To Trust or to Control: Informal Value Transfer Systems and Computational Analysis in Institutional Economics

This article illustrates the usefulness of computational methods for the investigation of institutions. As an example, we use a computational agent-based model to study the role of general trust and social control in informal value transfer systems (IVTS). We find that the terms of interaction between general trust and social control have an impact on how IVTS work, become stable, and prove highly effective. The case shows how computational models may help (i) to operationalize institutional theory and to clarify the functioning of institutions; (ii) to test the logical consistency of alternative hypotheses about institutions; and (iii) to relate institutionalist theory with other paradigms and to practice an interested pluralism.     

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.     

Big data and complexity: Is macroeconomics heading toward a new paradigm?

The paper discusses the extent to which the availability of unprecedentedly rich data-sets and the need for new approaches – both epistemological and computational – is an emerging issue for Macroeconomics. By adopting an evolutionary approach, we describe the paradigm shifts experienced in the macroeconomic research field and emphasize that the types of data the macroeconomist has to deal with play an important role in the evolutionary process of the development of the discipline. After introducing the current debate over Big Data in social sciences, the paper presents a detailed discussion of possible and existing interactions between Big Data and Computational Behavioral Macroeconomics. We argue that Big Data applied to economic questions can lead to new styles of thinking and research methods, namely to the development of a new research paradigm.     

Towards a History of American Institutional Economics

This paper focuses on a number of issues that have arisen in my efforts to deal with the history of American institutional economics in the interwar period. The specific issues addressed here are (1) the choice of time frame; (2) the definition of institutionalism in terms of its commonly held ideas; (3) the treatment of the network of personal contacts that make up the institutional movement; (4) the treatment of certain institutional and cross-disciplinary connections and supports; and (5) the variety of reasons lying behind the relative decline in the position of institutional economics after World War II. Each of these issues is discussed in light of historical material and examples and with a view to detailing the specific challenges and possible solutions involved.     

新自由主义思潮的经济哲学批判

新自由主义经济学重要代表人物哈耶克与弗里德曼等人都以其经济学认识论与方法论而著称。在哈耶克的自发秩序原理和弗里德曼的货币主义理论中,个体人的自由行动构成为最基本的概念范畴,进而在自由竞争的市场体制下促成了资本主义的繁荣发展。随着二十世纪七十年代新自由主义的兴起及其全球化资本主义的盛行,其反思与批判成为了现代政治经济学的核心议题,并对马克思主义的时代发展具有重要比较意义。     

Philosophy of Economics Rules: introduction to the symposium

ABSTRACT

Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik’s account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange that could improve our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik’s Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.     

The Circular Economy and Institutional Economics: Compatibility and Complementarity

The notion of a circular economy (CE) developed out of the work of Kenneth Boulding and others concerned about Earth’s limited resources and its capacity for regeneration. The concept has recently become the heart of an economic perspective influencing governments, companies, and researchers. Core topics examined by those researchers include resource use, economic value, and systems thinking. The CE literature and the tradition of institutional economics (IE) have important elements of compatibility and complementarity which we examine in this article. There are also opportunities for collaboration between CE and IE.     

Taxonomizing the Relationship Between Biology and Economics: A Very Long Engagement

Synopsis This paper taxonomizes the possible types of linkage between the two disciplines of economics and biology. The most fundamental division is between, on the one hand, theories of the causal interaction between social and biological phenomena, and, on the other hand, theories addressing the degrees to which the two types of phenomena may be subject to common abstract principles. These two types themselves subdivide into a multiplicity of possibilities. While this detailed taxonomy reveals some options that are undermined by modern science, some others remain scientifically viable but have been relatively neglected.      

新制度主义经济学与城市经营

近年来“经营城市”运作模式在我国取得一定成效的同时,也出现了一些偏差或负面效应。本文以新制度主义经济学为出发点,分析城市的本质是一种制度,因此,提出用“经营-管治”一体化制度安排来确保“经营城市”的健康发展。     

The 2016 Veblen-Commons Award Recipient: Daniel W. Bromley: Institutional Economics

Institutional economics remains impaired by a lack of agreement as to the meaning of the concept “institution.” At the practical level, this conceptual muddle prevents progress in the crucial task of helping problematic states in Africa, parts of South Asia, and the Middle East. Thousands of refugees seeking to enter Europe are a reminder of the tragic consequences of dysfunctional states. Standard international development programs — emphasizing economic growth and fighting poverty — are counter-productive because they fail to address the underlying institutional incoherence in fragile states. They are flawed because they focus on symptoms rather than reasons. A focus on the reasons for current dysfunctional states would bring attention to the defective institutional architecture — legal relations — that prevents the emergence of economic coherence where dysfunction now reigns. We must help countries craft economic institutions that will improve livelihoods. But conceptual coherence about institutions must first emerge from the academy.     

经济学研究的两大基本内容及其对知识结构的要求——对日益狭隘化的现代主流经济学之反思

经济学的根本目的是提高国民和社会的福利,这不仅关涉到自然资源的利用问题,而且关涉到人与人之间的社会关系。相应地,经济学的研究内容包含了伦理学和工程学两个方面:它们是相辅相成的,共同构建了整个经济学的理论大厦。事实上,不仅经济学与伦理学之间的关系源远流长,而且即使是专注于研究自然资源配置问题的主流经济学,也根本无法脱离具体的社会关系。正因如此,经济学的研究需要非常广泛的知识;否则,根本无法理解具体的经济现象,也无法提供合理的政策建议。然而,现代主流经济学日益局限于工程学一个方面,并极端地采取抽象化的分析路线,偏重于数理的训练而疏忽其他社会科学领域知识的吸收,从而造成了理论与现实的脱节。     

The Recent Critique of Theoretical Economics: A Methodologically Informed Investigation

My purpose is to appraise the recent critique of theoretical economics by applying the methodological perspective. Therefore, I start by identifying the main lines of criticism raised against theoretical economics in the aftermath of the post-2008 global economic crisis: namely, the voices criticizing economics for its unrealistic models, excessive mathematization, and overconfidence in its theoretical claims. First, I show that these issues are interconnected and should be jointly analyzed. Next, I investigate these lines of critique from the perspective provided by the latest achievements in the philosophy of economics (e.g., studies on the epistemic role of economic models). Taking this perspective reinforces some allegations against economics (e.g., these voices accusing economists of treating economic laws as universal laws of nature) and makes some criticisms more nuanced (e.g., the issue of unrealistic assumptions). I conclude by stating that such a methodological perspective is necessary in critically apprising the recent critique of economics.     

经济学发展的基本途径

笔者探讨了经济学发展的基本途径,以经济学的自然科学基础更新为例,说明经济学发展要吸收科学发展的成果;以金融市场成为"人造市场"为例.说明经济学发展需要从现实中吸收营养;以当前金融--经济危机为例.说明经济学发展需要继承前人的研究成果,特别是马克思的基本理论;以科学发展的两条道路为例.说明经济学发展需要遵循科学发展的客观规律.     

Order-Dependent Knowledge and the Economics of Science

Economists approaching the study of science typically assume the applicability of a market analogy, but then base their analysis on the presumption that science constitutes an area of pervasive market failure. Given the interactions that are actually observed to occur between scientists, we suspect that the failure is in the analogy, not in the putative market. In considering how one might better apply the economic way of thinking to the understanding of science as an activity, we suggest that it is necessary to specify exactly how scientific interaction differs from market interaction, and to be clear about how the behavior of interacting scientists might be modeled in terms of the general pursuit of self-interest in a noncatallactic context. Our model of science portrays an institutionalized mode of interaction between scientists involving the publication, use, and citation of scientific papers, and it is in the exploration of the individual incentives thrown up by this arrangement that the interesting empirical implications arise. We give a short exposition of the possible lines of investigation that could be followed based on this approach.     

Towards Sustainability Economics: Principles and Values

Synopsis  Radical alternatives, in terms of our ideas about science in society, about economics, ideology and institutional arrangements, should be included among possibilities considered within the scope of a pluralistic philosophy. While all these aspects of our mental maps are interrelated and important, economics plays a key role in attempts to get closer to a sustainable society. Mainstream neoclassical economics is not enough. The tendency to exclusively rely on this particular theory is considered part of the problems faced. A ‘sustainability economics’ more in line with dominant ideas of democracy is proposed, emphasizing the ethical, ideological and political elements. Reference is made to institutional theory but the principles and concepts suggested are in many ways similar to other kinds of heterodox economics and developments in other social sciences. Neoclassical economics is used as a point of reference in pointing to alternative ideas about human beings, organizations, markets, decision- making, efficiency, rationality, progress in society and institutional change processes. Predilection for such an alternative conceptual framework (or for neoclassical economics) is not exclusively a scientific choice but as much a matter of political and ideological preferences. One paradigm may be dominant at a time, but because of the ideological specificity of each paradigm, competing theoretical perspectives should be accepted and even encouraged in a democratic society.      

两种制度经济学范式中的意识形态理论:分歧与根源

作为制度经济学的两种范式,新制度经济学和马克思经济学的意识形态理论在意识形态的本质和功能、意识形态的根源与变迁、意识形态与制度变迁的关系等方面存在着明显的分歧.整体来看,马克思的分析框架迄今仍是最有说服力的.这些分歧的根源是方法论:新制度经济学的方法论是制度个体主义和建构理性主义,马克思的制度经济学的方法论是制度整体主义与制度个体主义的统一、演进理性主义与建构理性主义的统一.     

金融系统复杂性度量

金融系统复杂性的度量是金融系统复杂性形式化的内在要求,也是金融系统复杂性理论研究的基本问题之一。根据系统基本参量的构成,可以将金融系统的复杂性划分为:结构复杂性、环境复杂性、功能复杂性和动态复杂性四个层面。金融系统结构复杂性与系统组元之间的关系相关,环境复杂性与自然环境的突变、经济环境的波动、制度环境的变化相关,功能复杂性涉及到系统功能发挥的不确定性与系统功能实现的复杂性两个方面的因素,动态复杂性关注金融活动的复杂性与金融系统演化的不确定性。对于结构复杂性,可将组元之间关系划分为依赖关系和分解关系,并借鉴信息熵的概念进行度量;对于后三个层面的复杂性,可以通过各度量指标的分级赋值,构建它们的度量指数。金融系统复杂性划分为四个层面分别进行度量研究,可以解决系统整体复杂性度量的困难,构造出金融系统总体复杂性度量模型。     

Real-World Economics Today:The New Complexity,Co-ordination and Policy

More realistic economics has to start out from the most basic socio-economic phenomena and processes, i.e. dilemma-prone interdependencies and strong uncertainty among agents that have become ubiquitous phenomena in the world today. In the reality of the “new” economy these are represented by functional and spatial fragmentation of value-added chains, global de-regulation and disembedding of the most powerful economic agents, on one hand, and increasing complexity and high integration of goods and services and net-based tele-IC-technologies on the other hand. All these rather new phenomena entail ubiquitous actual or potential co-ordination failure, either in the form of conventional “market failure”, with a complete mutual blockage of action, or of “wrong” co-ordination, or technological “lock-in”. Both forms are indicative of an insufficient capacity of the co-ordinated action required. In contrast, capability of sustainable innovative action in a broad sense requires new forms of co-ordination beyond “market” and “hierarchy”. Economics thus has to be defined more than ever as a science of effective co-ordination and the generation of innovative and sustainable collective action capacity. The global corporate economy has developed individualist arrangements to cope with that new co-ordination problem, such as local clusters and hub&spoke networks, which all have severe shortcomings. Against this background, the paper develops a setting with ubiquitous direct interdependencies, net-externalities, “strategic” strong uncertainty and ubiquitous (latent) social-dilemma problems. It discusses the possibility of an ideal decentralized and spontaneous co-ordination through emergent institutionalized collective action, specifically of “well-governed” network co-operation. In conclusion, it is argued that only a hybrid system of networks together with a new public policy role, supporting collective learning and emergent institutional co-ordination, i.e. an “interactive” and “institutional” policy approach, is capable of solving the co-ordination problems of the “new” economy.     

Cornelius Castoriadis on the Scope and Content of Neoclassical and Marxian Economics

The paper presents the thought of the political philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis on economic methodology and the neoclassical and Marxian traditions. Castoriadis suggested that the scope of economic theory includes the identification of “local” regularities and not the search for invariant “laws.” He criticized the use of equilibrium and the utilitarian framework in the neoclassical tradition and proposed to approach human agency based on the Aristotelian concept of the “social individual.” In addition, he criticized the deterministic nature of the Marxian “laws.” According to Castoriadis, the use of concepts such as the “production function” and “capital” presents a number of caveats.