Institutional Matrices Theory,or X- and Y-Theory: A Response to F. Gregory Hayden

This article draws attention to issues about the institutional matrices theory (IMT) as perceived by and raised in the article by F. Gregory Hayden. To clarify the “controversial” points, I structure my response narrative along two lines. First, I present the prehistory of IMT, or X- and Y- theory, including earlier work by scientists related to the concept of institutional matrix. I connect the development of the actual IMT with the period of “perestroika” and the associated market experiments and reforms in Russia and Eastern European countries. One could see that the effects of market reforms in Russia were different in comparison with other countries in economic transition. I show that the institutional approach was accepted as more relevant to understanding the unexpected results in Russian society. I present IMT as a development of the ideas of Karl Polanyi and Douglas North to answer the challenges of explaining the real social and economic processes in Russia, as well as its wider application to a broader range of economic and social situations in different countries. Second, I then present the main IMT theses, giving special attention to the issues as perceived and raised by Hayden. In conclusion, I suggest the possibility of a joint project that combines IMT consideration and the social fabric matrix (SFM) concept of F. Gregory Hayden.