Institutions and Values: A Methodological Inquiry

Economics entails a study of institutions regardless of the school of thought, and it is inherently an analysis of institutional transformation with a vision toward creating positive social change through economic arrangements. However, the conceptions of institutions, identity of individuals, human nature as it pertains to economics, identification of the economic sphere, its concerns, and studying its evolution, all vary substantively across schools of thought. We examine the following issues: (i) the differences in the ontological identity of the individual between heterodox approaches, new institutional economics (NIE), and the neoclassical school; (ii) the central point of divergence between original institutional economics (OIE) and NIE, despite both schools being committed to the project of an “institutionally” centered approach to economics; and (iii) the absence of a cohesive project to explore foundational theoretical congruencies among those heterodox approaches that have a shared vision, values, and a common ontological identity of socially embedded people.     

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.     

The Legal-Economic Nexus from the Perspective of New Institutional Economists and Original Institutional Economists

There are two institutional economics approaches to law and economics. New institutional economists prescribe that arbitrators foster efficiency in setting economic disputes and original institutional economists focus on creating reasonable values – that is, balancing efficiency and justice. Disequilibrium between desired efficiency and perceived fairness triggers agency and is a source of coevolution of law and economics.     

Theoretical Issues of Gender in the Transition from Socialist Regimes

Institutional economics is often presented by its critics as a tradition in political economy purporting a mechanistic, robot-like, view of the human agent. In this paper this portrayal of institutional economics is rejected and choice is reclaimed for institutionalism. In fact, institutional economics is not committed to an understanding of behavior as mere stimulus-response. Notwithstanding the fact that institutionalism places great emphasis on habit in human conduct, this does not mean that it excludes autonomy, volition or rationality.

The paper addresses the notion of habit within the pragmatist-institutionalist tradition with the aim of clarifying this concept, disentangling it from current misconceptions. With the intention of contributing to the development of a theory of choice in institutionalism, it then deals with deliberation and choice in the pragmatist literature, namely in John Dewey's Human Action and Conduct. Finally, the implications of deliberation thus conceived, namely in respect to collective action and institutional change, are highlighted.     

Social Economics and Evolutionary Institutionalism Today

This paper discusses theoretical and methodological elements that constitute social economics. It also considers those elements for evolutionary (Veblenian) institutional economics. It investigates how these “heterodoxies” may further converge. Such convergence would probably not trigger a complete unification, but lead to a broadly defined common research program and a strategy for joint “heterodox” survival, in face of the ranking game of the neoclassical “mainstream” and of the dominant powers supporting it as the discipline providing ideological legitimization. A common denominator of “heterodoxies” in terms of real-world orientation, direct interdependency and interaction of agents (social decision situations), appropriate complexity, and the treatment of values is drafted. Theoretical concepts discussed include complex and open systems, individual agency, institutions, embeddedness, networks, social reform, and process orientation. Formal methodological developments considered are complex modeling, game theory, or computer simulations. We arrive at a more formal common basis, which we term socio-economics. We also consider the relations of evolution and institutions, the institutional dichotomy, and the theory of institutional change. The monism of the “market” of the “mainstream” turns out to dissolve into the institutional diversity of real-world network forms, which helps explaining real-world forms of markets, hierarchies, or spatial clusters. Focuses of “heterodox” convergence will have to be the related “microfoundations” and “macrofoundations” projects, integrating an interdisciplinary “naturalistic” approach to genetic-cultural co-evolution of cooperation, and social reform. While modern socio-economics makes “heterodoxies” leading in economic research, their future still appears open between ideological cleansing and extinction through the mainstream, and proactive paradigmatic pluralism.     

新制度经济学委托代理理论视野的拓展*

新制度经济学中的委托代理理论基于“经济人理性”假定,设计出了精密、精巧、精致的委托代理制度,有效化解了现代企业中委托人与代理人之间利益冲突并提升了企业运营效率。然而,现代企业实践已经证明,即使委托代理制度十分精密、精巧、精致,仍然没有彻底解决委托人与代理人之间的利益冲突和企业运营效率进一步提升问题。因此,必须拓展既有理论视野,从“经济人理性”假定拓展到“经济人+社会人+家庭人复合理性”假定,这样就能够实现委托代理理论视野的拓展。运用新制度经济学研究方法和双边对称信任数理模型表明：基于委托代理制度,进一步强化委托人与代理人之间双边对称信任度,可以进一步化解他们之间的利益冲突并且改善企业运营效率。基于这一结论,强化委托人与代理人之间双边对称信任度的具体路径是优化社会信任环境系统。     

Creating Legitimacy,Reciprocity, and Transfer Programs

Sustainable development prospects are not substantially visible in the comparative analysis of models of capitalism. The concept of sustainable development does not appear in the initial theoretical framework of the “variety of capitalism” approach or in the “diversity of capitalism” approach. This article aims to contribute to current thinking about the interaction between the diversity of capitalism and sustainable development, based on the concepts of institutional complementarity and hierarchy, and to question the dynamics of various forms of capitalism in this perspective. The example of economic policies aimed at tackling global warming shows how each form of capitalism adopts measures that are compatible with its own unique configuration of complementary institutions, helping to make it “greener.” However, this trend fits into a dynamic of “limited sustainability” that does not challenge the finance-dominated institutional hierarchy or the current growth regime. The non-viability of our production/consumption model on a global scale calls for a more radical change in capitalism, combined with a shift in the institutional hierarchy.     

The Histonomic Approach to Economics: Beyond Pure Theory and Pure Experience

This article starts off with the distinction between logico-deductive and empirico-deductive approaches to economic theory. The logicodeductive approach, for instance neoclassical economics, uses an axiomatic framework that has only little empirical substance. The empirico-deductive approach, for instance, Ricardian economics, attempts to state economic theory as a “typical” structure of reality. It appears that the latter approach touches reality more closely and is more sensitive to intellectual enrichment and to substantial empirical evidence. However, both approaches operate within the basic assumption applied in classical physics, that theory must represent an invariant structure of reality—highlighting in this case economic phenomena that do not change over time. In the following, the induction issue is given new life, suggesting its validity under the non-conventional assumptions ofvariancy and time-asymmetry. A “histonomic” approach stressing the importance of making theoretical (-nomic) statements about economic phenomena that are basically historical (histo-) in their non-classical properties of variancy and time-asymmetry is favored.     

Core Concepts of Institutionalist Public Finance: Problem Solving,Institutional Analysis,Strategic Choice,and Stakeholder Engagement

Citizens and policymakers in many nations are becoming increasingly concerned about large budget deficits and mounting long-term fiscal policy challenges. At the same time, slow economic growth in the United States and Europe is causing some people to demand more government spending (and lower taxes) and others to question the efficacy of fiscal policy. Against that backdrop, institutional economists are exhibiting renewed interest in the field of public finance. This article responds by outlining four core concepts of institutionalist public finance: problem solving, institutional analysis, strategic choice, and stakeholder engagement. What distinguishes the perspective of institutionalism from that of neoclassical economics, today’s dominant economic paradigm, is described in the course of the discussion. The core concepts of institutionalist public finance offer a coherent approach to the study of fiscal policy questions. Those concepts were first fashioned decades ago, but remain relevant: institutionalism continues to provide a solid basis for constructive analyses of fiscal challenges.     

马克思主义与制度经济学

新制度经济学是对古典制度经济学的复归,而马克思的政治经济学则是古典制度经济学的集大成者.从古典制度经济学到新制度经济学的发展,体现了经济学演进历史的内在逻辑性.但是,马克思制度经济学与新制度经济学存在着根本分歧:前者以揭示经济制度的本质为目的;后者以为市场经济运行服务为目的.这种根本分歧的存在,决定了我们不应将二者的理论基点和研究方法混为一谈.     

Neoliberal ordnungstheorie and constitutional economics

Various new theoretical approaches, such as the economics of property rights, economic analysis of law or constitutional economics, have led to a renaissance of institutional theory. To a large extent, this renaissance emerged independently of the old institutionalism. In Germany, institutional analysis has a long and autonomous tradition, which has not been given proper international recognition. This applies especially to the neoliberal Ordnungstheorie, of which Walter Eucken is generally acknowledged to be the leading representative. This article examines the methodological and theoretical similarities and differences between Eucken's Ordnungstheorie and Buchanan's Constitutional Economics. I am indebted to Jack Wiseman for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.     

区域经济一体化的机制与效应--基于制度距离的空间发展解释

面对后疫情时代、逆全球化的复杂环境以及"双循环"国家发展战略新要求,消除阻碍要素流动与配置壁垒、促进区域经济一体化的意义更为迫切。但是如何深刻地观察和衡量制度壁垒的空间效应在实践中是一个难题,也缺乏相应的有效理论支撑。经济地理学的制度转向带来了研究焦点从"物与结构"向"制度"转变,文章将新制度经济学中的"制度距离"概念引入区域空间经济研究中,认为由于地方之间的制度环境和制度安排差异所导致的"制度距离",为区域空间经济分析提供了新的理论视角与测度方法。文章揭示了区域空间发展中制度距离的作用机制,初步构建了影响区域经济一体化的空间经济分析解释框架,基于制度距离与空间距离建立了二维分析象限,分析了三种典型的区域空间效应表征类型。     

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.     

An Institutional Explanation for Economists’ Theoretical and Methodological Choices

Scientific research in general and economics research in particular is a social act. More specifically, schools of economic thought as well as associations, research groups and conferences are expressions of social organizations within the realm of economics. Historically, studies investigating the methodologies used in economics have focused on the strengths of these social organizations. This study aims to analyze the key roles played by individuals within social organizations in building and reinforcing economics and, in turn, their influence on these individuals. To achieve this goal, we use an institutionalist approach in a broad sense. We show how economics as an academic environment can be presented as an institutional entanglement and how an institutionalist approach can enhance an understanding of why economists adopt a particular theoretical and methodological perspective. It is argued that habits, observations and cognitive abilities should be seriously considered to understand the logic and decision making of economic researchers. We discuss also the importance of forming groups in the process of institutionalizing elements relevant to an economic researcher’s logic and decision making and present an interpretation of mainstream economics in terms of the analytical approach of our study.     

Limits of the New Institutional Economics Approach to African Development

In the last two decades, there has been a marked shift in the research on Sub-Saharan Africa from standard neoclassical analysis to new institutional economics (NIE). The increasing emphasis on NIE is reflected in a wide range of works by international financial institutions and scholars. However, the NIE approach retains fundamental limitations due to its narrow interpretation of institutions, its over-reliance on analysis of transactions costs and property rights, and its ahistorical attachment to markets and private sector firms as major engines of development. Furthermore, NIE typically fails to look “inside institutions” to identify the complex cultural factors that shape the interests and behaviors of the members of institutions. This paper engages in a critique of NIE analysis of Sub-Saharan Africa’s economic development, and suggests the need for a nuanced analysis of property rights and culture, along with development programs to address inequality and poverty and to foster state-led development.     

Socioeconomics and the new “battle of the methods”: Towards a paradigm shift?

During the last ten or fifteen years the old separation between economics and other social sciences has increasingly been challenged by economists applying the neoclassical paradigm to problems that traditionally concern the other social sciences. The main thesis of this paper is that this so-called “economic imperialism” threatens to unleash a new paradigmatic struggle in the social sciences, which is likely to be just as destructive as the old Methodenstreit. It is in this situation that socioeconomics emerges as a viable alternative since it emphasizes the need for a systhesis of the findings of several social sciences when an economic problem is analyzed. The article stresses the original battle of the methods at the turn of the century that gave birth to a set of ideas, analogous to those of Etzioni on socioeconomics, namely what Max Weber called Sozialökonomik. The emergence of “economic imperialism” is described, and the essay ends with a plea for a socioeconomics in the sense of a broad, overarching approach to economic analysis. Economic imperialism, it is concluded, threatens to close the door to new developments in economics; socioeconomics, on the other hand, tries to keep it open.     

Institutionalism and the “Common Man” Through the Lens of Philip Klein: Business Cycles,the Public Sector,and Keynes’s Economics

This article reviews and assesses Philip Klein’s work on business cycles and macroeconomics, the public sector, and the economics of John Maynard Keynes. The article makes several findings. First, Klein built on the pioneering efforts of Wesley Mitchell to advance the development of cycle indicators and to outline an eclectic theory of cycles that remains useful for synthesizing a broad literature. Second, Klein’s essays on macroeconomics contain enduring discussions of the malleability of the “natural” rate of unemployment and the value of a behavioral approach to expectations. Third, he refocused the institutionalist attention on the public sector by introducing “higher efficiency” and other concepts to help explain how government policy plays a role in economic life. Fourth, Klein emphasized the role of fiscal policy in moderating business cycles. Fifth, his work points in the direction of today’s post-Keynesian institutionalism, both by stressing that Keynes was “profoundly institutionalist” in his approach and by arguing that conjoining Keynes and institutionalism would provide a stronger foundation for macroeconomic theory and policy.     

What If There Are No Conventional Price Mechanisms?

Inspired by Frederic (“Fred”) S. Lee’s theoretical contribution to institutional-heterodox economics, I make the case that the neoclassical price mechanism is not only flawed, but also irrelevant for the study of actual coordination mechanisms, hence the price mechanism — as a theory as well as a way of thinking — should be discarded. While this position was addressed by early institutionalists, starting with Thorstein Veblen, later institutionalists have not completely rejected the price mechanism. The sympathy for the price mechanism has prevented institutionalists (and other heterodox economists) from fully developing an alternative theoretical framework concerning how actual economic activities are organized. I, therefore, provide an institutionalist-heterodox framework of the provisioning process focusing on business enterprise activities. This framework shows how institutional economics becomes more refined and useful when it is married to other traditions in heterodox economics, in particular, Marxian, social, and post-Keynesian economics. Such an integrative approach is what Fred Lee showed through his work toward producing a better theory and policy for the underlying population.     

Solving the U.S. Trade Deficit and Competitiveness Problem

We compare the analytical approach of John R. Common and Ronald H. Coase to institutional analysis and social provisioning. In particular, we examine their similarities in (i) the definition and role of institutions in the economy, (ii) the allocative (social provisioning) role of institutions in the economy, and (iii) the inescapable and unchanging role of institutions in shaping the social provisioning process. We contend that Commons and Coase had more in common than did Coase and many of his followers in the “new institutional economics.” In particular, the two had strong similarities in both (a) their insights into the nature of institutions in the legal-economic nexus that is the foundation of the economy and (b) their methods for conducting economics research. Because this role of institutional evolution is, as Warren Samuels noted, an inescapable and unchanging part of an economy’s social provisioning process, it will remain an integral part of any such work in the future, regardless of the “school of analysis” or methodological approach.     

Economic Reforms in Socialist Economics: A Comment on Petr

Abstract:

The pre-WWII approaches to trade unions were mainly based on the theoretical and methodological viewpoints of early institutional economics. Trade unions were conceived of as politico-economic organizations whose members were motivated by relative comparisons, and also were concerned with issues of equity and justice. In the post-war period, there was a major theoretical and methodological shift toward the idea of unions as optimizing economic units with well-defined objective functions, which are optimized subject to purely economic constraints. This conceptual transformation took place mainly through the Dunlop -Ross debate, in which John Dunlop conceived of unions as analogous to business firms, as opposed to Arthur Ross’s institutional and political approach. However, after decades of analytical developments, the current state of trade union theory has not produced very impressive theoretical results. We trace the historical development of the economic analysis of trade unions from a methodological perspective. We also examine the methodological reasons for the dominance of Dunlop’s approach, and the current state of – and the contemporary criticism toward – the established theory. Furthermore, we discuss the contemporary efforts to build a more comprehensive approach to trade union theory and trade union objectives, also incorporating Ross’s institutional and political insights.