Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-018-0108-7
ARTICLE

Community dock: a new policy approach for altering
institutions
Takayoshi Kusago1 · Makoto Nishibe2
Published online: 9 November 2018
© Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics 2018

Abstract
When community currencies (CCs) are introduced to activate local economy andcommunity, it is vital to induce local residents to positively participate in CCs. To
support spontaneous community development more effectively, we propose a newpolicy approach named “community dock (CD)” in which community is conceived
as an association of not only local residents, but also various organizations, companies and local government. CD is a synthetic method of empowerment evaluation and improvement by which research groups periodically conduct comprehensive checkups to local socioeconomy and subjective satisfactions of residents, andencourage communities to observe the outcomes of such checkups, to evaluate andsolve the shared problems by themselves. It is designed as a self-support tool for
integrative development of social capitals in local communities. CD is composed of
the following four phases: (1) analysis and diagnosis of current performance of socioeconomies of the community, (2) self-estimation on the performance of the community and self-reflection their own internal rules of CC participants, (3) self-alternation of their frames of cognitions, motives, values and norms of CC participants,(4) change of properties of CCs as platform media. The loop of CD is subsumed bymedia design of CCs. After sufficient times of repetitions of CD, external rules of
CCs as platform media can be redesigned to fit the altered internal rules of participants and attain the initial goals effectively. Media design of CCs is situated on theupper level of CD in the whole picture of evolutionist institutional design.
Keywords Community dock · Community currency · Empowerment evaluation ·Subjective satisfaction · Social capital · Media design · Evolution
JEL Classification A13 · B52 · D02 · I31 · P47 · Z13
Takayoshi Kusago and Makoto Nishibe contributed equally.
* Makoto Nishibenishibe@isc.senshu‑u.ac.jp
1

Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, Suita, Japan

2

Faculty of Economics, Senshu University, Kawasaki, Japan

13

Vol.:(0123456789)

432

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

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 viewin which local governments are mainly responsible for local governance in communities into a ‘new public’ view in which inhabitants, corporations, non-profit
organizations and governments mutually collaborate to create local communities.
Consequently, a number of local governments have tried to realize ‘community participation’ in town planning under comprehensive regional development. Some local
governments are also trying to reflect 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 of educational, 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 isalso vital that local residents willingly and positively participate in the administration and activities involved in community currencies.
In light of this situation, this article proposes a ‘community dock’ as a completely new policy-making instrument that local communities as principals canuse to support autonomous and endogenous community development effectively. Here, a community is 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 and 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 of lifestyle problems, because lifestyle-related diseases arewidely observed in modern societies (Japan Society of Ningen Dock 2018).
‘Community dock’ embodies a strategic and comprehensive method used byresearch groups when they conduct periodic surveys on the socioeconomic situations of a community and present these results to the community so that thecommunity can promote 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 integration and improvement of its own self-estimation and problems, and, on the other hand, a tool to assist in the formation of synthetic andvoluntary community development.
Community dock was devised and proposed within a framework of evolutionist institutional design based on the concepts and ideas of evolutionary economics(Nishibe 2004). Evolutionist institutional design provides a new socioeconomic
policy theory that will successfully guide a socioeconomy to evolve in a more

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

433

desirable direction intentionally by altering ‘outer institutions’ (monetary, educational, medical and welfare institutions etc., formed according to laws and regulations) as well as ‘inner institutions’ (social value, norm and motives widely sharedby such community members as local residents, corporations, organizations andgovernments). Community dock is a practical policy instrument that enhances
the effectiveness and validity of a given set of outer institutions by spontaneouschange of inner institutions through self-evaluation and self-correction by community members. In this paper, ‘community dock’ will be discussed as a specificevaluation method with different characteristics gleaned from pre-existing policy
methods (Nishibe and Kusago 2010; Nishibe et al. 2010a, b). In this paper, we
will discuss the concepts, needs, features and implications of community dockand its methodology.

2 ‘Community dock’: a practical method for spontaneous
institution‑altering policy‑making‘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’ asannual 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 maintain and 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 a re-examination by the doctor is recommended after a certain period oftime. If the doctor discovers serious trouble or illness from the test results, then theygive the examinees 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 a diagnostic method for early detection of serious illnesses such as certain cancers andheart disease that do not necessarily show symptoms, and then they suggest various

13

434

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

medical treatments. The second aspect of human dock is that examinees regularly
check their own health and have a chance to change their unhealthful habits througha 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, to examinees according to the test results based on the scientific analysis ofobjective data, while examinees refer to such data, coordinate their own physicalconditions and 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 to analyze the economic andsocial 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 and modified. In the other aspect, community dock is also a practical techniquefor communities as principals to create spontaneous and endogenous town development. The principal parties in a community include local corporations, organizations and governments as well as local residents. Such parties become aware of aproblem from the point of view of their own interests as well as from knowledge ofthe current state of the local socioeconomy. Furthermore, if the principle parties in
a community can form a collaboration team with external researchers and exchange
their opinions on the future of the community and share the problems in learningand consultation opportunities in seminars and workshops, it will be possible toencourage each party to self-correct their commitments and value consciousness tothe entire community, forming a mutual trust and cooperative relationship, and, as aresult, 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 the community as a subject. We should especially put emphasis on this twosided character of community dock. It enables such principals of community as local
residents, businesses, non-profit organizations and government to share in a visionof the desired future of the community and to practically perform the design andevaluation of policies 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 to analyze, evaluate and diagnose the present
conditions of the community and share all the results. Consequently, they can recognize 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 tocollaborate with, and support, the community, and it is a kind of the process evaluation technique of 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 an external viewpoint (Fetterman 2001).
Here, let us 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 to continue objective measurement and recording of data on body13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

435

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 (dialog between
doctors and examinees) + self-check and selfcorrection by examinees→ self-awareness and self-control(2) Report of the survey results by researchers(collaborating workshop of researchers andcommunities) + self-check and self-correction bycommunities→ self-awareness and self-control

weight, percent of body fat and blood pressure, but is also a motive for examinees to review their whole lifestyle including exercise, meals, luxury goods andsleep. 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 to and value consciousness about their own community and, at theroot, become self-aware of more basic social norms and value to recognize andevaluate problems of the community. In other words, such inner institutions oflocal agents as a sense of belonging, value consciousness, norm and ethics mighttransform themselves during the process and, if so, it would in turn change theproperties and effects of such outer institutions as laws, accounting rules andcurrencies.
If it is made clear that the inner institutions that have changed in the processof community 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 or modifications of outer institutions are supposed to be sought for inmedia design. In this way, if outer institutions and inner institutions co-evolvewith mutual determination and dynamic 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, non-profits and governments. Community dock recognizes
the local socioeconomic conditions, while receiving advice and support basedon the general diagnosis by the researchers to improve the present conditions
through self-evaluation. Community dock is also an effective policy tool forthe emergence of a new society along with the co-evolution of both outer andinner institutions. At present, to systemize ‘community dock’ as a comprehensive approach for community’s self-evaluation and self-improvement technique
is required.
Table 1 summarizes two aspects of the similarity between human dock andcommunity dock.

13

436

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

2.3 Human dock and community dock: the difference between them
Although human dock and community dock, as we have just seen, have two sides ofsimilarity, there are significant differences between the two. To better understand thefeatures of community dock, it is necessary to accurately recognize not only theircommonality but also their heterogeneity. In particular, we need to pay adequate
attention to the latter to successfully practice community dock.
In human dock, although aspects of self-check and self-correction of lifestyle by
the examinee have 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 statesof 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 a target 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 and treatment for physicians. Doctors as actors of medical practicediagnose and treat disease and disorder by making full use of physical and chemicaltreatment equipment and taking responsibility for success or failure of their medicalacts.
In community dock, on the other hand, even though researchers examine andanalyze the current situations and problems of communities, they are not the main
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. For the community to solve
its own problems by itself, researchers should keep on being advisors and encouragers to play a role to assist and support the community, though they may be even 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
and lesions of patients, but to activate the nervous and immune systems of patientsby using such indirect and mediated techniques as chiropractic and acupuncture
therapy as well as 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 of prevention 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

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

437

objective manipulation and treatment of disease and disorder of the macroeconomy.
In such view of economic policies, as it were, the side of early detection and treatment is stressed and the side of prevention and change of lifestyle habit is neglected.
Community dock emphasizes that there is the second side as well as the firstside. 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 of object has become more difficult in social situations. Western modern
rationalism has come into effect by basically ignoring problems of complexity anduncertainty. Therefore, its offshoot, Western medicine basically emphasizes early
detection and treatment of objective ailments. In contrast, community dock pays
more attention to the complexity and uncertainty of social situations and regards
such indirect and mediated techniques 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 cannot thus assume in socioeconomic issues, especially at the level of community, 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 us consider why.
While an examinee of human dock is an individual, that of community dock is
a community. Even though an individual can mentally have a pluralistic self andfragmented identity, he/she has unique genes and organs and a boundary defined bya physical body so that he/she can be individually identified. In contrast, because
community is a collective symbiotic ecosystem of a variety of individuals, groups
and organizations, it would be more difficult to clearly define its components andboundary. In addition, a community is more affected by changes in external environments than an individual, and its components and boundary themselves alter according to such changes. Accordingly, it must be more difficult to define the constantidentity of a community. 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 atleast 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 acommunity vary through the cognition 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 do not have consciousness and independence, neither recognizingthemselves nor external worlds. Relationships among individuals, organs and cells
form a 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 as groups of individuals. Such individuals and organizations have
independent will and purposes and can take independent actions. The relationships
between communities and organizations or citizens are also hierarchical, but since
citizens can belong to multiple organizations and groups, they form a semi-latticemulti-hierarchical structure. This means that each individual and organization canview the community from a different angle and perspective depending on their positions and interests.

13

438

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

Due to differences in such attributes as age, gender, family structure, education, occupation, income, etc., individuals have different perspectives, motivationand involvement in the community. The same holds true for various organizations
and groups. The difference of the attributes makes a difference in their motivationand perspective to the community. For example, shopping streets and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry will view the community through the perspectiveof the economy, particularly through business conditions and sales and profits ofcommerce and industry. Fishing and agricultural cooperatives see a communityfrom the point of view of fisheries and agriculture. Similarly, the Board of Education and schools would see community from education; the Welfare Council andnon-profit volunteer organizations would see community from welfare care andvolunteering; neighborhood associations see community from mutual help andsuch 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 and diverse relations.
With regard to human dock, individuals stand in the passive position as an
object of diagnosis and treatment at the side of early detection and treatment
of disease.However, for disease prevention and habit reform, they need to havea spontaneous initiative to recognize the present states and change the ways ofactions. In the case of community dock, as we have already seen, uncertainty in
identification of a community and 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 and illness 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 or, in otherwords, 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.
Traditional macroeconomics have told us that the central government and thecentral bank should recognize economic issues such as unemployment of workers
and bankruptcies of companies in depression and hyperinflation and bubble formation in the boom, and solve the problems by utilizing fiscal and monetary policies. Such policy view presumes that the central government and the central bankare analogous to ‘doctors’ who have the ability and responsibility to objectively
diagnose pathology and disease concerning economic fluctuations and cure them.
It also presupposes operability of the economy as an object and subject–object
scheme that underlie modern science, including Western medicine. However,even though the central government and the central bank have continued to carryout all macroeconomic policies during the past 20 years after the collapse of the
bubble economy for the Japanese economy to escape from recession and economic downturn, the Japanese economy is still stagnant for the longvterm. It ishigh 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 that13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

439

any subject like doctors can conduct an operational act of medical diagnosis andtreatment in a socioeconomy.
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
and culture, the administrative organization in the communities should take main
responsibility for solving local problems as principal actors of communities. It isalso frequently claimed, based on such a view, that it is the administrative organizations that should 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 theireffects as solutions to problems of the community. However, problem recognition by
the government does not necessarily fit the consciousness and sense of values of thelocal people. This is the reason why inhabitants-based community development isstrongly demanded.
The basic premise that “the principal for solving the problems of the community
is government administration” must be re-examined because a community is constituted not only by local individuals, but also by local organizations and groups thathave 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 to community development.
In community dock, to know the present state of communities, researchers muststudy 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
the local 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 problemsof the 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 andother various organizations and groups constituting the community to successfullyrecognize heterogeneity contained in their motives and purposes to work out solutions to community problems so that they can strengthen mutual ties and trust to
rebuild the community. 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 the community, 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.

13

440

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

Table 2  Heterogeneity of human dock and community dock
Human dock

community dock(1) Subject–object relation between doctors and patients (examinees), unified and objective diagnosis and treatment of disease by
doctors(1) Cooperative relation between
researchers and communities,
inter-subjective evaluations andsolutions by researchers andcommunities(2) Self-evidence and unity of patients as individuals → compatibility between early detection and treatment and prevention andimprovement of habits(2) Multiplicity and complexity ofcommunity → difficulty of early
detection and treatment, significance of activity in self-checkand self-correction

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 economics,1 replicators and interactors, and what kind of new view of socioeconomic policy as different from theconventional one EID proposes. By doing so, we clarify the aims and significance ofEID. 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 socioeconomic
evolution replicators that characterize the property of each socioeconomic systemare ‘if–then’ rules and interactors are causal agents such as individuals or organizations that recognize, decide and act according to their own replicators. From theviewpoint of each interactor such as an individual or organization, replicators, therules 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).
Figure 1 shows a simplified evolutionary model of socioeconomy that contains
nested structures composed of replicators and interactors. Interactors ij endowedwith replicators ij signify individuals or organizations. They compose upper groups
or organizations as interactors j. Interactors ij and interactors j of Fig. 1 correspondto the micro level and meso level, respectively, in Fig. 2.
Figure 2 shows a diagram of the micro–meso–macro loop in which the micro,
meso and macro levels form double mutually determining loops. In Fig. 2, individuals or organizations on the micro level are depicted as interactors ij with replicators

1

Please refer to Hodgson (1988, 1993) and Nishibe et al. (2010a, b) regarding basic ideas and conceptsof evolutionary economics.

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

Interactor j

Individuals

441

internal rules(cognitive and behavioral)

Interactor 1j

Interactor 2j

Replicator 1j

Replicator 2j
interaction withother agents

Replicator jInteraction withenvironment

Interaction withthemselves
Replicator ij

Interactor ij

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

Fig. 1  Multilayered nested structures composed of replicators and interactors [source: revised from
Nishibe et al. (eds) (2010a:80)]
Fig. 2  Micro–meso–macro loop
[source: Nishibe and Mikami(2012:15)]

ij (internal rule) 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.
As long as interactors ij continue to belong to interactors j at a higher level (metalevel), 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 to following replicators ij (internal rules), interactor ij no longer belongs tointeractor j of the meso level. For example, employees of a company must follow therules of the company. Otherwise, they would be dismissed.

13

442

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

Fig. 3  Classification of policies
into four categories in evolutionary economics

Inner
Ins tu on
altered(2)(4)

Consciousness
Reform Policy

Media Design

alteredunaltered(1)(3)

Conven onal
Macroeconomic
PolicyMechanism
DesignOuter
Ins tu on

unalteredIn 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 is the outer institution or the inner institution depending on the different propertiesof 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 of interactors (e.g., national or community system) on the macro level. Heterogeneous interactors on the micro or meso level observe the performance, orderand patterns of interactors 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 by meso institutions. Through repetition of such dynamic
processes, various institutions form mutually complementary or substitute relationships. Those institutions emerge, compete, coexist and become extinct with theirrise and fall. We refer to such dynamic and evolutionary systems as “institutional
ecosystems” because these systems are similar to biological ecosystems that evolvewith a variety of species preserved (Hashimoto and Nishibe 2017).
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 socioeconomic
policy is called “institution unaltered” since it realizes policy effects by changing
parameters or variables in rules with given institutions unchanged, and the second
type is called “institution altered” since it realizes policy effects by changing certain
rules in institutions. Therefore, we can classify policies into four categories along
two axes of outer institution and inner institution (Fig. 3).
Figure 3, case (1) indicates such conventional macroeconomic policies such as
fiscal and financial policies that aim at the performance of certain desirable socioeconomic conditions (e.g., a boom, economic growth and economic equality) by
adjusting macro parameters (e.g., public spending, prime interest rates and money
supply). This case shows policy with both outer and inner institutions unchanged.

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459
Fig. 4  Evolutionist institutional
design: a nested structure of
media design and community
dock (source: Nishibe Nishibe
2006)

Media designof pla orm ins tu on

Analysis and diagnosis ofperformances

443

Evolutionist
Institutional
DesignSelf-es ma on and reflec on by
par cipa ng agents
Self-alterna on of frame ofcogni on and mo ves
Change of proper es of pla orm
ins tu on

Community
Dock

Case (2), the second case shows a certain type of consciousness reform policy byaltering inner institutions, not outer institutions, on the meso level. For instance,
ethical consumption, social investment and corporate social responsibility are conceived as this category. This type of policy was occasionally used in Japan in publicity campaigns for growth-oriented public awareness by introducing income doubling plans for rapid economic growth during 1955–1965 as well as an adjustmentof peak utilities for electric power use by spreading propaganda for power-saving
consciousness during suspension of all nuclear power plants after the Tsunami disasters in 2012. Case (3) corresponds to a policy that tries 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 ofpolicy that targets the realization of more desirable social consequences by altering outer institutions, especially altering the design 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 innerinstitutions, any attempt to change outer institutions will usually involve alternationof 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 inner institutions. However, the evolutionary approach for socioeconomic policy can include other possible cases withalteration 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
by appropriately designing rules of outer platform institutions that basically regulate
the behaviors of evolutionary systems.
Figure 4 shows the nested structure of evolutionist institutional design that media
design and community dock form. While media design is located on the upper level

13

444

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

within 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 of community currencies may vary depending on the present situations
and the purposes to be achieved in the policy, and can be changed while observing
the implementation results. By using community currency as instrumental media, incontrast to the top-down policy by the central government, it is possible to develop
a wide variety of bottom-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 thecirculation of community currency and its participants’ transactions as well as otherknowledge obtained in a questionnaire 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 a target for improvement. Community dock is thus not
only a policy-making tool, but also a social experimental program.
In Fig. 4, the procedures of evolutionist institutional design are schematized,
and the implementation process of community dock and media design proceeds asfollows:
1. First, policy-makers such as local governments, chambers of commerce and industry, and non-profit organizations design platform institutions (outer institutions)on the meso level that they consider able to realize the desired socioeconomic
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 the institution’s performance on the macro level from the aggregate
result of making a living and social and business activities (Community dock I).
3. Based on the aggregate results in (2), the community consisting of local residents,
businesses, organizations, non-profits and government performs a self-evaluationand self-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 alsochange. Under the same outer institutions, local agents iterate the above processfrom (1) to (5). In this way, community dock will make a loop between the following three levels: acts by agents (on the micro level), institutions (on the meso
level) and performance (on the macro level) (change in the characteristics andeffects 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 the13Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

445level of the design of the platform institutions (such as community currencies),and a fine-tuning of some of the rules of the current institutions takes place. Oncesuch knowledge and experience exceeds a certain threshold, re-design of theplatform 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 and Kusago 2010;
Nishibe et al. 2010a, b).

3 Needs for community dock: its significance from a vantage pointof the local residential community
After the World War II, the Marshall plan or the European Recovery Program, ERP,
was used by America to prevent the spread of Soviet communism. In Europe, theMarshall Plan helped the recovery of these many European nations and even Japan
recovered in 10 years after the end of the war. Economic assistance to European
developing countries was based on economic growth models that provided capitaland 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 fromkey factors for economic growth to those for quality of life such as education andhealth.
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 andsocial 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 fordeveloping countries. From 1948 to 2005, in Japan, the GDP consistently increased
and Japan was able to improve people’s quality of life by expanding provisions ofeducation and health services. 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 3 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

13

446

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

Fig. 5  Community dock as process evaluation by the usage of local community basic data and local people’s subjective data. Data Source: Cabinet Office of Japan (2008) P.17

and, since then, it has declined until 2005 (Kusago 2007). Easterlin’s HappinessIncome Paradox (Easterlin 1974), derived from the Japanese data, implies that theeconomic growth approach, assuming the conventional institutional framework andeconomic development model, may not bring about a realization of higher life satisfaction and/or well-being (Fig. 5).
Recently, different approaches have emerged, which aims at improving people’s
living conditions. One such approach is the capability approach (Sen 1992) proposed by Amartya K. Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. This approach is basedon the human development concept2 and values the key elements of people’s wellbeing, which includes economic, educational, health and other social factors. It hasreceived considerable attention from policy-maker.
The human development concept has received global support since 1990. The
goal of 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.
Sen thinks that the provision of goods and services does not guarantee people ahigh level of well-being, and points out that people can choose a set of goods andservices and transform them into more meaningful life path by the maximum use of
their own abilities and preferences. He emphasizes that society should give freedom
to all regardless of conditions such as illness and disability, which is considered as
the ultimate goal of development based on his capability idea. To realize this, the2
UNDP published its first human development report in 1990 (UNDP 1990) and has promoted development of human development index.

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

447

role of local community and living conditions has become critical. Among factors,
which may hamper realization of society based on the capability concept, structuralissues for causing 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 a serious issue in Japan, and, in particular, the issue of subjective well-being
and happiness of local people in these areas needs special attention. As an effective measure to solve these social issues, local agents should take actions to improvetheir 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 to incorporate comprehensive nature of people’s well-being into the measurement. In this context, 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 Gross National Happiness (GNH)index in Bhutan appeared.
Also, in 2009, under the initiative of the then French President Sarcozi, a reportedited by Sen and Stiglitz(Stiglitz et al. 2010) was published, and showed that multidimensional well-being is needed to measure people’s living conditions and societal 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 understandthe importance 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 havea practical tool to enhance people’s well-being that can be regularly monitored andevaluated jointly by local people and local government. In this context, community
dock can be described as a systematic tool to ensure that local agents, such as local
people, local groups, shop owners, companies, NPOs and local government, startsocial experiments or new local policies to achieve high subjective well-being andhappiness level by 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 and government 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 and economic data at the local level and analyze them with their expertiseand knowledge to identify barriers to better local living conditions and solutions totackle them.

13

448

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

However, this procedure does not necessarily need local initiatives and may
not require an endogenous local development idea: local agents should engage
in nurturing local living conditions. Conventional economic growth models andan unaltered institutions approach are not effective in solving the local issues
incurred by post-war local development policy if endogenous initiatives are
essential for high well-being and happiness. Emphasis on local community canmake people think more about their own well-being by themselves in a concretemanner and their perceptions and values can be shifted toward accepting alternative institutional framework of their own local community.
With the globalization of the economy, culture and the citizen, new problems
such as unemployment, depression and suicide arise partly because of the weakened social ties and restructuring in the private sector. These social problems
are in most cases found through the country. If this is the case, one might suggest that “Japan dock” (a country dock) instead of community dock be considered Japan as the unit of community in the age of globalization. However, if we
expand our locality to the country level, more attention tends to be made to thecountry’s average score, and the importance of diversified characteristics of different local areas, which differ by local resources, social structure, life and natural environment and local culture, becomes less. According to a recent study, thelevels of people’s life satisfaction and happiness are affected by mutual interaction and ties with family members, friends and neighbors at the local community(Helliwell and Putnam 2004). If the living conditions of the local community
together with the people’s well-being are improved, a vision of the future can be
drawn and policies can be 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 the national 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 standardizationof local living conditions in one country, because the national average is thebenchmark in the analysis of local living conditions’ data. This may reinforce
the conventional, unaltering, 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 theexisting 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, and seek advice and policy suggestion from external exerts, theuniqueness and diversity 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 the unit of local
community as a living sphere can be a practical tool in changing the groundframework of the societal institution.

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

449

5 A summary of the dynamism of community dockIn sum, community dock as shown in Fig. 2 consists of (a) a diagnosis of a macroperformances of the 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 changeof features and effectiveness of institutions. The dynamism of community dockworks as an institutional ecology through mutual interactions among different institutions and among institution and local agents.
Conventional methods ask experts on development policy to design local living
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 wellbeing 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 ofwaning communities if the conventional development model is followed. Local people, who know the local resources best, must sit in the central seat of local policymaking to induce local action for the realization of sustainable local development.
Therefore, the development 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 to makeit 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 notwork as a team and involve only a part of the community development process;rather, each expert tends to work independently, not works as a team, even though
they are involved in the same 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 and presentation, 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, which uses only macro- and micro-economic social indicators. Social
support which incorporates comprehensive and consistent benefit to local community development is hard to expect.
On the other hand, the process of social assistance is characterized by the participation of local agents. Identification of local problems and its solutions by local

13

450

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

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 therole of facilitator who help local people to use own knowledge and ideas in the process of community development, and these experts will become involved in every
stage of social change from policy formulation and implementation to evaluation incollaboration with local agents, which makes this process a community dock.
Community dock pays close attention to existing conventional objective data
and respects 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 theirown 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- andmicro- social and economic data, but also by new subjective data given by local people, which helps local agents and external experts to examine jointly if the directionof 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 highaccordingly as they develop. For this to be realized, evolution of the institutionalframework is needed and must be transformed from unaltered to altered institutionalframework.
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 andexternal experts• Improvement of local living conditions by local people’s ideas with support oflocal 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 dock 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 data3 collected mainly

3This 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.

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

451

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 databy the local government (Fig. 6). This section gives an outline of its methodology tomake 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

13

452

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

health, local education and local environment with objective data of their own
community.
The local assessment method, however, changes if the 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 datalike the level 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 public health as well as the economy are required to calculate the humandevelopment index (HDI) and analyze the level of HDI.4 Local economic conditions
should be evaluated by economic indicators such as per capita income, the unemployment rate and Gini-coefficients in the local area in addition to local educational
conditions by school enrollment rate and literacy rate, and local health conditions bylongevity 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 checkup. By doing this, thepatient may realize something new about his or her own health, which may makethe patient reflect on his or her present health management and treatment and makethem change to improve their own health in the future. Community dock is similar to this human dock and aims at improving comprehensive health and the wellbeing of the local area and local 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: “Areyou satisfied with your own local life and in what way?” “Do you have any 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 and their implementation, and reevaluate local living conditions.
The purpose of the community dock is to promote the improvement of local living 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 of timeseries data allows both local agents and external agents to find out if there is a place
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.

4
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 vary with local areas. Local considerations should allow local
people to select factors influencing the level of people’s well-being from the human development pointof view.

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

453

It is important to ask who should lead analysis and use of the data revealed by
the community dock. As we have seen, the community dock is the agency-based
endogenous tool to improve the local living condition developed as an analogy tothe human dock (health checkup system); therefore, local entities like local people
and groups, companies and shop owners, NPOs and local government are the mainusers. 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 from academia and government’s conventional role in giving technicaladvice on local policy and policy evaluation of 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 (suchas voluntary work) by the introduction of CC (direct impact assessment) and (b)how and to what extent can changes be made in local people’s living conditions andlife satisfaction after the introduction of CC (indirect impact assessment). Community dock provides a venue for local agents to take a continuous flow of actions withdirect and indirect 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 some changes 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 dockmethod 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
the CC.
First, local data called ‘baseline data’ on the economy, social system and environment to assess possible changes occurring after the CC project is applied. In particular, (a) the direct impact of the currency expansion by quantitative analysis of social

13

454

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

network data and (b) confirmation of the local economic and social development
strategy should be made.
(2) A method is designed to capture changes in local living conditions from theviewpoint 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: (Fig. 6).
• Understanding the conditions of the local community by selecting social andeconomic data (economic indicators, social indicators, environmental indicators,etc.) from the existing statistics on the local community• Evaluating the local living conditions by local people’s subjective data suchas life satisfaction, hope, values and individual attributes collected by survey
and/or group interviews.
Step 2: introduction and implementation of the community dock
The process of community dock needs to be initiated from the use of the baseline data to assess the present level of well-being of the local people and theircommunity. A systematic social survey on a regular basis provides local agentswith information to monitor and evaluate changes in local well-being. A social
survey allows the identification 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, a collaborated dialog will identify problems and hopefully find effective policy solutions such as introduction of CCs, which will eventually improve local economy and strengthen social capital and local well-being.
Step 3: process of self-evaluation and readjustment by the community dock
The mechanism of expected policy change induced by community dock is acomprehensive endogenous transformation process (Fig. 7). In other words, local
agents can trace social and economic changes of the local community by setting
the baseline 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 fromthe baseline level. If needed, local agents can think of possible modifications ofplatform like the CC itself. Furthermore, local agents can follow changes in local
living conditions from the local people’s subjective assessments, which lead topolicy adjustment, policy proposals and re-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 a processoriented 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 can participate in the dock smoothly, which helps capture more precise data on local living

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

455

Community Dock Survey ձ(Baseline㧕Basic living conditions data

Sharing community dock data
Policy selection࡮design࡮implementation

Peoplẻs subjective evaluation data

Community way
Policy proposal andinstitutional design

Community Dock Survey ղ

Community dock survey
Feedback from community

Comprehensive analysis of communitychangeImpact assessment
Policy and institutionalchange and operation

Community Dock Survey ճComprehensive analysis of communitychangePolicy evolution

Continuous
process

Policy review
Policy adjustment

Fig. 7  Mechanisms of policy change through the introduction of community dockconditions. In the case of action research, understanding by the research members is
a must, which is applicable to the community dock in that local agents such as local
people, local government, local groups, local companies and NPOs will understandthe main purpose of the method and system of the dock.

13

456

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

Second, participation of a group of researchers, who have expertise and experiences of community development, is essential for the design and implementationof the community dock. Community dock collects and analyzes data by way ofvarious 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, butshould promote collaboration to design surveys and implement them through goodcommunication with local resources.

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 mightcause these situations. In this paper, we have advocated for an examination of community development through local people’s eyes that should help them revise orbuild a new form of institutional framework and system to improve local living conditions and people’s well-being. We have proposed “community dock” as such amethod.
As shown in Table 3, the community dock method as an altered institutionalframework has some distinctive features different from a conventional unalteredinstitutional framework.
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 caseof an altering community dock, in a method of altering an institutional framework
method, experts collaborate with local agents of action in a horizontal relationship,not vertical one. Community dock acts to improve the comprehensive well-beingof local people as assessed from various aspects such as economic, social, culturaland environmental. For this very reason, an interdisciplinary approach needs to beincorporated into the community dock approach and each member of the dock teamis expected to have a comprehensive view and interdisciplinary attitude.
Local agents of action play an active and positive role in community dockalthough 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

13

Experts and researchers

One-way advice from experts

Passive and inactive

Analysis and evaluation based on scientific evidence

Particular field of discipline

Research articles, research reports and policy recommendations

GovernmentTop-down

Detailed plan

Risk of authoritarian system

Core members

Role of researchers

Role of local agents

Methodology

Area of expertise

OutputAgents of action

Approach

Planning approach

Challenge

Unaltered institutional framework method

Formulation and implementation of a collaborated team

General plan and adjustment

Bottom-up

Agents of community (local people, local groups, companies,
NPOs, local? government)

Workshops, recommendations for social evolution, practical reports

Interdisciplinary

Method for social evolution, process evaluation

Positive and active

Two-way dialog and mutual discovery

Collaborating team of external experts/researchers, local agents

Altered institutional framework method (community dock)

Table 3  Comparison of policy methods for community development: unaltered institutional vs. altered institutional frameworks

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459
457

13

458

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

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
as action research does not end by completing academic papers. Rather, community
dock makes 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 for granted in a conventional policy method with unaltered institutions, implementation through community dock needs more flexible planning that is required by allowing modificationof the design and implementation process with collaboration among different stakeholders of the community.
Promoting community revitalization and development from the standpoints of
the local agents is more beneficial than through the conventional approach, which
only 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 througha 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 the long 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 agents concerned in community development is not an easy task. Also, communication between experts and non-experts is not easy, either. Thus, a collaborated team needs to be 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 dockmethod through a trial experiment within a local community.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict ofinterest.

References
Cabinet Office of Japan (2008) White paper on the national lifestyle - Prospects for consumer citizenship toward a comfortable and mature ​society (summary). http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp​/
pid/99907​48/www5.cao.go.jp/seika​tsu/white​paper​/h20/06_eng/index​.html
Easterlin R (1974) Does economic growth improve the human lot? In: David PA, Reder MW (eds)
Nations and households in economic growth: essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. Academic
Press Inc, New York, pp 89–125
Fetterman DM (2001) Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Hashimoto T, Nishibe M (2017) Theoretical model of institutional ecosystems and its economic
implications. Evol Inst Econ Rev 14(1):1–27

13

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review (2018) 15:431–459

459

Helliwell JF, Putnam R (2004) The social context of well-being. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
359:1435–1446
Hirshman AO (1958) The strategy of economic development. Yale University Press, New Haven
Hodgson GM (1988) Economics and institutions: a manifesto for a modern institutional economics. Polity Press, Cambridge
Hodgson GM (1993) Economics and evolution: bringing life back into economics. Blackwell Publishers,
Hoboken
Kusago T (2007) Rethinking of economic growth and life satisfaction in post-WWII Japan: a fresh
approach. Soc Indic Res 81(1):79–102
Lewis WA (1955) The theory of economic growth. Unwin Hyman, Crows Nest
Japan Society of Ningen Dock (2018) Message from the president. https​://www.ninge​n-dock.jp/en/socie​ty/messa​ge
Nishibe M (2004) Evolutionist institutional design (in Japanese). In: Nishibe M (ed) Frontier of evolutionary economics. Nihon Hyoronsya, Tokyo, pp 3–34
Nishibe M (2006) Community currency and community dock: the report of the experiment of circulationof CC in Tomamae town (in Japanese). Stud Local Policies 34:40–56
Nishibe M, Kusago T (2010) Evolutionist institutional design and community dock (in Japanese). In:
Nishibe M et al (eds) Evolutionary economics: its foundation. Nihon Keizai Hyoron Sha, Tokyo, pp266–274
Nishibe M, Mikami M (2012) Media design of electronic community currencies and its applicability forcommunity dock: examination by game simulation (in Japanese). Discuss Paper B (Graduate Studies of Economics, Hokkaido University) 103:1–24
Nishibe M, Yoshida M, Egashira S, Hashimoto T, Sawabe N (eds) (2010a) Evolutionary economics: its
foundation (in Japanese). Nihon Keizai Hyoron Sya, Tokyo
Nishibe M, Kusago T, Hashimoto T, Kichiji N (2010b) Community dock as a evolutionist policy method(in Japanese). Bull Evol Econ (Japanese Association for Evolutionary Economics) 14:394–412
Nurkse R (1953) Problems of capital-formation in underdeveloped countries. Blackwell Publishers,
HobokenSen A (1992) Inequality reexamined. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Jean-Paul F (2010) Mismeasuring our lives: why GDP doesn’t add up. The New Press,
New York
World Bank (1993) The east Asian miracle: economic growth and public policy: Main report (WorldBank policy research reports)

13