Community Dock: A New Policy Approach for Altering Institutions
Takayoshi KUSAGO1, Makoto NISHIBE2 (Two first authors with equal contribution)
Keywords: Community dock, Community Currency, Empowerment evaluation,
Subjective satisfaction, Social capital, Media design, Evolution

1. Introduction
Some social scientists have suggested that local residents in a community should
become voluntary and active principals in the governance of their own community. In
addition, they have recognized the necessity to transform the conventional view inwhich local governments are mainly responsible for local governance in communities
into a ‘new public’ view in which inhabitants, corporations, nonprofit organizations andgovernments mutually collaborate to create local communities. Consequently, a numberof local governments have tried to realize ‘community participation’ in town planningunder comprehensive regional development. Some local governments are also trying toreflect the voices of local residents more in policy design and implementation of policy
agendas such as vitalization of the local economy as well as in the improvement ofeducational, medical and welfare services.
The momentum of regional development by local residents as principals has thus
been increasing; however, the momentum is still slow in that governments often draw
up a general framework of regional development and town planning, which only
partially reflects the voice of inhabitants. Therefore, local residents cannot yet easily
promote town development. Even though local resident volunteers intend to introduce
community currencies into their local communities, it is also vital that local residents
willingly and positively participate in the administration and activities involved incommunity currencies.
In light of this situation, this article proposes a ‘community dock’ as a completely
new policy-making instrument that local communities as principals can use to support
autonomous and endogenous community development effectively. Here a community is
1
2

Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University
Graduate School of Economics and Business Administration, Hokkaido University

1

thought of as an association of not only local residents, but also as various kinds of
non-profit organizations, businesses and local governments.
First, let us explain the origin of the words, ‘community dock’ (Nishibe 2006;
Nishibe, Kusago 2010). We created the original term to be analogous to ‘human dock’,
which is a translation from a Japanese term ‘Ningen Dokku’ meaning a periodic,
normally annual, complete medical checkup for early diagnosis and self-awareness oflifestyle problems, because lifestyle-related diseases are widely observed in modern
societies (Medical Excellence Japan 2011).
‘Community dock’ embodies a strategic and comprehensive method used byresearch groups when they conduct periodic surveys on the socioeconomic situations ofa community and present these results to the community so that the community canpromote their own worth and improvement in battling problems. Community dock is,
on one hand, a method for a community to become a principal party in the integrationand improvement of its own self-estimation and problems, and, on the other hand, a tool
to assist in the formation of synthetic and voluntary community development.
Community dock was devised and proposed within a framework of evolutionist
institutional design based on the concepts and ideas of evolutionary economics.
Evolutionist institutional design provides a new socio-economic policy theory that will
successfully guide a socio-economy to evolve in a more desirable direction intentionallyby altering ‘outer institutions’ (monetary, educational, medical and welfare institutionsetc., formed according to laws and regulations) as well as ‘inner institutions’ (social
value, norm and motives widely shared by such community members as local residents,
corporations, organizations and governments). Community dock is a practical policy
instrument that enhances the effectiveness and validity of a given set of outerinstitutions by spontaneous change of inner institutions through self-evaluation andself-correction by community members. In this paper, 'community dock' will be
discussed as a specific evaluation method with different characteristics gleaned frompre-existing policy methods (Nishibe, Kusago, 2010; Nishibe, Kusago, Hashimoto, andKichiji, 2010). In this paper, we will discuss the concepts, needs, features, andimplications of community dock and its methodology.
2. ‘Community Dock’: A Practical Method for Spontaneous Institution Altering
Policy-making
2‘Community dock’ adopts a completely new idea and method, so it is natural to
ask such questions as how it has been conceptualized, what it aims to do, and who
implements it and how. Here we will explain community dock by answering thosequestions.
2-1 What is Human Dock?
As explained above, we came up with the term and concept of ‘community dock’based on our common experiences and knowledge of Japanese ‘human dock’ as annual
medical checkups. Then, we need to firstly explain what is human dock.
In human dock, doctors make the best use of modern high-tech equipment andcollect objective data regarding the condition of the body of examinees, and thenanalyze the data and judge the present health condition of the examinees. Doctors
usually tell examinees the test results in an interview, and advise them how to maintainand improve their physical conditions in the future. Doctors often also provide
motivation for the examinees to carry on with health management by themselves. For
example, when doctors find the signs of metabolic syndrome such as hyperlipidemia
and hyperglycemia from the test results, they urge their examinees to lose weight, eat
properly, and exercise. The examinees are also sometimes sent to a nutritionist and are-examination by the doctor is recommended after a certain period of time. If thedoctor discovers serious trouble or illness from the test results, then they give theexaminees prescriptions for medical or surgical treatments.
2-2 Human Dock and Community Dock: The Similarity between Them
There are two aspects to human dock. One aspect is that doctors provide adiagnostic method for early detection of serious illnesses such as certain cancers andheart disease that don’t necessarily show symptoms, and then they suggest various
medical treatments. The second aspect of human dock is that examinees regularly checktheir own health and have a chance to change their unhealthful habits through a better
lifestyle. When both aspects are combined, human dock is a complete medical checkup
where doctors as medical experts give advice and medical care, if necessary, toexaminees according to the test results based on the scientific analysis of objective data,
while examinees refer to such data, coordinate their own physical conditions and3self-manage their own health.
There are two aspects that correspond to the idea of community dock as well. In
one aspect, community dock is a systematic research method and a comprehensive
approach for policy recommendations and evaluation in order to analyze the economic
and social state of communities and report the results back to them as well as proposing
new measures on the basis of such a report, where adopted policies are evaluated andmodified. In the other aspect, community dock is also a practical technique forcommunities as principals to create spontaneous and endogenous town development.
The principal parties in a community include local corporations, organizations andgovernments as well as local residents. Such parties become aware of a problem fromthe point of view of their own interests as well as from knowledge of the current state of
the local socio-economy. Furthermore, if the principle parties in a community can forma collaboration team with external researchers and exchange their opinions on the futureof the community, and share the problems in learning and consultation opportunities inseminars and workshops, it will be possible to encourage each party to self-correct theircommitments and value consciousness to the entire community, forming a mutual trustand cooperative relationship, and, as a result, solve the problems of the community.
Accordingly, community dock can be seen as a policy instrument that incorporates
within it both self-evaluation of the community as an object and self-alternation by thecommunity as a subject. We should especially put emphasis on this two-sided characterof community dock. It enables such principals of community as local residents,
businesses, non-profit organizations and government to share in a vision of the desired
future of the community, and to practically perform the design and evaluation ofpolicies necessary to achieve such community.
In human dock, both doctors and examinees confirm problems in conversations
based on diagnosis results, make a remedy plan and practice it. In community dock,collaboration teams consisting of researchers with expertise and the principals of thecommunity are supposed to be formed in order to analyze, evaluate and diagnose thepresent conditions of the community, and share all the results. Consequently, they canrecognize the gap between the present states and the future goals they aim at, confirm
accomplishments and problems of the introduced remedy, and revise it to a better way,
if necessary. Community dock is a technique for such external researchers to collaborate
with, and support, the community, and it is a kind of the process evaluation technique of4the policy. In this respect, it is greatly different from the conventional evaluation
technique that is solely for measuring costs and benefits of policy consequence from anexternal viewpoint (Fetterman 2001).
Here, let's explain in more detail why community dock is the process evaluation
technique of the policy. The diagnosis report of human dock forms not only a motive tocontinue objective measurement and recording of data on body weight, percent of bodyfat, and blood pressure, but is also a motive for examinees to review their wholelifestyle including exercise, meals, luxury goods and sleep. In short, human dock might
possibly bring about an alternation of lifestyle, transformation of health consciousness
and sense of values.
If principals of a community knew the synthetic evaluation of the community
through community dock, they might also become self-aware of a sense of belonging toand value consciousness about their own community and, at the root, become self-awareof more basic social norms and value in order to recognize and evaluate problems of thecommunity. In other words, such inner institutions of local agents as a sense of
belonging, value consciousness, norm and ethics might transform themselves during theprocess and, if so, it would in turn change the properties and effects of such outerinstitutions as laws, accounting rules and currencies.
If it is made clear that the inner institutions that have changed in the process ofcommunity dock do not fit with outer institutions, new outer institutions must be called
for so as to correspond to the new inner institutions, and such corrections ormodifications of outer institutions are supposed to be sought for in media design. In thisway, if outer institutions and inner institutions co-evolve with mutual determination anddynamic change in community dock, it would have a big impact on development
processes and the direction of both regional economy and local community.
That is to say, community dock is conceived as an integrated and endogenous
process evaluation technique for communities that consist of local inhabitants,
companies, shoppers, nonprofits and governments. Community dock recognizes the
local socio-economic conditions, while receiving advice and support based on thegeneral diagnosis by the researchers to improve the present conditions throughself-evaluation. Community dock is also an effective policy tool for the emergence of a
new society along with the co-evolution of both outer and inner institutions. At present,
to systemize ‘community dock’ as a comprehensive approach for community’s
5self-evaluation and self-improvement technique is required.
Table 1 summarizes two aspects of the similarity between human dock andcommunity dock.
Table 1 	  Similarity of human dock and community dock
Human Dock

Community Dock

1) Diagnosis and treatment by doctors	 1) Survey/analysis and policy proposal byresearchers	 2) Oral questions by doctors (dialogue
between doctors and examinees) +self-check and self-correction by examinees→self-awareness and self-control

2) Report of the survey results by researchers（Collaborating workshop of researchers andcommunities）+ self-check andself-correction by communities→self-awareness and self-control

2-3 Human Dock and Community Dock: The Difference between Them
Although human dock and community dock, as we have just seen, have two sidesof similarity, there are significant differences between the two. In order to better
understand the features of community dock, it is necessary to accurately recognize not
only their commonality but also their heterogeneity. In particular, we need to pay
adequate attention to the latter in order to successfully practice community dock.
In human dock, although aspects of self-check and self-correction of lifestyle by
the examinee has come to be more emphasized in recent years, there is still a basic
precondition that doctors as subject diagnose and treat diseases of patients as object.
Accordingly, the subject-object relationship in medical practices and the objectivity of
disease condition have not been questioned. Disease is thought of as ill states of mind
and body of each patient that can be recognized and identified objectively by doctors’
using scientific diagnostic techniques (visual, tactile, or chemical methods). Disease is atarget to be erased or removed by using surgery or medication treatment techniques.
The states and etiology of disease in patients are objective targets of diagnosis andtreatment for physicians. Doctors as actors of medical practice diagnose and treat
disease and disorder by making full use of physical and chemical treatment equipment,
and taking responsibility for success or failure of their medical acts.
In community dock, on the other hand, even though researchers examine andanalyze the current situations and problems of communities, they are not the main

6

actors who solve the problems of communities by using the examination results as
doctors treat diseases. The principal parties of the community, rather than the
researchers, should become subjects of problem solving. In order for the community tosolve its own problems by itself, researchers should keep on being advisors andencouragers to play a role to assist and support the community, though they may beeven proposers and consultants in some cases. If not, spontaneous initiative of local
people cannot be brought about.
Of course, there are differences even in medicine, such as Western medicine andOriental medicine. Whereas Western medicine conceives of disease as the objective
target for physician’ cognitive manipulation (diagnosis) and intervention (treatment),
Oriental medicine teaches physicians, not to directly remove the pathogenesis andlesions of patients, but to activate the nervous and immune systems of patients by using
such indirect and mediated techniques as chiropractic and acupuncture therapy as wellas herbal medicine, aiming at provoking patients’ potential self-healing power intrinsic
in their own body and leading patients to a spontaneous cure.
Of the two aspects of human dock, the first aspect of early detection and treatment
of disease has been stressed in Western medicine. It is because modern medicine still
has a strong inclination to view disease and treatment in schematic understanding that a
subject manipulates an object, which must stem from the fundamental dichotomy
between subject and object in modern science. The reason why the second aspect ofprevention and self-awareness has gradually been recognized might be that the way of
thinking in Oriental medicine is now being adopted into Western medicine. Modern
economics is similar to Western medicine in the sense that such conventional
macroeconomic policies as fiscal and monetary policies mainly seek objective
manipulation and treatment of disease and disorder of the macroeconomy. In such viewof economic policies, as it were, the side of early detection and treatment is stressed andthe side of prevention and change of lifestyle habit is neglected.
Community dock emphasizes that there is the second side as well as the first side.
It is because social phenomena are more complex and uncertain than natural phenomena,and the separation between subject and object and the direct operation by subject ofobject has become more difficult in social situations. Western modern Rationalism hascome into effect by basically ignoring problems of complexity and uncertainty.
Therefore, its offshoot, Western medicine basically emphasizes early detection and7treatment of objective ailments. In contrast, community dock pays more attention to thecomplexity and uncertainty of social situations and regards such indirect and mediatedtechniques as disease prevention and change of lifestyle habit, i.e., evolutionary
approaches. Community dock resembles human dock, but it is closer to Oriental
medicine than Western medicine in this respect.
We can’t thus assume in socio-economic issues, especially at the level ofcommunity, a subject-object relationship for the diagnosis and treatment of disease
between doctors and patients and objectivity of clinical conditions as in Western
medicine. Let's consider why.
While an examinee of human dock is an individual, that of community dock is acommunity. Even though an individual can mentally have a pluralistic self andfragmented identity, he/she has unique genes and organs and a boundary defined by aphysical body so that he/she can be individually identified. In contrast, because
community is a collective symbiotic ecosystem of a variety of individuals, groups andorganizations, it would be more difficult to clearly define its components and boundary.
In addition, a community is more affected by changes in external environments than an
individual, and its components and boundary themselves alter according to suchchanges. Accordingly, it must be more difficult to define the constant identity of acommunity. In case of an individual, even though he/she dies by illness or emaciation,
identity of genes and extensional boundary of the body will be at least maintained until
then. Then, his/her objective existence and boundary can be identified. However, since
a community contains not only subject-object relations between individuals but
inter-subjective relations, boundaries and replicators of a community vary through thecognition and learning processes of individuals. Therefore, identifying communities is
not so self-evident as identifying individuals.
Although individuals are composed of various organs when viewed physically,various organs don’t have consciousness and independence, neither recognizingthemselves nor external worlds. Relationships among individuals, organs and cells forma unitary tree-type structure with a single attribution. A community is composed of local
residents as independent individuals in the region as well as various organizations asgroups of individuals. Such individuals and organizations have independent will andpurposes and can take independent actions. The relationships between communities andorganizations or citizens are also hierarchical, but since citizens can belong to multiple
8organizations and groups, they form a semi-lattice multi-hierarchical structure. Thismeans that each individual and organization can view the community from a different
angle and perspective depending on their positions and interests.
Due to differences in such attributes as age, gender, family structure, education,
occupation, income, etc., individuals have different perspectives, motivation andinvolvement to the community. The same holds true for various organizations andgroups. The difference of the attributes makes a difference in their motivation andperspective to the community. For example, shopping streets and the Chamber ofCommerce and Industry will view the community through the perspective of theeconomy, particularly through business conditions, and sales and profits of commerce
and industry. Fishing and agricultural cooperatives see a community from the point ofview of fisheries and agriculture. Similarly, the Board of Education and schools would
see community from education; the Welfare Council and non-profit volunteer
organizations would see community from welfare care and volunteering; neighborhood
associations see community from mutual help and such activities as snow removal,
cleaning, and the town festival; elderly associations would see it in view of aged people,
and women's associations from the perspective of women and mothers. In this way,communities are not so monolithic as individuals, and include more complex anddiverse relations.
With regard to human dock, individuals stand in the passive position as an objectof diagnosis and treatment at the side of early detection and treatment of disease．
However, for disease prevention and habit reform, they need to have a spontaneous
initiative to recognize the present states and change the ways of actions. In the case ofcommunity dock, as we have already seen, uncertainty in identification of a communityand various and complex internal relations create bigger problems. Therefore, in
community dock, early detection and treatment must become more difficult than in
human dock. This is because the very definition and recognition for the health andillness of the community will differ depending on the interests and perspectives of every
individual and organization constituting the community. As a result, in community dock,the side of reflection and self-awareness of the scope and conditions of the community,
in other words, the side of self-recognition might become more important than in human
dock. The community needs to play a more active role as a principal for recognizing
and solving the problems in local communities.
9

Traditional macroeconomics have told us that the central government and thecentral bank should recognize economic issues such as unemployment of workers andbankruptcies of companies in depression and hyperinflation and bubble formation in theboom, and solve the problems by utilizing fiscal and monetary policies. Such policy
view presumes that the central government and the central bank are analogous to‘doctors’ who have the ability and responsibility to objectively diagnose pathology anddisease concerning economic fluctuations and cure them. It also presupposes operabilityof the economy as an object and subject-object scheme that underlie modern science,
including Western medicine. However, even though the central government and thecentral bank have continued to carry out all macroeconomic policies during the past 20
years after the collapse of the bubble economy in order for the Japanese economy toescape from recession and economic downturn, the Japanese economy is still stagnant
for the long-term. It is high time that we get away from this modern rationalist policy
view and introduce evolutionist policy concepts from the outset. Because it is difficult
to presume that any subject like doctors can conduct an operational act of medical
diagnosis and treatment in a socio-economy.
It is generally believed that, because both local governments such as prefecturesand municipalities such as cities, towns and villages must consider local problems
universally from a variety of viewpoints of economy, society, education, welfare andculture, the administrative organization in the communities should take main
responsibility for solving local problems as principal actors of communities. It is alsofrequently claimed, based on such a view, that it is the administrative organizations thatshould solve problems such as the decline of regional economy, dissolution of the local
community and budget deficit accumulation, and that these organizations should pursue
the administrative responsibility for policy measures and their effects as solutions toproblems of the community. However, problem recognition by the government does notnecessarily fit the consciousness and sense of values of the local people. This is thereason why inhabitants'-based community development is strongly demanded.
The basic premise that "the principal for solving the problems of the community isgovernment administration" must be re-examined because a community is constituted
not only by local individuals, but also local organizations and groups that have joint
responsibility, as a whole, to carry out a local solution to problems. Even if an
administrative role is still big, the community is a principal actor with a viewpoint as to10

community development.
In community dock, in order to know the present state of communities, researchers
must study not only on objective statistics of the communities but also on subjective
statistics obtained from questionnaire survey on satisfactions and opinions of local
agents in the communities. The results of the study will be shared and reviewed in thelocal workshop. Therefore, not only governments and researchers but also local resident
individuals and organizations must participate in identifying community’s problems.
Once such a viewpoint is fixed, the role of the researchers in community dock andhow this viewpoint corresponds to that of the doctors in human dock will become
clearer. The researchers investigate and analyze the present conditions and problems ofthe community objectively, but should not straightforwardly propose what they think is
a desirable policy agenda for the community based on the study results. The researchers
need to encourage all of the local inhabitants, local governments, and other variousorganizations and groups constituting the community to successfully recognize
heterogeneity contained in their motives and purposes in order to work out solutions tocommunity problems so that they can strengthen mutual ties and trust to rebuild thecommunity. The researchers are not main actors in the same way as doctors who
diagnose and treat patients, although they should survey the present conditions of thecommunity, give advice and suggestions based on the results, and provide appropriate
support to the community so that it can unite and proceed toward self-healing.
Table 2 shows two different aspects between human dock and community dock.
Table 2 	  Heterogeneity of Human Dock and Community Dock
Human Dock

Community Dock

1) Subject-object relation between doctors
and patients (examinees), unified andobjective diagnosis and treatment of disease by
doctors1) Cooperative relation between
researchers and communities,
inter-subjective evaluations and solutions
by researchers and communities

2) self-evidence and unity of patients as
individuals →compatibility between
early detection and treatment andprevention and improvement of habits

2) Multiplicity and complexity ofcommunity → difficulty of early
detection and treatment, significance ofactivity in self-check and self-correction112-4 Media Design and Community Dock in Evolutionist Institutional Design
Now we would like to explain what evolutionary institutional design (EID) is byintroducing two basic concepts of evolutionary economics3, replicators and interactors,
and what kind of new view of socio-economic policy as different from the conventional
one EID proposes. By doing so, we clarify the aims and significance of EID. We also
describe what media design and community dock are and finally the relation between
them.
DNA is a complex-molecular structure that encodes biological information as thebuilding blocks of life. Although each organism's DNA is unique, DNA differs fromorganism to organism and from species to species. In contrast, in socio-economic
evolution replicators that characterize the property of each socioeconomic system are‘if-then’ rules and interactors are causal agents such as individuals or organizations thatrecognize, decide and act according to their own replicators. From the viewpoint of eachinteractor such as an individual or organization, replicators, the rules that interactors
obey, are divided into “external rules” (e.g. game rules, laws, customs, shared ethic
codes and values consciousness) that exist outside of interactors and belong to a higher
level of interactors and “internal rules” (e.g. game strategy, cognitive frame,
psychological bias, behavioral routine, propensity and inclination) that belong to only
the inside of interactors (Fig. 1, Nishibe 2010).
Fig. 1 shows a simplified evolutionary model of socioeconomy that contains nested
structures composed of replicators and interactors. Interactors ij endowed withreplicators ij signify individuals or organizations. They compose upper groups ororganizations as interactors j. Interactors ij and interactors j of Fig. 1 correspond to themicro level and meso level, respectively, in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 shows a diagram of Micro-Meso-Macro Loop in which the micro, meso andmacro levels form double mutually determining loops. In Fig. 2, individuals ororganizations on the micro level are depicted as interactors ij with replicators ij (internalrule) as in Fig. 1 and institutions on the meso level in Fig.2 are depicted as replicators j(external rule) shared by interactors ij as in Fig. 1.

3
Please refer to Hodgson (1988, 1993) and Nishibe etal. (2010) regarding basic ideas and concepts of evolutionary
economics.

12

Interactor j

Individuals

internal rules(cognitive and behavioral)

Interactor 1j

Interactor 2j

Replicator 1j

Replicator 2j
interaction withother agents

Replicator jInteraction withenvironment

Interaction withthemselvesReplicator ij

groups(organizations)external rules = social rules(legal and moral)

Interactor ij

Fig. 1 Multilayered nested structures composed of replicators and interactors(Source: revised from Nishibe, etal. (eds.) (2010:80))

Fig. 2 Micro-Meso-Macro Loop (Source: Nishibe & Kusago (2012:15))

13

As long as interactors ij continue to belong to interactors j at a higher level(meta-level), it should follow not only replicators ij (internal rule) but also replicators j(external rule) when they recognize, decide and act. If rules on two levels collide,interactors ij should give priority to outer institutions (external rules), i.e. replicators on
the meso level. On the contrary, once interactor ij on the micro level gives priority tofollowing replicators ij (internal rules), interactor ij no longer belongs to interactor j of
the meso level. For example, employees of a company must follow the rules of thecompany. Otherwise, they would be dismissed.
In addition, any interactor on the meso level in Fig.2 corresponds to interactor jwith replicator j in Fig.1. Replicator j as institutions on the meso level is the external
rule for interactor ij and the internal rule for interactor j simultaneously. Replicator j isthe outer institution or the inner institution depending on the different properties of rules
as mentioned above. Both inner and outer institutions form self-reinforcing loops,
making them more stable. Once heterogeneous agents as interactors on the micro or
meso level recognize, decide and act according to different external rules and internal
rules, their interactions will show a certain performance, order and patterns ofinteractors (e.g. national or community system) on the macro level. Heterogeneousinteractors on the micro or meso level observe the performance, order and patterns ofinteractors on the macro level as a change of external environment and adjust their own
behaviors. Accordingly, micro agents (interactors with replicators) and macro systems(meta-interactors with meta-replicators) form mutual deterministic loops mediated bymeso institutions. Through repetition of such dynamic processes, various institutions
form mutually complimentary or substitute relationships. Those institutions emerge,
compete, coexist and become extinct with their rise and fall. We refer to such dynamic
and evolutionary systems as “institutional ecosystems” because these systems are
similar to biological ecosystems that evolve with a variety of species preserved (Nishibe2010; Hashimoto, Nishibe 2012).
Here, let us look at ways of policy-making by using the two kinds of institutions–outer and inner institutions– just described. The first type of socio-economic policy iscalled “institution unaltered” since it realizes policy effects by changing parameters orvariables in rules with given institutions unchanged, and the second type is called“institution altered” since it realizes policy effects by changing certain rules ininstitutions. Therefore, we can classify policies into four categories along two axes of14

outer institution and inner institution (Fig. 3).
	  Inner**
Ins,tu,on
altered
(2)

(4)

Consciousness*
Reform*Policy**Media*Design***

unalteredalteredOuter**
Ins,tu,on

(3)

(1)
*Conven,onal**Macroeconomic*****Policy*Mechanism***********
Design*

unalteredFig. 3 Classification of policies into 4 categories in Evolutionary Economics	  (Source: Nishibe (2010:249))

Fig. 3, Case (1) indicates such conventional macroeconomic policies such as fiscal
and financial policies that aim at the performance of certain desirable socio-economic
conditions (e.g. a boom, economic growth and economic equality) by adjusting macroparameters (e.g. public spending, prime interest rates and money supply). This caseshows policy with both outer and inner institutions unchanged. Case 2), the second caseshows a certain type of consciousness reform policy by altering inner institutions, notouter institutions, on the meso level. For instance, ethical consumption, social
investment and corporate social responsibility are conceived as this category. This typeof policy was occasionally used in Japan in publicity campaigns for growth-oriented
public awareness by introducing income doubling plans for rapid economic growthduring 1955-1965 as well as an adjustment of peak utilities for electric power use by
spreading propaganda for power-saving consciousness during suspension of all nuclear
15

power plants after the Tsunami disasters in 2012. Case 3) corresponds to a policy thattries to change the behavior of the economic system by altering outer institutions
without altering inner institutions, presupposing the optimization decision of agents.
This case represents competition policy and "mechanism design" in applied
microeconomics. Case 4) is “media design” as an application of “evolutionist
institutional design”. This is the type of policy that targets the realization of moredesirable social consequences by altering outer institutions, especially altering thedesign of platform institutions (media). Since the outer institutions determine
fundamental ways of cognition and behavior for all agents, and they are being utilized
as frames of reference to form inner institutions, any attempt to change outer institutions
will usually involve alternation of inner institutions, leading to a change in universal
rules for agents to recognize, decide and act upon rather than individual adaptive
behaviors. Conventional theories of economic policy only deal with 1) macroeconomic
policy and 3) mechanism design, but these do not consider any change of innerinstitutions. However, the evolutionary approach for socio-economic policy can include
other possible cases with alteration of inner institutions, such as in 2) consciousness
reform and in 4) media design whose potential significance has not been fully
understood to date.
In this way, evolutionist institutional design is a new approach for policy-making
that attempts to indirectly control boundary and performance of systems and induce
agents to alter such behavioral rules as morals, motivation, and value consciousness byappropriately designing rules of outer platform institutions that basically regulate thebehaviors of evolutionary systems.
Fig.4 shows the nested structure of evolutionist institutional design that media
design and community dock form. While media design is located on the upper levelwithin evolutionist institutional design, community dock is located on the lower level.
Media design and community dock are practical policy instruments by evolutionist
institutional design approach.
The relationship of these two methods can be understood more concretely in thecase of community currency. First, media design is set up by volunteer initiators to be
the initial design of such platform institutions as community currency. System design ofcommunity currencies may vary depending on the present situations and the purposes tobe achieved in the policy, and can be changed while observing the implementation16

results. By using community currency as instrumental media, in contrast to the
top-down policy by the central government, it is possible to develop a wide variety ofbottom-up theories and policies to fit different local situations with the initiatives of
local governments, chambers of commerce and industry, and nonprofit organizations.
The practical technique for such community development is "community dock". For
example, community dock uses factual information on the circulation of community
currency and its participants’ transactions as well as other knowledge obtained in aquestionnaire survey so that the community can accomplish self-evaluation of its own
present state and perform self-alternation by making use of the results for setting atarget for improvement. Community dock is thus not only a policy making tool but alsoa social experimental program.

Media&design&&of&pla.orm&ins1tu1on&A n a l y s i s& a n d& d i a g n o s i s& o f&
performances&

Evolutionist
Institutional
Design

Self8es1ma1on& and& reﬂec1on& by&
par1cipa1ng&agents
Self8alterna1on&of&frame&of&
cogni1on&and&mo1ves
Change&of&proper1es&of&pla.orm&
ins1tu1onCommunity
DockFig. 4 Evolutionist Institutional Design: A Nested structure of Media Design andCommunity Dock (Source: Nishibe 2006a)
In Fig. 4, the procedures of evolutionist institutional design are schematized, andthe implementation process of community dock and media design proceeds as follows:
1) First, policymakers such as local governments, chambers of commerce and industry,17and nonprofit organizations design platform institutions (outer institutions) on the meso
level that they consider able to realize the desired socio-economic prospects [Media
design I].
2) While micro agents such as local people, companies and local governments thatmake up the community make daily life and do social and business activities under the
newly introduced or reformed outer institution researchers analyze and diagnose theinstitution's performance on the macro level from the aggregate result of making aliving and social and business activities [Community dock I].
3) Based on the aggregate results in 2), the community consisting of local residents,
businesses, organizations, nonprofits and government performs a self-evaluation andself-correction regarding the current state of the community. [Community dock II].
4) Through this process, the inner institutions (cognitive frame, motivation and value
consciousness) for local agents changes.

[Change of inner institutions]5) Consequently, the effects and characteristics of given outer institutions also change.
Under the same outer institutions, local agents iterate the above process from 1) to 5). In
this way, community dock will make a loop between the following three levels: acts byagents (on the micro level) , institutions (on the meso level) and performance (on themacro level). [Change in the characteristics and effects of given outer institutions]6) While such loop processes are repeated many times, various pieces of information as
knowledge and experiences accumulated in the community feed back to the level of thedesign of the platform institutions (such as community currencies), and a fine-tuning ofsome of the rules of the current institutions takes place. Once such knowledge andexperience exceeds a certain threshold, re-design of the platform institution is
performed, resulting in overall changes in the rules [Media design II].
The above process is repeated under the new system. In this way, when media
design and community dock are performed in evolutionist institutional design, they are
combined into a nested structure as shown in Fig. 4. (Nishibe, Kusago 2010; Nishibe,
Kusago, Hashimoto, Kichiji 2010).
3. Needs for Community Dock: Its Significance from a Vantage Point of the Local
Residential Community
After the World War II, the Marshall plan or the European Recovery Program,
18

ERP, was used by America in order to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism. In
Europe, the Marshall Plan helped the recovery of these many European nations andeven Japan recovered in ten years after the end of the War. Economic assistance toEuropean developing countries was based on economic growth models that provided
capital and technology. (Nurkse 1953; Hirshman 1958; Lewis 1955） The goal of the
ERP was a high level of standard living backed by income growth, enabling people topurchase more goods and services.
Applied development policies can be categorized into economic growth policy,
economic distributional policy, basic human needs policy, economic structural policy,
and pro-poor economic policy. Over time, the policies gradually shifted from key
factors for economic growth to those for quality of life such as education and health.
However, the foundation of these development policies had not changed much,which relies on the notion of individual utility as given or unchanged. In the case ofpolicy evaluation, economic indicators represented by GDP, per capita income andeconomic income gap data are utilized to measure the outcome of economic and social
policies.
Economic growth is generally pursued for a better life through employment, higher
income, better public services, and some believe, a happier life. Higher GDP can ensure
the effectiveness of social and economic policies. Successful economic development of
the post-war Japan, which motivated the World Bank to write about the East Asian
Miracle (World Bank 1993), was considered an economic model for developing
countries. From 1948 to 2005, in Japan, the GDP consistently increased and Japan wasable to improve people’s quality of life by expanding provisions of education and healthservices. However, examining Japanese people’s life satisfaction data, the trend of GDP
growth shows a very different path from the expectation. The People’s Life Preference
Survey, started in 1978, and conducted every three-years by the cabinet office of Japan,
asked the same life satisfaction questions. According to this data, the level of people’s
life satisfaction reached its highest level in 1984 and, since then, it has declined until
2005 (Kusago 2007). Easterlin’s Happiness-Income Paradox (Easterlin 1974) derived
from the Japanese data, implies that the economic growth approach, assuming theconventional institutional framework and economic development model, may not bringabout a realization of higher life satisfaction and/or well-being. (Fig.5)
Recently, different approaches have emerged, which aims at improving people’s
19living conditions. One such approach is the capability approach (Sen 1992) proposed by
Amartya K. Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. This approach is based on thehuman development concept4 and values the key elements of people’s well-being,
which includes economic, educational, health and other social factors. It has received
considerable attention from policymaker.
The human development concept has received global support since 1990. The goalof this approach is the improvement of each and everyone’s capability set or freedom of
choice as a key to improving people’s well-being in a comprehensive manner.

Fig. 5	
  Community dock as process evaluation by the usage of local community
basic data and local people’s subjective data
Sen thinks that the provision of goods and services does not guarantee people a highlevel of well-being, and points out that people can choose a set of goods and services
and transform them into more meaningful life path by the maximum use of their own
4

UNDP published its first human development report in 1990 (UNDP 1990) and has promoted
development of human development index.

20

abilities and preferences. He emphasizes that society should give freedom to all
regardless of conditions such as illness and disability, which is considered as theultimate goal of development based on his capability idea. To realize this, the role oflocal community and living conditions has become critical. Among factors, which may
hamper realization of society based on the capability concept, structural issues forcausing social injustice like prejudice and discrimination are included. If one pursues
society that improves people’s well-being, local social structure needs to be changed
simultaneously and local policy should be evaluated from that angle. In fact,
depopulation in rural areas and local cities with a weakened local economy became aserious issue in Japan, and, in particular, the issue of subjective well-being andhappiness of local people in these areas needs special attention. As an effective measure
to solve these social issues, local agents should take actions to improve their own
well-being by respecting and maintaining the good aspects of one's own community.
In discussions over “affluence,” some argue that multi-dimensional measuresrather than a one-dimension economic measure like GDP is preferable in order toincorporate comprehensive nature of people’s well-being into the measurement. In thiscontext, after the human development index (HDI), considered as the most used andpopular development index in the world, was developed in 1990, different indexes
including the Canadian well-being index and the GNH (Gross National Happiness)
index in Bhutan appeared.
Also, in 2009, under the initiative of then-French President Sarcozi, a report editedby Sen and Stiglitz（Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi 2010) was published, and showed thatmulti-dimensional well-being is needed to measure people’s living conditions andsocietal progress. In late 2010, the government of Japan formed an expert group for thenation’s happiness indicators and currently other governmental initiatives related tohappiness are on the increase.
These efforts to develop new indicators show us that more people understand theimportance of well-being measures than GDP; however, this does not tell thecommunities how to achieve this state of well-being. Thus, it is important to have apractical tool to enhance people’s well-being that can be regularly monitored andevaluated jointly by local people and local government. In this context, community dockcan be described as a systematic tool to ensure that local agents, like local people, localgroups, shop owners, companies, NPOs and local government, start social experiments21

or new local policies in order to achieve high subjective well-being and happiness levelby influencing people’s value systems.
4. Social and Economic Evolution on the Level of the Local Community
Respecting the Spontaneity of the Local Residents as Inhabitants
As we have seen in the previous section, in a conventional system, experts andgovernment officers are in charge of design, implementation and evaluation of policy
measures and are expected to suggest solutions to improve local living conditions. Thus,
to understand the present local living conditions, they collect various social andeconomic data at the local level and analyze them with their expertise and knowledge to
identify barriers to better local living conditions, and to identify solutions to tackle
them.
However, this procedure does not necessarily need local-initiatives and may not
require an endogenous local development idea: local agents should engage in nurturinglocal living conditions. Conventional economic growth models and an unalteredinstitutions approach is not effective in solving the local issues incurred by post-war
local development policy if endogenous initiatives are essential for high well-being andhappiness. Emphasis on local community can make people think more about their own
well-being by themselves in a concrete manner and their perceptions and values can beshifted toward accepting alternative institutional framework of their own local
community.
With the globalization of the economy, culture, and the citizen, new problems likeunemployment, depression, and suicide arise partly because of the weakened social ties
and restructuring in the private sector. These social problems are in most cases foundthrough the country. If this is the case, one might suggest that “Japan dock” (a countrydock) instead of community dock be considered Japan as the unit of community in theage of globalization. However, if we expand our locality to the country level, more
attention tends to be made to the country’s average score, and importance of diversified
characteristics of different local areas, which differ by local resources, social structure,
life and natural environment, local culture, become less. According to a recent study,
the level of people’s life satisfaction and happiness are affected by mutual interaction
and ties with family members, friends, neighbors at the local community (Helliwell and22

Putnam 2004). If the living conditions of the local community together with thepeople’s well-being are improved, a vision of the future can be drawn and policies canbe implemented by understanding circumstances inherent to each local area. However,if the nation is recognized as the unit of analysis and community dock is applied at thenational level, it is likely that there will be gaps between the national average and the
local reality in domains of economy, education, health, culture, and environment. This
may result in a standardization of local living conditions in one country because thenational average is the benchmark in the analysis of local living conditions' data. This
may reinforce the conventional, unfaltering, institutional framework that pursues
economic growth such as, for example, per capita GDP.
If an alternative way to expand social ties without paying attention to the existing
gaps between urban and rural areas is considered, or if communities are labeled
marginal villages, where more than half of the local people are aged above 65 years old,and seek advice and policy suggestion from external exerts, the uniqueness anddiversity of these local communities may be ignored. Rather, it is important to look at
people-to-people relationships at the local community level and the perceptions of local
people in the community about their own community local living conditions are to be
improved. The evolution of a social system may be necessary, but simply transforming
the existing institutional framework, which hampers people-centered development, to a
new social institution, will not always form a new local community. Thus, targeting theunit of local community as a living sphere can be a practical tool in changing the groundframework of the societal institution.
5. A Summary of the Dynamism of Community DockIn sum, community dock as shown in Fig. 2 consists of a) a diagnosis of amacro-performances of community, b) a change in the comprehensive lifestyle andvalue system through self-inspection and self-correction, c) a change of a community's
own perception and motivation on community development, and d) a change of featuresand effectiveness of institutions. The dynamism of community dock works as an
institutional ecology through mutual interactions among different institutions andamong institution and local agents.
Conventional methods ask experts on development policy to design local living
23

conditions, conduct evaluation by analysis of local data and identify their problems,given the current institutional framework. This method does not encourage local people
to be aware of themselves as initiators of improvement in their own local communities.
In Japan, the problems of deteriorating rural and urban areas has become serious
and debates on how agents of local communities could improve their social well-being
without depending on the government have increased. However, in the present system,
an institution altering policy framework can be a root cause of these serious social
problems. This institutional policy may result in an increase of the number of waning
communities if the conventional development model is followed. Local people whoknow the local resources best, must sit in the central seat of local policy-making to
induce local action for the realization of sustainable local development. Therefore, thedevelopment and application of community dock has potential as a new local
revitalization tool.
It is important to explain what a participatory social assistance process is in orderto make it clear that community dock is a transforming tool of institutional framework.
Social support, based on the conventional unaltered institutional framework,
consists of external experts’ policy recommendations through survey and analysis.
Selection of the experts depends on the clients’ needs. This implies that experts
involved in one stage of the process are not always the same in another stage partly
because the different stages face unique problems to solve. Also, experts do not work as
a team and involve only a part of community development process; rather, each expert
tends to work independently, not works as a team, even though they are involved in thesame local problem. Therefore, the conventional framework receives policy
recommended by individual experts but does not encourage interdisciplinary
perspectives and approaches, indispensable for promoting comprehensive local
development. Advice from experts is given through a form of research report andpresentation, which does not ensure changes in local living conditions. In this context,
evaluation is only about one third-party’s external review on local development, whichuses only macro- and micro-economic social indicators. Social support which
incorporates comprehensive and consistent benefit to local community development ishard to expect.
On the other hand, the process of social assistance is characterized by theparticipation of local agents. Identification of local problems and its solutions by local
24people, local groups, shop owners, companies, NPOs and local government requires
experts who have interdisciplinary perspectives. In the case of community dock,external experts should collaborate with other experts and local agents, and play the roleof facilitator who help local people to use own knowledge and ideas in the process ofcommunity development, and these experts will become involved in every stage ofsocial change from policy formulation, implementation to evaluation in collaboration
with local agents, which makes this process a community dock.
Community dock pays close attention to existing conventional objective data andrespects new local data gathered as various voices from both external people and local
agents, because it assumes that local people are the ones who know their own
community well. Community dock initiates a community-driven local development
process and comes up with effective policies. Once these policies are applied, changes
that occur in a community can be measured not only by existing macro- and microsocial and economic data but also new subjective data given by local people, whichhelps local agents and external experts to examine jointly if the direction of local
communities follows the vision formed by local people. Affluent local communities are
the places where the level of well-being of local people becomes high accordingly as
they develop. For this to be realized, evolution of the institutional framework is needed
and must be transformed from unaltered to altered institutional framework.
For all of these reasons, community dock has the following potential:● A tool to improve local living conditions through local people’s initiatives● A process-evaluation method by the local community involving local residents● Lead in policy formulation by a collaboration of agents in local communities and external
experts● Improvement of local living conditions by local people’s ideas with support of local actions
and policies

Community dock is therefore “action”, “policy” and “movement.” Community
dock is a bottom-up social movement as well as a social pilot program.
6. Methodology of Community Dock: Framework of the community dock: a social
system design method with civic participation
We thus far have explained the concept of community dock. The community dock25

is a comprehensive reflective method to monitor and evaluate changes of local living
conditions by local people. The community dock basically utilizes subjective
assessment of one’s own local living conditions and various basic data5 collected
mainly by the local government (Figure 6). This section gives an outline of its
methodology to make the community dock better understood.
Objective data collected by the government is comparable to technical diagnostic
data on a patient’s body using advanced medical instruments such as X-rays or
endoscopes. In sum, the community dock makes local people evaluate local living
conditions from multi-dimensional aspects such as local economy, local health, local

5 This paper defines “basic data” as objective basic local profile data and “subjective data” as local people’s views
and opinions about their own lives and communities.

26

Comprehensive evaluation of
local living conditions bylocal people

Local community basic data
Grasping basic social andeconomic situation of local
community

Local people’s subjective data
Life evaluation by local people,
NPOs, companies, local
government

Community dock helps to identify the level of local
well-being based on objective local economic and social
profile and people’s subjective data. Local agents (local
people, companies, shop-owners, local groups, NPOs,
local government) find out effective means and solutions
for problems they face with external experts. Measuringchanges of community allows local agents? to see if thelevel of local well-being is increasing, and to makeefforts to continuously improve conditions of local
community and realize a high level of local well-being.

Fig. 6 	
  Community dock as process evaluation through the local
community's basic data and local people’s subjective data27

education, and local environment with objective data of their own community.
The local assessment method, however, changes if local conditions are viewed
from the perspective of economic growth or human-development. If local conditions are
examined from the growth approach which carefully examines economic data like thelevel of local GDP and Gini-coefficients, then a view of the local economy is clear.
However, if the human development approach is followed, data on education and publichealth as well as the economy are required to calculate the human development index(HDI) and analyze the level of HDI6.

Local economic conditions should be evaluatedby economic indicators like per capita income, the unemployment rate, andGini-coefficients in the local area in addition to local educational conditions by school
enrollment rate and literacy rate, and local health conditions by longevity and suicide
rate. With these local data, we can evaluate local living conditions from a community
dock view.
In the case of human dock, a medical doctor asks examinees, “How do you feel
about your own health?” which helps patients to reflect on their own health conditions
by looking into the data obtained by a medical check-up. By doing this, the patient may
realize something new about his or her own health, which may make the patient reflects
on his or her present health management and treatment and make them change toimprove their own health in the future. Community dock is similar to this human dockand aims at improving comprehensive health and the well-being of the local area andlocal people. In other words, the community dock collects voices over local living
conditions from local agents such as local people, local government, companies, shop
owners and NPOs by asking questions such as: “Are you satisfied with your own local
life and in what way? ” “Do you have complaint?” “Do you feel secure about your local
area?” “Do you trust people?” With the answers to these questions and the results as
local data, agents in the local area can evaluate, analyze, and search for solutions andtheir implementation, and reevaluate local living conditions.
The purpose of the community dock is to promote the improvement of local living

6

Domains of community dock are listed as the economy, education and health in this paper following
the human development index by UNDP. However, in reality, local resources, culture and tradition,
environment, economy, and social structure varies with local areas. Local considerations should
allow local people to select factors influencing the level of people’s well-being from the humandevelopment point of view.

28conditions initiated by local agents through mutual collaboration, following thedirection of the community's own development. For this to be realized, conditions oflocal society need to be regularly assessed in a multi-faceted manner, which requires
two types of data (objective and subjective) as in the human dock. Analysis oftime-series data allows both local agents and external experts to find out if there is aplace where any improvement of local living conditions is needed, and, if so, how it canbe accomplished, and, if not, what needs to be changed to improve local life conditions
through a community dock process.
It is important to ask who should lead analysis and use of the data revealed by thecommunity dock. As we have seen, the community dock is the agency-based
endogenous tool to improve the local living condition developed as an analogy to thehuman dock (health check-up system), therefore, local entities like local people andgroups, companies and shop owners, NPOs, and local government are the main users. In
the process of the community dock, the role of the academia and experts should remain
as simply assisting the locals

in data collection and analysis, which is different fromacademia and government's conventional role in giving technical advice on local policy
and policy evaluation their own in-depth analysis.
External experts in the process of the community dock understand local conditions
and identify local issues by analyzing the time-series data on local people’s attributes(gender, age, race) and local characteristics (job, income and social strata).

These

experts want to bring local people and institutions together to communicate among
themselves as to the development of their communities and to promote concrete actions
such as the introduction of local community currency.
7. Step-by-step procedure of community dock through a Community Currency
pilot projectIn this section, we explain in detail what community dock is through a particularcase of the Community Currency (CC) pilot projectCommunity dock requires two types of survey work,（a）how and to what extent
changes can be made in local economic activities and social welfare activities (such as
voluntary work) by the introduction ofand to what extent can changes

CC ( direct impact assessment) and（b）how

be made in local people’s living conditions and life29

satisfaction after the introduction of CC (indirect impact assessment). Community dockprovides a venue for local agents to take a continuous flow of actions with direct andindirect impact data by comparing changes in these data between before and after the
introduction of the CC project. This process allows the local agents to examine if somechanges occur, and to discuss if the CC project needs to be modified, or alternative
ways created for a better outcome for local life conditions.
The following describes the step-by-step procedure of the community dock method
using the CC project
Step 1: Design of community dock and preparation for implementation
When the community dock is applied to the CC project, a procedure, which
consists of the following two components must be designed:(1) A framework to measure changes in the local community by the introduction of theCC.
First, local data called 'baseline data' on the economy, social system, andenvironment to assess possible changes

occurring after the CC project isapplied.

In particular, (a) direct impact of the currency expansion by quantitative analysis ofsocial network data, and (b) confirmation of local economic and social development
strategy should be made.
(2) Design of a method to capture changes in local living conditions from the view
point of local people in the community
Next, the present conditions of local life must be confirmed by examining thebaseline data through people’s perceptions. Broadly speaking, two concrete
activities are included in this step: (Figure 6).
● Understanding the conditions of the local community by selecting social and economic data(economic indicators, social indicators, environmental indicators, etc.)from the existingstatistics on the local community● Evaluating the local living conditions by local people’s subjective data such as life
satisfaction, hope, values, and individual attributes collected by survey and/or groupinterviews.

Step 2: Introduction and implementation of community dock
The process of community dock needs to be initiated from the use of the baseline30

data to assess the present level of well-being of local people and their community. A
systematic social survey on a regular basis provides local agents with information tomonitor and evaluate changes in local well-being. A social survey allows theidentification of key determinants of well-being and/or issues related to the level of
local living conditions. By sharing these data with local governments and local people, acollaborated dialogue will identify problems and hopefully find effective policy
solutions like introduction of CCs, which eventually improve local economy, strengthensocial capital and local well-being.
Step 3: Process of self-evaluation and readjustment by community dock
The mechanism of expected policy change induced by community dock is acomprehensive endogenous transformation process (Figure 7). In other words, local
agents can trace social and economic changes of the local community by setting thebaseline data as the starting point of the whole process with the introduction of CC. For
example, after the local community starts its CC, they can follow if social ties in a local
shopping street and those among local people have changed from the baseline level. If
needed, local agents can think of possible modifications of platform like the CC itself.
Furthermore, local agents can follow changes in local living conditions from the local
people’s subjective assessments, which lead to policy adjustment, policy proposals andre-examination of policy implementation.
When we apply community dock, team-formulation requires careful preparation.
Community dock can be categorized as action research and it promotes aprocess-oriented system for policy change. Thus, those who are the key members of thecommunity dock will be able to differentiate the user of the data and its way of use.
First, members of community dock should understand well the needs of the dockmethod. With positive understanding of the community dock, the members canparticipate in the dock smoothly, which helps capture more precise data on local living
conditions. In the case of action research, understanding by the research members is amust, which is applicable to the community dock in that local agents like local people,
local government, local groups, local companies, and NPOs will understand the main
purpose of the method and system of the dock.
Second, participation of a group of researchers, who have expertise and31

experiences of community development, is essential for the design and implementationof the community dock. Community dock collects and analyzes data by way of various
social surveys, and builds up a local knowledge database. To do this, academic
researchers who have social survey and analytical skills play a crucial role. However,
the researchers should not impose such survey methods and contents, but should
promote collaboration to design surveys and implement them through goodcommunication with local resources.

32

Community Dock Survey ①(Baseline）
Basic living conditions data

Sharing community dock data
Policy selection・design・implementation

People’s subjective evaluation data

Community way
Policy proposal andinstitutional design(Community currency)

Community Dock Survey ②

Community dock survey
Feedback from community

Comprehensive analysis of community

開change始ImpactSharing in a community

assessment
Policy and institutionalchange and operation

Community Dock Survey ③

Comprehensive analysis of communitychangePolicy evolution

Sharing in a community

Continuous
process

Policy review
Policy adjustment

Fig. 7	
  Mechanisms of policy-change through the introduction of community
dock

33

8. Conclusions: The Potential of Promoting Social Evolution through Community
Dock as an Institution-Altered Type of Policy Instrument
There is a limit on a problem-solving method led by the external experts when face
to face with challenges in a community that is economically and socially exhausted. The
conventional methods of policy design, implementation and evaluation might cause
these situations. In this paper, we have advocated for an examination of community
development through local people’s eyes that should help them revise or build a newform of institutional framework and system in order to improve local living conditions
and people’s well-being. We have proposed “community dock” as such a method.
As shown in Table 3, the community dock method as an altered institutionalframework has some distinctive features different from a conventional unalteredinstitutional framework.
Table 3	  Comparison of Policy Methods for Community Development:
Unaltered institutional vs. Altered institutional frameworks

Core members
Role of researchers
Role of local agents
Methodology
Area of expertise
Output

Unaltered institutional

Altered institutional framework

framework method

method (Community Dock)

Experts and researchers
One-way advice fromexperts
Passive and Inactive
Analysis and evaluation
based on scientific evidence
Particular field of discipline
Research articles, research
reports and policy
recommendations

Agents of action

Government

Approach
Planning ApproachTop-down
Detailed plan

Challenge

Risk of authoritarian system

34

Collaborating team of external
experts/ researchers, local
agentsTwo–way dialogue and mutual
discovery
Positive and Active
Method for social evolution,
Process evaluation
Interdisciplinary
Workshops, recommendations forsocial evolution, practical reports
Agents of Community (local
people, local groups, companies,
NPOs, local? government)
Bottom-up
General plan and adjustment
Formulation and implementationof a collaborated teamIn an unaltered institutional framework method, external experts conduct
assessment, which is similar to a medical diagnosis test and propose solutions based on
their specialized knowledge to the questions local people face. Next, policy
implementation follows the experts’ recommendations. On the other hand, in the case ofan altering community dock, in a method of altering an institutional framework method,experts collaborate with local agents of action in a horizontal relationship, not verticalone. Community dock acts to improve the comprehensive well-being of local people asassessed from various aspects such as economic, social, cultural and environmental. For
this very reason, an interdisciplinary approach needs to be incorporated into thecommunity dock approach and each member of the dock team is expected to have acomprehensive view and interdisciplinary attitude.
Local agents of action play an active and positive role in community dock although
they are seen as inactive and passive in an unaltered institutional framework method.
Local agents of action, which include local people, local groups, companies and NPOs,
should engage actively and positively in community dock.
There is a clear difference in methodology. A conventional unaltered institutionalframework method relies heavily on assessment of a community's living conditions
measured by economic and social indicator data. On the other hand, community dock
strives to trace an economic social change of the community by utilizing not only
extensive data on basic local living conditions. but on people’s subjective satisfaction
and assessment from the vantage point of local people to realize sustainable local
development.
Differences can also be found in style of outputs. Community dock categorized asaction research does not end by completing academic papers. Rather, community dockmakes an emphasis on giving feedback to local agents in workshops, social
improvement proposals, and action reports.
In creating a plan of implementation, a difference between community dock andconventional methods is clear. While careful planning is taken as a given,
implementation through community dock requires more flexible planning is requiredby allowing policy for the design and implementation process with collaboration among
different stakeholders of the community.
Promoting community revitalization and development from the standpoints of thelocal agents is more beneficial than through the conventional approach, which only35

measures local revitalization by the level of local GDP and therefore establishes policy
priorities to increase the GDP. In contrast, community dock finds and formulates
policies effective in making local living conditions better through a bottom-up process.
Eventually, people become more convinced that enhancement of inter-connectedness
and social relationships among local people makes local living conditions better in thelong run.
Community dock needs to be promoted by a collaborated team of external experts
and the agents in a community. In reality, formulation of a team involving the agentsconcerned in community development is not an easy task. Also, communication
between experts and non-experts is not easy, either. Thus, a collaborated team needs tobe built with the strong support and understanding from local people and key local
institutions.
We have proposed community dock as an altered institutional policy method. In
future research, we will examine the effectiveness of the community dock method
through a trial experiment within a local community.

36References
Cabinet Office (2008) Annual White Paper on the National Lifestyle.
Easterlin, R. (1974) ‘Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?’ in P.A. David,
M. W. Reder, eds., Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in
Honor of Moses Abramovitz, New York: Academic Press, Inc., pp.89-125.
Fetterman, D. M. (2001) Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation, Sage Publications.
Hashimoto, T., Nishibe, M. (2012) ‘Institutional Ecology: A Theoretical Model and Its
Economic Implication (in Japanese)’, Economic Studies, Hokkaido University,
61(4): 131-151.
Helliwell, J. F., Putnam, R. (2004) “The Social Context of Well-Being,” PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 359, pp. 1435–1446.
Hirshman, A. O. (1958) The Strategy of Economic Development, Yale University Press.
Hodgson, G. M. (1988) Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern
Institutional Economics, Polity Press.
Hodgson, G. M. (1993) Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics,
Blackwell Publishers.
Kusago, T. (2007) “Rethinking of Economic Growth and Life Satisfaction in
Post-WWII Japan: A Fresh Approach,” Social Indicators Research, 81(1):
79–102.
Lewis, W. A. (1955) The Theory of Economic Growth, Unwin Hyman.
Medical Excellence Japan (2011) ‘Features of “Ningen Dock” and Comprehensive
Health Examinations in Japan,’
http://www.medical-excellence-japan.org/en/hospital/038/index.html
Nishibe, M. (2004) ‘Evolutionist Institutional Design,’ (in Japanese), Nishibe, M. (ed.)
Frontier of Evolutionary Economics, Nihon Hyoron-sya. 3-34.
Nishibe, M. (2006) ‘Community Currency and Community Dock: The Report of theExperiment of Circulation of CC in Tomamae Town’ (in Japanese), Studies on
Local Policies, 34: 40-56
Nishibe, M. et.al (eds.) (2010) Evolutionary Economics: Its Foundation, (in Japanese),
Nihon Keizai Hyoron Sya.
Nishibe, M. (2010) ‘Institutional Ecology’ (in Japanese), Nishibe, M. et.al. (eds.) (2010)241-243.
37

Nishibe, M., Kusago, T. (2010) “Evolutionist Institutional Design and Community
Dock” (in Japanese), Nishibe, et. al. (eds.) Evolutionary Economics: Its
Foundation, Nihon Keizai Hyoron Sha: 266-274.
Nishibe, M., Kusago, T., Hashimoto, T., Kichiji, N. ‘Community Dock as a Evolutionist
Policy Method’ (in Japanese) The Bulletin for Evolutionary Economics(Japanese Association for Evolutionary Economics), 14: 394-412
Nishibe, M.*, Mikami, M*, (2012) 'Media Design of Electronic Community Currencies
and Its Applicability for Community Dock: Examination by Game
Simulation ’(*equal contribution), (in Japanese) Discussion Paper B (Graduate
Studies of Economics, Hokkaido University), 103: 1-24
Nurkse, R. (1953) Problems of Capital-Formation in Underdeveloped Countries.
Blackwell Publishers.
Sen, A. (1992) Inequality Reexamined, Clarendon Press.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen A., Fitoussi, Jean-Paul (2010) Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP
Doesn't Add Up, The New Press.
World Bank (1993) The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy(World Bank Policy Research Reports).

38