RESUMEN DE LOS RESULTADOS DE LAS ENCUESTAS

The objective of the IADF is to better understand the incentives and outcomes of actors in a variety of settings where decisions are taken collectively. The framework focuses institutional design in an institutional setting, policy realm, or even a company where decisions are taken collectively. The study of a problem without understanding the underlying incentives driving the stakeholders’ decision-making within that sector will inhibit the discussion of how to improve the design of policy and or other tools to improve outcomes (Gibson et al., 2009; Ostrom, 2011).

The IADF raises the importance of understanding administrative and institutional challenges in the context of sectors where collaborative decisions are taken. Decisions taken by institutions within sectors occur in environments of pre-existing institutional arrangements; in the context of this there is a proposal to broaden participation. Now the issue of governance in a sector comes under scrutiny due to ineffectiveness, problems or negative sentiment surrounding various aspects in the sector. It can also be used to analyse the effectiveness of policy, policy reform and policy design (Ostrom, 2011; Polski & Ostrom, 1999) in an effort to improve the design process in policy making and to also avoid policy failures. In the context of pension funds and use for national development, IADF is useful in identifying the context, the outcomes that the intended objectives display and what gap exists between what is expected and what is proposed in policy. Understanding interactions within the sector will further inform how such policy outcomes have occurred. Using the IADF the analysis of policy and design is simplified.

What is the objective of IADF? It seeks to present a practical and systemic method of doing analysis in settings at three levels: operational, policy making and constitutional. At these levels the IADF simplifies complicated social scenarios into easy arrangements, whilst simultaneously enabling the investigation for processes that are interdependent where variables in an institutional setting depend on more than one other variable. IADF provides the necessary tools for studying incentives in these parameters. It takes into account the complexity of a multiplicity of activities and situations from an institutionally-oriented policy perspective (Polski & Ostrom, 1999). There are various sectors where decisions are taken jointly, not as single units either in the community or by government. Imperial (1999) argues that such behaviour is prevalent in various sectors: examples of sectors where IADF has been used are where land and natural resources are predominantly managed or common resource pools (Polski & Ostrom, 1999). Eco-based management systems and agencies that implement this management approach have been analysed using this framework. For instance, in the management of water quality it is accepted that factors other than point of source discharges affect it, land use is an important variable with respect to run-off. This brings to the fore the

issue of cause and effect, or rather the interrelated nature of problems. In resolving these problems, a system of solutions that are not disjointed but unified should be implemented. Where this approach is not taken, problems emanate from taking solutions from a narrow self- interested approach resulting in common problems such as the non-effective use of resources, government spheres showing inconsistent policies, and duplication and fragmentation of responsibilities and authority. Other examples where the IADF can be applied includes development aid assessment (Gibson et al., 2009), eco-system based management (Imperial, 1999), forest governance (Andersson, 2006), natural resource governance (Clement, 2014), the Australian outback (Smajgl et al., 2009), biotech and pharmaceutical companies (Jommi & Paruzzolo, 2007) and fisheries (Imperial & Yandle, 2005).

Development aid is an example where harsh criticism spurned the use of the framework when practitioners, policy makers, scholars queried if aid fulfilled its objectives (Gibson et al., 2009). The case study of the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) is done with an institutional view taken on development aid. The agency is chosen as a case study due to its role as leading innovation within the sector. A better understanding of the causes that result in ineffective aid outcomes will aid in improving outcomes. These causes are referred to in the IADF as incentives.

Pension funds for development and the pension fund reform process and their implications for South African national development discourse is the area of examination within this chapter. The policy environment and stakeholders within the sector provide the relevant context for the analysis. The context is pension funds used for national development. Once a context is applied, IADF then makes use of four tools or mechanisms to perform institutional analysis (Ostrom, 2011): (i) determining the action arena, (ii) outlining the perceived incentives, (iii) determining the patterns of interaction, and (iv) measuring outcomes. Using IADF affords us the opportunity to understand the underlying problems faced with collective action decision making, and how a particular intervention within an environment alters the problem. Evaluations of the outcomes and interactions then occurs using IADF tools. Incentives are able to inhibit all development, growth and other outcomes across the political, economic and social sphere within a sector. IADF is able to identify incentives within the system, created by the system and between actors of a sector that limit gains that a policy or tool was intended to bring about. Policy processes and a sector’s own systems may produce perverse incentives which occur when generally harmful decisions are taken by an institution or individual at the expense of others.

In this study we seek to explore from the institutional perspective of pension fund reform the PIC and pension funds being used for furthering development, specifically identifying the key variables that influenced pension reform in the financial markets. A better understanding of

the causes that result in ineffective pension reform outcomes will aid in improving future policy design. There is limited work on financial sector policy reforms and institutional analysis in the literature. Even sparser is literature on African-related institutional analysis in the financial sector. This chapter will investigate and present outcomes with the intention of improving future policy design. Using IADF this chapter will add to the literature by contributing to the institutional framework in financial sector development and more specifically within pension fund reform.