ABSTRACT. The social-ecological system (SES) framework investigated in this special issue enables researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds working on different resource sectors in disparate geographic areas, biophysical conditions, and temporal domains to share a common vocabulary for the construction and testing of alternative theories and models that determine which influences on processes and outcomes are especially critical in specific empirical settings. We summarize changes that have been made to this framework and discuss a few remaining ambiguities in its formulation. Specifically, we offer a tentative rearrangement of the list of relevant attributes of governance systems and discuss other ways to make this framework applicable to policy settings beyond natural resource settings. The SES framework will continue to change as more researchers apply it to additional contexts; the main purpose of this article is to delineate the version that served as the basis for the theoretical innovations and empirical analyses detailed in other contributions to this special issue. Key Words: frameworks; governance; institutional analysis; social-ecological systems INTRODUCTION¹Most of the authors in this special issue have been working together in an informal "SES Club" to build upon and improve the social-ecological system (SES) framework initially proposed by Ostrom (2007). Here, we summarize changes that have been made to the original SES framework as a consequence of interactions among the members of this still-growing network of collaborators. We also discuss some proposed future adjustments, especially related to the characterization of governance systems. In a companion paper, Elinor Ostrom (unpublished manuscript) gives a detailed account of the initial meetings of the SES Club. Finally, Hinkel et al. (unpublished manuscript) offer a procedure intended to help regularize the process of making further changes to the SES framework in the hope of facilitating collective learning from its applications to diverse empirical settings.

This guide provides definitions or brief explanations of all the major terms and concepts used in the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. Also included are terms from the closely related frameworks on local public economies, public service industries, grammar of institutions, and social‐ecological systems (SES).

Within the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, the concept of an action situation generalizes a game to allow for endogenous changes in its rules. This paper revisits this core concept to explore its potential for serving as the foundation for a systematic approach to the construction of more elaborate models of complex policy networks in which overlapping sets of actors have the ability to influence the rules under which their strategic interactions take place. Networks of adjacent action situations can be built on the basis of the seven distinct types of rules that define an action situation or by representing generic governance tasks identified in related research on local public economies. The potential of this extension of the IAD framework is demonstrated with simplified network representations of three diverse policy areas (Maine lobster fisheries, international development assistance, and the contribution of faith-based organizations to U.S. welfare policy).

Among Vincent Ostrom's many contributions to the study of public administration, policy, and political science, the concept of polycentricity remains his single most important legacy. This essay locates the origins of this concept in Ostrom's early research on resource management in the Western United States and demonstrates its continuing influence throughout The Intellectual Crisis in Public Administration, The Political Theory of a Compound Republic, and his other major publications. Although typically pigeonholed within the confines of the public choice tradition, Ostrom's body of work should be widely appreciated as an early statement of the critical importance of network forms of governance in democratic societies.

Elinor Ostrom's IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) and SES (Social-Ecological Systems) frameworks are widely used by social scientists and policy analysts, but many applications fail to take full advantage of the potential utility of either framework. The IAD framework lacks detail regarding the specific variables that influence social interactions and neglects questions of asymmetric power and collective evaluation. The SES framework, meanwhile, supports detailed variable-oriented analyses of social-ecological systems, but rarely addresses the dynamic processes that lie at the heart of the IAD framework. We outline a Combined IAD-SES (CIS) Framework that remedies these problems by combining them in a format suited both to social-ecological systems and other policy settings. Institutional analysts using this combined framework should start their analysis by identifying a set of focal action situations, learning how the relevant collective and constitutional choice arenas shaped their structures, and then thinking deeply about the processes through which those conditions have been (or might be) changed. We demonstrate the potential utility of CIS by applying it to previous research on Maine's lobster fishery.