Abstract
In the first place, the authors define what a rule of appropriateness is. It is a rule defined by what is considered an exemplary behavior, and then seen as natural and legitimate. They first expose the basics about the rule-based action. According to them, this is an ancient concept, theorized for example by Sophocle in its version of Antigone. They describe the cognitive process necessary to establish rules. The point actually is that such rules can be internalized by the people in three different ways: the reaction to a problem by analogy to past situation (experience), the action according to our social role and the action according to our identity. Therefore, rule-based action is not always strictly rational but based on internally institutionalized mechanisms.
In a second part, the authors move on to the democratic institutions. They describe the institutions as a series of rules embedded in a concrete structure of resources in order to make action possible. Their description of the institutional mechanisms is actually very complex and hardly understandable. They try to understand how some rules may affect the behavior of such institutions. According to them, it is important to study the impact of numerous factors besides the rule itself to understand the impact of rules upon action, such as the interpretation of the rule for example.
