Actors must accept credibility, there is no choice. True?

Question

Accepted Answer

Credibility is not a matter of acceptance, it is a matter of what has endogenously emerged from actors’ interactions. In this sense, “[i]t is also vital to see that an institution is spontaneously (i.e. endogenously) shaped and being shaped by different stakeholders. (…) From this it logically follows that the question of ‘whose credibility?’ is not so much of interest for its divergences per interest group – as their perceptions obviously may vary – but from the vantage point of a total, accumulative outcome for an institution. Ergo, the credibility of shared tenancy and the federal reserve is not gauged by merely asking respondents on the (village and city) street, but by probing respondents’ perceptions from all the interest groups that shape and are shaped by its rules, and from it hermeneutically read what its workings are at that aggregate level.” See: P. Ho, “An endogenous theory of property rights: opening the black box of institutions”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 2016, 43/6, p. 1130.

This question is related to the questions:

What about individual versus collective interests?
Are there examples of credible arrangements going against individual interests?