This chapter lays down the conceptual foundations of Institutional Status Theory. It situates IST in the literature on status in world politics, and on social identity in particular. It elaborates on the concept of status as an intrinsic value and as a role that entails symbolic equality with higher-status actors, as distinct from status as a set of valued attributes. It discusses the psychological and social foundations of IST, in particular its relationship to and difference from constructivist theory. Finally, the chapter theorizes the great-power club and international institutions as sites of status struggles.

The 2030 District program encourages commercial building owners to make 50% cuts in building energy use, water use, and transportation emissions by 2030.Twenty cities across North America have joined to date.Participating cities agree to the overall goals but each city develops its own method for monitoring progress and encouraging compliance.I analyzed the 2030 Districts using the “club theory” of voluntary programs and the Institutional Analysis and Development framework.Club theory suggests that moderate standards and enforcement are more likely to attract participants and achieve the program’s goals than either strict or lenient approaches.Analysis of 2018 progress reports suggests that 2030 Districts have strict standards but low to moderate levels of monitoring and enforcement.Three districts already achieved the interim energy target of a 20% reduction in building energy use by 2020.One-third of districts submitted progress reports in 2018, suggesting that shirking could be a problem.Districts that failed to meet basic membership requirements were demoted to “emerging district” status.“Beyond compliance” programs like 2030 Districts can be important complements to climate change policies at local and national scales.

The 1963 Geldard Report on the University of Virginia faculty described the early Virginia School economists as “neo-liberal” and asserted they failed to provide graduate students a modern education. Only an extract describing the economics department was known before so the evaluation could not be put into context. Had the authors of the report known modern economics, they would have remarked on Allais lectures at the TJC in 1957. Neo-liberal was then an unusual word. As it has come to be used, neo-liberalism supposes an idealization of efficiency and market activity. This differs from an earlier liberalism, which emphasized exchange and viewed democracy as government by discussion. Coase’s advice to the Fabian Society committee for broadcasting reform was to remove the BBC’s monopoly position by breaking it into competing services provided by the government, to allow taxpayers a wider choice of television and radio programs, with more points of view. Buchanan’s club theory is remarkable in this context because the distinction between market activity and public activity is fuzzy. The neo-liberal charge ignores the importance of the compensation brought about by logrolling.