking. Institutional design can be defined as a socio-political practice that examines and shapes a problem situation, establishes a list of actors, their powers, roles, and rules of interaction as well as rele-vant tools for solving the problem and a set of values the adoption of which can be considered a legiti-mate solution to the problem. The basic principles of institutional design are uncertainty, engagement, and iterativity. Uncertainty primarily reflects the fundamental impossibility of a complete solution to the problem and tolerance of failure. The engagement of citizens in shaping the structure of their interaction with state institutions has negative aspects of proletarianization of citizenship, but opens up the prospect of «institutional design society» as a possible option for the development of a digital society. Iterativity refers to the diachronic and synchronic diversity of designs of individual institutional contexts, the totality of which forms an institutional canon characteristic of a particular society. The results of the study can be used as an analytical tool in the study of modern projects of social transformation, as well as a methodological basis for the implementation of these projects.References
Archer, B. (1976). A new approach to Britain’s industrial future: A series of papers. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts. Vol. 124, no. 5241, pp. 508–522.
Brinkman, G., Buuren, A. van, Voorberg, W. and Bijl-Brouwer, M van der (2023). Making way for design thinking in the public sector: a taxonomy of strategies, Policy Design and Practice, Vol. 6, iss. 3, pp. 241–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2023.2199958
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues. Vol. 8, no. 2, p. 5–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Buchanan, R. (2019). Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Vol. 5, iss. 2, pp. 85–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.001
Buuren, A. van, Lewis, J.M. and Peters, B.G. (2023). Policy-making as designing: The added value of design thinking for public administration and public policy. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, Policy Press, 244 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.3252825
Cannon, C.E.B., Chu, E.K., Nateka, A. and Waaland G. (2024). Institutional designs for procedural justice and inclusion in urban climate change adaptation. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Preprint. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x241274579
Collier, S.J. and Gruendel, A. (2022). Design in government: City planning, space-making, and urban politics. Political Geography. Vol. 97. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629822000580/pdfft?md5=02dd7f9508164d20398e4317b2d3deff&pid=1-s2.0-S0962629822000580-main.pdf (accessed 21.02.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102644
Considine, M. (2025). Co-design as institutional innovation: Can we build the plane while flying it? International Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 48, iss. 5–6, pp. 346–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2025.2464829
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies. Vol. 3, iss. 4, pp. 221–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694x(82)90040-0
De Silva, N. and Holthoefer, A. (2024). Hidden figures: how legal experts influence the design of international institutions. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 30, iss. 1, pp. 52–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231210931
Dorst, K. (2019). Design beyond design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Vol. 5, iss. 2, pp. 117–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.05.001
Dunleavy, P. and Margetts, H. (2025). Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance. Public Policy and Administration. Vol. 40, iss. 2, pp. 185–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231198737
Filgueiras, F., Lui, L., Rosa, Th.G. and Ferreira, G.C. (2025). The institutional design of data governance in Brazil: entropy, restrictiveness and institutional grammar. Policy Design and Practice. Vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 64–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2025.2460838
Flohr, M. (2025). Political theology: origins, concepts, and contradictions. Theory Culture & Society. Vol. 42, iss. 4, pp. 43–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764241311250
Gruendel, A. (2022). The technopolitics of wicked problems: Reconstructing democracy in an age of complexity. Critical Review. Vol. 34, iss. 2, pp. 202–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2022.2052597
Hanifah, A.P., Sukoco, I. and Muftiadi, A. (2023). Mapping study of design thinking on product development in the last 10 years. Reviu Akuntansi, Manajemen, Dan Bisnis [Accounting, Management, and Business Review]. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 93–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35912/rambis.v3i2.2402
Hofmann, S.C. and Yeo, A. (2023). Historical institutionalism and institutional design: divergent pathways to regime complexes in Asia and Europe. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 30, iss. 2, pp. 306–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231170717
Huang, W., Rahman, Ah.R.A., Gill, S.S. and Ahmad Effendi, R.A.A.R. (2024). Furniture development framework for cultural conservation: a case study of Peranakan Chinese in Singapore. Sustainability. Vol. 16, iss. 24. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10818/pdf (accessed 21.02.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410818
Junginger, S. (2016). Transforming public services by design. London, UK: Routledge Publ., 200 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315550183
Klijn, E.-H. and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2006). Institutional design. Public Management Review. Vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 141–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500518915
Landwehr, C., Ojeda, Ch. and Stallbaum, L. (2025). Institutional design preferences among German and US citizens: results from a factorial survey experiment. Political Studies. Vol. 73, iss. 4, pp. 1722–1744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217241309965
Lee, K. (2024). Institutions as objects in fourth order design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 169–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2024.08.001
Lewis, J.M., McGann, M. and Blomkamp, E. (2020). When design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policy-making. Policy & Politics. Vol. 48, iss. 1, pp. 111–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15579230420081
Lydén, H., Suoheimo, M., Leminen, A. and Miettinen, S. (2023). Immigrant integration through codesign — a journey map of integration into working life. D. De Sainz Molestina et al. (eds.) IASDR 2023: Life-Changing Design (Milan, IT, Oct. 9–13, 2023). Available at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=iasdr (accessed 21.02.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21606/iasdr.2023.294
Lyman, A.H. and Chung, K. (2025). A new model of participatory design to improve social impact: Incorporating action research into the design of appropriate technology in rural Zambia. Design Studies. Vol. 97. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142694X25000080?via%3Dihub (accessed 21.02.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2025.101296
Mayer, S. and Schwemmle, M. (2024). The impact of design thinking and its underlying theoretical mechanisms: a review of the literature. Creativity and Innovation Management. Vol. 34, iss. 1, pp. 78–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12626
Murphy, M.F. and Kelly, Ch. (2018). Questioning «choice»: A multinational metasynthesis of research on directly funded home‐care programs for older people. Health & Social Care in the Community. Vol. 27, iss. 3, pp. e37–e56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12646
Neudorfer, N.S. and Walsh, D. (2025). The peacemaking role of independent commissions: the role of institutional design. International Political Science Review. Vol. 46, iss. 5, pp. 654–671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121241310858
Nguyen, S.V., Langston, N., Wellstead, A. and Howlett, M. (2020). Mining the evidence: Public comments and evidence-based policymaking in the controversial Minnesota PolyMet mining project. Resources Policy. Vol. 69. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420720308734?via%3Dihub (accessed 21.02.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101842
Razzouk, R. and Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research. Vol. 82, iss. 3, pp. 330–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. Vol. 4, iss. 2, pp. 155–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730
Siddiki, S. Heikkila, T., Weible, Ch.M., Pacheco-Vega, R. et al. (2022). Institutional analysis with the institutional grammar. Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 50, iss. 2, pp. 315–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12361
Simon, H.A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 248 p.
Strokosch, K. and Osborne, S.P. (2023). Design of services or designing for service? The application of design methodology in public service settings. Policy & Politics. Vol. 51, iss. 2, pp. 231–249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16750746455167
Szopińska-Mularz, M. (2025). Planning design value-driven scenarios for innovation: A case study of adaptive reuse for food production based on the design management model. Design Studies. Vol. 97. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142694X25000110?via%3Dihub (accessed 21.02.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2025.101299
Uffelen, N. van, Vermaas, P. and Pesch, U. (2024). Dealing with wicked problems: normative paradigms for design thinking. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Vol. 10, iss. 4, pp. 441–455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2024.11.003
Villa-Alvarez, D.P. and Wellstead, A.M. (2024). More than semantics? Navigating the «Policy * Design» concepts’ landscape. Central European Journal of Public Policy. Vol. 18, iss. 2, pp. 35–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2024-0008
Wellstead, A. and Howlett, M. (2024). Public value and procedural policy instrument specifications in «design for service». Policy Design and Practice. Vol. 7, iss. 2, pp. 144–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2024.2337095
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
