Introduction to Frankenberg’s IKEA Theory
Günter Frankenberg’s “IKEA theory” offers a new way to understand how nations share and adopt laws and government structures from each other.
Frankenberg compares taking legal ideas to putting together furniture from IKEA. He says that the basic ideas (the “parts” like laws or rules) are the same everywhere. But how these ideas are put into use—their final working shape—is decided by the unique history, culture, and situation of the borrowing country.
He warns people against simply copying laws from other places without change. He stresses that moving laws is not an easy, automatic process that works everywhere. Instead, it is a hard process of compromise, heavily influenced by local politics, culture, and past events.
This paper will thoroughly study the “IKEA theory.” We will look at what it means for comparing laws between countries, how it challenges strict legal thinking, and how helpful it is for making sense of mixed legal systems in today’s connected world.
Think of it like IKEA furniture for laws
The idea that we can just take laws from one country and use them exactly the same way in another is too simple, according to the “IKEA theory.” Frankenberg believes that even though global rules have given us some common building blocks – like dividing government power, basic rights for people, and courts checking the government – how these are put together in practice is different everywhere.
When countries adopt these constitutional ideas from abroad, they don’t just copy them. They twist and reshape them to fit their own situations. This leads to legal systems that are a mix of international concepts and their own local customs.
But this mixing isn’t always smooth or easy. Frankenberg points out that when countries borrow laws, it can be messy, cause arguments, and even involve fights over who has power. For instance, some countries that used to be under communist rule brought in ideas about democracy, but they still kept some of their old ways of ruling (like Frankenberg noted in 2003). This blending shows that people can be creative with new ideas, but it also shows the risks. Borrowed rules might not work well if they don’t fit with what people in that country already believe or how their society is set up.
Localizing Global Law – Blending External Ideas with Internal Traditions
When one country decides to use the laws of another, it is never simple imitation. Instead of copying, the receiving country actively rebuilds these foreign rules, creatively changing them to match its own needs.
Every society filters outside legal ideas using the specific lens of its own political customs, its historical way of running institutions, and its current social realities. You can think of it like a universal design kit made up of global constitutional principles. Although the parts are the same everywhere, the final product depends entirely on how the local community puts them together. This mixing process creates hybrid systems—legal structures that are a dynamic blend of international concepts and national traditions.
This proves that legal systems are flexible and constantly moving; they are not fixed. They evolve through negotiation between outside suggestions and deeply held internal traditions. The ultimate result is not uniformity around the world, but a wide diversity within global legal practices.
However, this process holds a major danger: powerful people (elites) might only select foreign principles that help them gain control or secure their own status. If they twist the original law’s intent to serve their power goals, the entire system can become confusing, unfair, or destructive to democratic functions.
Constitutional Adaptability Versus Public Trust
Frankenberg acknowledges that constitutions need to be flexible and able to change. However, he warns that if they become too easily changed or adapted, the system will lose the public’s trust and its democratic foundation.
To illustrate this danger, he uses the “IKEA theory.” This theory warns against viewing essential constitutional rules as simple, interchangeable parts—like pieces of furniture that can be swapped out. Doing so ignores the deep cultural meaning and core values embedded in these rules.
When the writing of foundational laws is run only by high-level experts, consultants, or foreign organizations (an “elite-driven” process), the resulting system often feels fake. It loses its authenticity and the support of the general public.
Frankenberg strongly supports participatory constitutionalism, meaning that local communities must be deeply involved in shaping and adapting any foreign legal concepts.
This idea aligns with the warnings of Mark Tushnet (2009), who criticized “constitutional engineering.” Tushnet argued that this approach favours speed and getting quick results over whether the law is truly accepted by the people.
Both scholars emphasize that building a successful constitution requires that all reforms are rooted in the real-life experiences and values of the citizens the laws are intended to guide.
Comparative Matrix – Models of Constitutional Transfer
- Alan Watson’s idea of Legal Transplant is about taking a specific set of legal rules from one country or legal system and putting them directly into another one. This transfer usually happens with very little change or adjustment. A classic example is when many different countries adopted the Napoleonic Code as their own main body of law.
- Pierre Legrand’s idea of Cultural Non-Transfer argues that law is deeply tied to its culture and is therefore essentially non-transferable to a different society, an idea which fundamentally rejects the possibility of legal transferability, as seen in the resistance to the EU’s attempts to standardize private law across its member states.
- Sujit Choudhry’s concept of Legal Migration describes how legal ideas move between countries and then naturally change and adapt significantly to fit their new setting, which is demonstrated by South Africa borrowing constitutional concepts from Germany and Canada and modifying them extensively.
- The IKEA Theory by Günter Frankenberg says that when countries create a constitution, they use standard, borrowed legal parts (like IKEA furniture pieces) and then put them together in their own way to fit their needs, which is what happened with many new constitutions in Eastern Europe.
Why Simply Copying Laws Doesn’t Work – A New Way to Look at Legal Systems:
Frankenberg disagrees with the idea that you can easily take laws from one country and use them in another. He thinks Alan Watson’s “legal transplant” idea, which suggests laws can be moved like furniture, is too simple.
Following Pierre Legrand, Frankenberg explains that laws are deeply connected to a country’s culture and language. These connections give laws their true meaning and affect how they are used. So, if you just move a law without understanding its original cultural background, it’s likely to be misunderstood or simply won’t work properly.
Frankenberg’s “IKEA theory” (named after the Swedish furniture store known for self-assembly) suggests we should move past just looking at the dry, formal rules of law. Instead, he wants us to focus on how people actually experience and understand constitutional rules in their everyday lives. He encourages those who compare different legal systems to study how these rules are given new life and meaning within the unique social and political environment of each place.
Implications for Comparative Constitutional Law
Frankenberg’s “IKEA theory” completely changes how we compare constitutions in different countries.
It urges us to be more thoughtful about our methods. We must recognize our own assumptions and the power structures that influence how we compare legal systems.
The theory confirms that different legal systems can exist together (legal pluralism). It stresses that countries don’t have to follow one specific path to develop modern constitutions.
This idea promotes respecting different traditions and local situations, pushing back against the idea that Western liberal constitutions are the only valid models.
Furthermore, the theory highlights the political nature of sharing constitutional ideas. It points out how international groups, NGOs, and aid organizations often push standardized ways of governing.
Frankenberg’s work makes scholars and leaders look closely at how these transfers might accidentally strengthen dependence or colonial patterns, instead of truly helping countries achieve their own constitutional independence.
Literature Review
Frankenberg’s (2010) “IKEA theory” suggests that when a country adopts parts of another’s constitution, it’s not simply a technical task. Instead, it’s an active process where people participate and interpret these new rules. This perspective sharply differs from Alan Watson’s “transplant theory,” which assumes legal principles can be easily moved from one place to another. Drawing from Pierre Legrand’s (1997) belief that law is deeply connected to its cultural setting, Frankenberg argues that even borrowed laws are reinterpreted to fit local understandings.
Sujit Choudhry (2006) builds on this by introducing “constitutional migration,” highlighting how ideas change and adapt as they move between different countries. Similarly, Tushnet (2009) and Ginsburg et al. (2009) advocate for more public involvement in constitutional processes. Their aim is to prevent a small, powerful group from taking control of these important decisions. Together, these thinkers show that sharing constitutional ideas isn’t a mechanical action but a continuous conversation—a steady exchange between global principles and local interpretations. Frankenberg’s “IKEA theory” enriches this discussion by emphasizing the creativity, negotiation, and strong cultural roots involved in forming modern constitutions.
Conclusion
Frankenberg’s “IKEA theory” offers a new way to understand how countries adopt new laws and rules. It suggests that instead of simply copying laws, we should think of it as building and adapting them to fit local needs.
The theory explains that changing a country’s main laws is not just bringing in rules from somewhere else. It’s a continuous process that depends on the specific place and time. This means blending ideas from around the world with what’s really happening at home.
It stresses the importance of local people being involved, understanding different cultures, and making sure the process is fair and democratic. This view encourages leaders and experts to let go of the idea that one set of constitutional rules works for everyone.
In short, Frankenberg’s approach gives us a more welcoming, thoughtful, and practical understanding of how basic laws are created. It shows they are not made in isolation, but through shared human effort and creativity that spans different nations.
