As a matter of pure illustration and to illuminate, perhaps a little bit some of insight into my thinking on rules and institutional reform, I often think about the rules of sports and how their evolution changes the nature of given games. I am a sports fan in a general sense, but the one I’ve paid the most attention to during my lifetime is professional football. It is therefore the sport whose rules I understand the best, although I would not purport to be an expert of any kind.
Still, my interest in the sport and my professional interest in comparative institutional design frequently converge in my brain, insofar as the NFL is constantly tweaking its rules (i.e., engaging in reform, albeit usually in an incremental manner). If one pays attention one can see how rule changes affect behavior (something I constantly try and underscore in my writing on politics).
We just went through the NFL draft. If one scans the first round of that event, one would find a lot of quarterbacks taken. This is directly linked to the game changing over a century ago to include the forward pass. What you won’t see in that list is a running back, which is the result of more proximate changes to the rules (over the last several decades) that have enhanced the passing game. Indeed, if you look at that list of players you will find almost all of the picks are oriented around the passing game. Beyond QBs, the first round is full of wide receivers (who catch the ball), cornerbacks (who defend against the pass), edge rushers (who attack the QB), and offensive tackles (who protect the QB from the pass rush).
The first running back selected was in the 46th overall pick. And yes, the talent pool for RB was more shallow this year than last, but as a general matter, the game has clearly evolved away from the running being central (as it was even in the 1990s) to being a passing-centric game. This is by design, because fans prefer high-scoring offensive games over defensive struggles (although not all fans are of this persuasion).
So, reform can be oriented toward certain outcomes in terms of game play as a general matter (just as political reform could attempt to increase representation, for example). Other rules changes are oriented toward other goals, like player safety.
A very recent example is the change to the kickoff rule that is coming this fall. This rule will lead to teams executing new strategies and seeking out specific skills especially from kickers and kick returners and from special teams personnel in general. Exactly how teams will adapt will take a few years to sort out.
The new kickoff rule is part of a broader set of reforms designed to decrease injuries, especially head injuries. As such, we have here a perfect example of institutional reform. A goal is set, rules are changed, and then there is an ongoing assessment of whether the changes result in the desired result.
Weirdly, there are no great appeals to Walter Camp and the Founding Fathers of Football. While there are plenty of people who bemoan the loss of some aspects of the game they enjoyed, it is hard (if not impossible) to find anyone who wants the game to be played as it was in the 1800s. No one seeks to make football great again by eliminating the forward pass.
And yes, there has to be some level of willingness on the part of the participants to create the rule, enforce the rule, and support the rule. But it is rather important to note that it by no means do they require unanimous support, and even a vocal minority may oppose the rule.
There are plenty of players, fans, and sportswriters who don’t like the rules that attempt to decrease head injuries in the NFL or to protect quarterbacks as a general matter. Further, some players try harder than others to conform. But none of that has changed the general trajectory of pro football over the last several decades.
Rules matter and can change behavior, even if there is some level of resistance to that change.
But, of course, they aren’t magical. Plenty of players still lead with their helmets when tackling, despite the rules. Some do it in disregard of the rule. Others do it by accident, sloppiness, or just the exigencies of the moment. Others, still, are trying to follow the rule but fail to properly execute the tackle. Moreover, serious head injuries have not been legislated out of the game. I would note that it is nonetheless possible to study and track injuries in relation to the rules changes to then assess whether the reforms performed as desired.
To be clear: I am fully aware that the rule-making and enforcement process in pro sports is quite a bit different than that of national politics. The point of this thought, one of several that continue to rattle around in my head, is that sports can be a great way to think about the way rules affect and bind behavior. I think there are a number of instructive analogies that can be made to help the general public understand the roles played by rules, and thereby by institutions.
Without any doubt, we can see how human being in pro sports adapt to changes in the rules. They want to win, so they adapt. I think that politics is a game in a similar way (and while it may look like Calvinball, the rules do bind and shape behavior, and those rules can be changed, even if changing them is hard).
A great comparative institutional development example would be how American football, Australian rules football, rugby, and soccer all evolved from similar roots. And how specific rules choices led to the evolution of different games. Choose one pathway (shape of ball, number of players, feet-only, forward pass, etc.) and the game evolves differently. Different skills sets and strategies are needed to win, and so forth.
That is a longer discussion for a different day.
At a minimum, I think that looking at sports in the way described above can illustrate how rules matter. They shape human behavior in a shared activity and those rules, and changes to them, can affect behavior and outcomes.
