新制度经济学的新发展与政治学新制度主义:比较与启示

新制度经济学和政治学新制度主义在发展中都因为缺乏现实性、历史性和社会性而受到批评.面对相似的问题,经济学领域兴起了以青木和格雷夫为代表的比较制度分析,政治学领域兴起了历史制度主义和社会学制度主义.本文从制度观、制度对行为的影响、制度的变迁、过去的制度对现在制度的影响、文化观念和意识形态在制度形成和发展中的作用等方面,对比较制度分析和历史制度主义、社会学制度主义进行了比较,就未来制度研究的发展趋势提出了看法.     

Are We Forgetting Something? Remarks on the Connections Between Douglass North’s Contributions and Original Institutional Economics

Douglass North’s latest works have become central to the current discussion regarding the differences and similarities between new institutional economics (NIE) and original institutional economics (OIE). We seek to contribute to this debate by offering a specific analytical perspective to evaluating North’s contributions. After defining a set of philosophical and methodological principles that specifies OIE, we endeavor to verify if and how North’s work relates to these foundations. We believe that this methodological perspective brings to light a fundamental issue not stressed by earlier analyses: the profound difference between the institutionalisms regarding the role of market order as a mechanism of human sociability.     

Inside the Organizational Institutions of Institutional Economics: Why Are There Two Institutionalist Associations?

The institutionalist-inspired Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE), officially founded in 1965, was the first heterodox association to break with the American Economic Association (AEA). In 1979, another institutionalist association, the Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT), was founded. Using mainly archival evidence, this paper provides historical reasons for the presence of two institutionalist associations.     

Institutional Approaches to Economic Development: The Current Status of the Debate

The recent publication of "Institutions and Economic Development: Theory, Policy and History" (Chang 2011a) has stimulated a thought-provoking debate, and has brought forth a wide-ranging demonstration of the theoretical arsenal of the new institutional economics. The debate proves that, as of yet, no satisfactory theory of institutions has been articulated, nor is there an agreement on the relationship between institutional change and the politics of development. It also demonstrates the presence of two distinct lines of research: ideological and political, both of which rely on different theoretical legacies, and embody distinct economic worldviews. This scenario allows a summary of the argument in the most recent literature to be made on the relationship between institutions and development, as well as to relate the debate to the concept of development as a process of expansion of capacities.     

新比较经济学的研究视角及其比较研究

20世纪90年代初期,随着苏联、东欧等社会主义国家相继崩溃,旧比较经济学没有可比较的对象,为新比较经济学创造了条件。本文主要对新旧比较经济学进行了比较研究。从比较对象上看,旧比较经济学主要针对不同经济制度进行比较;而新比较经济学侧重于相同经济制度在不同国家的效率差异。从研究方法上看,旧比较经济学主要是特征描述法,没有建立系统的理论;而新比较经济学采用主流经济学的分析方法,创立了自己的理论体系。最后,本文对新比较经济学与新制度经济学及公共选择理论进行了比较研究。     

Progress,Inconsistencies, and Neglect in the Social Control of Railway Freight Transport

We focus on the complementarity between original institutional economics, Mario Bunge’s framework of systemism, and the formal tools developed by complexity economists, especially in the context of agent-based modeling. We assert that original institutional economics might profit from exploiting this complementarity.     

Three Decades After James Street’s “The Institutionalist Theory of Economic Development”: What Does Institutional Approach to Economic Development Mean Today?

James Street’s article, “The Institutionalist Theory of Economic Development,” (1987) is a masterpiece of institutionalist research on economic development. The thirty-year anniversary of its publishing is an invitation to review what the institutional approach to economic development means today. This article, therefore, aims to present a historical survey of works published in the Journal of Economic Issues (JEI) on economic development.     

Apology and Ambiguity: Adolf Berle on Corporate Power

A sociocognitive foundation for transformative agency requires much deeper exploration to adequately understand the causal origins of human interests, preferences, and choices as they shape both the emergence of institutions and the process of institutional change. In the collegial spirit of rapprochement, reminiscent of earlier efforts at “bridge-building,” our central contention is that the new institutional economics of “late” Douglass C. North (2005) North, Douglass C. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar] provides such a sociocognitive approach, as well as an important ontological frame for dealing with embedded agency. This agency may afford original institutional economics a complementary meta-theoretical account of how institutions are formed and changed over time.     

International Monetary Reform: A Review Article

Original institutional economics (OIE) has three significant, but apparently contradictory, definitions of institution(s) stemming from Thorstein Veblen, John Commons, and J. Fagg Foster. In this first installment of a two-part paper I address this apparent contradiction by developing an "irenic reconciliation" of these definitions using a methodological approach I call "critical institutionalism"— a synthesis of the OIE in the tradition of the Veblen, Commons, and Foster, the pragmatism theory of Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey, the critical realist methodology of Margaret Archer, and the critical realism of Roy Bhaskar. In so doing, I provide an alternative discussion to that of some current institutionalists who propose to replace the existing OIE definitions of institution(s) with "consensual definitions" developed in the discourse with non-OIE traditions. I propose that there is still considerable analytical value in the OIE definitions, and that replacing them with non-OIE-originating concepts would unnecessarily carry OIE away from its methodological and philosophical roots. In the second installment of this paper (yet to be published), I proceed to demonstrate the analytical value these "reconciled" definitions have for the OIE project.     

Contracting Boundaries as Institutional Infrastructure: Efficacy, Adaptation, and Obsolescence: Commentary on La Croix and Ghiselin's Comments

The New Institutional Economics (NIE) emphasizes that different governance structures generate a rich variety of observed institutional arrangements. In Yarbrough & Yarbrough (1999), we extended this reasoning to argue that different governance structures also carry implications for the sets of acceptable contracting partners or ‘insiders’. Here we discuss various contracting groups as institutional infrastructures and evaluate their efficiency, ability to adapt, and longevity or possible obsolescence in the face of changes in the nature of transactions or of the transactional environment. The fact that, despite their many shortcomings, private institutional infrastructures continue to be built, to adapt, and to function, even in modern societies with well-developed state-based legal systems, provides a measure of the centrality and complexity of the task of assuring contractual integrity. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

新制度主义的制度分析范式:一个归纳性述评

制度分析是当代社会科学领域一个重要的理论分析工具。20世纪70年代以来,经济学、政治学等重新发现了制度对解释现实问题的重要性,形成了新制度主义的制度分析范式。基于共同的逻辑起点、行为假设和理论工具,制度分析范式形成了不同的制度分析途径,如嵌入性制度分析、立宪制度分析、比较制度分析、历史制度分析和多中心制度分析等。制度分析拓展了社会科学的研究对象,增强了社会科学解释和解决现实问题的能力,越来越多的领域被囊括到制度分析中。     

关于税收征管中寻租的几点看法

新税收征管模式运行以来,税收征管的质量和效率都有了很大的提高,但也存在着一些问题,特别是税收征管中的寻租 问题。在税收征管中,由于存在着政府干预的存在,不可避免地存在着寻租,由于我国税收征管的不完善,使得在税收征管中存 在着过多的寻租。     

Property and Economic Power as Issues in Institutional Economics

In the first part of this two-part paper, I presented an "irenic" reconciliation of the three apparently contradictory definitions of "institution" within original institutional economics (OIE), employing the methodology of critical institutionalism. The critical institutionalist reconciliation of these definitions conceptualizes institutions as an emergent process by which the internal and necessary relations of social structure as collective action, mediated through agency, results in the control, expansion, and liberation of the individual action of social actors in transactions. In short, an institution is the emergent process of social structure actualized in transactions (social action). Institutions, therefore, not only have a structural existence, but also an actual existence as they are the process of the emergence of the actual (in transactions) from the structural. Institutions are multi-level processes and cannot be reduced to structures, actions, behaviors, or patterns of behaviors. In this part, I demonstrate the significance of this reconciliation in two areas. The first is its ability to further differentiate the institutional definition of economics as "the science of social provisioning" from the mainstream definition of economics as "a relationship between ends and scarce means" by decomposing the institutional definition into its productive and distributive processes. The second is its usefulness in modeling the interaction of non-economic social institutions with economic institutions at varying levels of detail. I also introduce critical institutional analysis, and use as a method, for model-building and use it to build models of communal, feudal, and industrial capitalist economies.     

Institutional Bioeconomics and the Division of Labor: Reflections on Yarbrough & Yarbrough' Paper

The New Institutional Economics might have significant interactions with the economics of non-human societies. Some possibilities are considered in connection with the ideas of Yarbrough and Yarbrough on human societies. First, the need for enforcement may be less when the organisms in question treat one another as resources. Second, theories of the division of labor that have been developed in biology are applicable to human societies. There may be some interesting alternatives to traditional sociobiology as well.     

论社会资本对企业技术创新的影响

知识经济的迅猛发展,使企业技术创新更多地体现为一种动态的复杂的社会化知识创造过程。本文力图以企业社会资本理论为基础,从新制度经济学的角度分析了社会资本影响企业技术创新的内在机理。     

制度经济学三大流派的比较与评析

20世纪二三十年代之后,西方经济学在经济理论上陷入持久的危机。制度经济学派就是在批判传统的主流经济学——新古典主义的基础上发展起来的。制度经济学按其类型一般分为以凡勃仑、康芒斯为代表的早期制度经济学,以加尔布雷斯、缪尔达尔为代表的后制度经济学和以科斯、诺斯为代表的新制度经济学。它们分别代表了三种制度观和三种研究思路与方法,各有其合理性和局限性。目前,国内经济学界往往热衷于新制度经济学的研究与介绍,而对于另外两大制度学派的研究却甚为冷清。只知晓其中一种而忽视其他,很难说就掌握了制度理论的精髓。只有了解制度学派的全貌,并对它们进行比较和鉴别,才能更为深入地了解制度经济学学说,才有可能形成较为客观的认识与判断。