Contemporary Economic thought. The Contribution of Neo-Institutional Economics

This article examines the historical developments of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise since the early 1900s in order to demonstrate its distinctive characteristics that are often overlooked or belittled by some institutional-evolutionary economists and most mainstream economists. I argue that the institutionalist theory is an evolving and emergent theory, which bears a reciprocal, evolutionary, and cumulative relationship between the business enterprise and society. The institutionalist theory is, therefore, suitable for the understanding of the real-world business enterprise as it can be modified and refined along with the evolution of capitalism. The article begins with a discussion of the present state of the institutionalist theory. The following section is devoted to the major contributions to the institutionalist theory situated in the evolution of U.S. capitalism. The penultimate section provides a critical discussion of new institutional and evolutionary approaches to the firm. The article concludes with a brief discussion as to what should be done for the further development of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise.     

Toward a 0th Law of Thermodynamics: Order-Creation Complexity Dynamics from Physics and Biology to Bioeconomics

The evolutionary economics part of bioeconomics has its origins in attempts to justify why only rational firms survive, or to introduce dynamics into economic orthodoxy. To the extent that these views persist, this aspect of bioeconomics appears outdated. A more recent view is that the most significant dynamics in bio- and econospheres are not variances around equilibria. Instead order is now seen to be due to the interactions of autonomous, heterogeneous agents energized by contextually imposed tensions induced by energy differentials. While Darwinian selection is still an important process at the tail end of the order-creation process, other natural forces surrounding the biosphere are seen as causing the more significant changes in biological entities over the millennia. This view is set forth within the framework of thermodynamics. It also calls for a change away from the definition of science rooted in the equilibrium mathematics of Newton's orbital mechanics. This new message from natural science is about rapid-fire dynamics calling for a fast-motion science of order-creation before the equilibria of the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics take hold. The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics is seen to dominate the 1^st Law as the root cause of change. The possibility of a 0^th law – of agents' self-organization toward order creation – is considered. Key works by Prigogine, Ashby, Lorenz, Haken, Kelso et al., Salthe, Gell-Mann, Mainzer, Omnès, and Kauffman are reviewed. Nine premises – tracing the path toward an emerging 0^th law – are discussed, with some variance also evident. The view of Kelso et al. most easily leads to a one-sentence statement of a possible 0^th law of order creation that could offer something of value to bioeconomists.     

"三农"问题的制度经济学分析

从制度经济学的角度来看,制度歧视、扭曲、农村组织缺位及制度变迁的滞后、非均衡是导致"三农"问题的直接原因,而诺斯的"国家理论"则揭示了"三农"问题的更深层原因。     

比较创新体制与比较历史创新体制——开创比较经济学研究的新框架

近十几年来,建基于新制度经济学和博弈论的广泛影响,比较制度分析和历史制度分析在比较经济学领域已经成为最有影响的分析范式,但它在处理技术创新、制度演化和结构变迁等诸多问题上却存在着固有的缺陷。为了克服这些缺陷,本文以演化经济学的研究纲领为基础,提出了比较创新体制和比较历史创新体制作为比较经济学研究新框架的构想,简要说明了它在基础理论上与比较制度分析和历史制度分析所存在的重大差别,论述了这种新框架的概念、体系内容和意义所在,综述了相关研究的最新进展,并讨论了比较创新体制和比较历史创新体制的重大前沿问题。本文认为,比较创新体制和比较历史创新体制是我国创新型国家建设不可或缺的研究工具,它为比较经济学的新发展提供了最有价值的新范式和新框架,比较经济学界不应该把其发展排除在视野之外。     

个体认知、权威决策与中国农地制度变迁——一个动态演化博弈模型的构建及检验

超越\"强制性-诱致性变迁\"二分法,构建动态制度变迁模型是制度经济学研究的前沿和难题。本文初步构建了一个以个体和权威为主体,包含制度变迁成本的动态演化博弈模型,并以中国农地制度变迁历程中的两个典型案例进行实证检验。研究表明,权威决策是正式规则的主要来源,个体共同认知则是非正式约束的主要来源,二者共同决定了制度变迁的方向;制度变迁成本是重要的激励约束因素,制度变迁的速度则取决于制度变迁成本与个体认知、权威决策三者的一致性程度,一个高效、有序的制度变迁过程应尽量避免三者的背离和冲突。因此,政府主导进行的农地制度改革应特别关注农民认知,尊重农民意愿;对具有高变迁成本的制度变迁采取渐进改革的方式,适时建立过渡性的制度安排,并在改革的速度与质量之间做好权衡,以减少改革阻力,提高改革效率。     

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.     

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.      

Bioeconomics as economics from a Darwinian perspective

Bioeconomics—the merging of views from biology and economics—on the one hand invites the 'export' of situational logic and sophisticated optimization developed in economics into biology. On the other hand, human economic activity and its evolution, not least over the past few centuries, may be considered an instance for fruitfully applying ideas from evolutionary biology and Darwinian theory. The latter perspective is taken in the present paper. Three different aspects are discussed in detail. First, the Darwinian revolution provides an example of a paradigm shift which contrasts most significantly with the 'subjectivist revolution' that took place at about the same time in economics. Since many of the features of the paradigmatic change that were introduced into the sciences by Darwinism may be desirable for economics as well, the question is explored whether the Darwinian revolution can be a model for introducing a new paradigm in economic theory. Second, the success of Darwinism and its view of evolution have induced economists who are interested in an evolutionary approach in economics to borrow, more or less extensively, concepts and tools from Darwinian theory. Particularly prominent are constructions based on analogies to the theory of natural selection. Because several objections to such analogy constructions can be raised, generalization rather than analogy is advocated here as a research strategy. This means to search for abstract features which all evolutionary theories have in common. Third, the question of what a Darwinian world view might mean for assessing long term economic evolution is discussed. Such a view, it is argued, can provide a point of departure for reinterpreting the hedonistic approach to economic change and development. On the basis of such an interpretation bioeconomics may not only go beyond the optimization-cum-equilibrium paradigm currently prevailing in economics. It may also mean adding substantial qualifications to the subjectivism the neoclassical economists, at the turn of the century, were proud to establish in the course of their scientific revolution.     

人本发展经济学要义——阿马蒂亚·森\"以自由看发展\"思想的一个理论拓展

发展的实质是人的发展,是人类在自然历史演进中不断追求自由而全面发展的过程,或者说,是人类为维持生存、实现独立自主和获得自由而不断增进其力量和价值的自然历史过程.从人类\"理性\"追求角度引出基于三层次自由的发展含义,进而给出一个推广了的马克思(三域耦合)社会再生产图式,并以此模型作为基础框架,结合马克思主义关于\"人的全面发展\"学说及1998年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者阿马蒂亚·森\"以自由看发展\"的观点,我们可以在宏观动态上描述人类社会经济发展的人本化自由指向,以阐释\"发展是拓展人类主体性自由\"的人本发展思想,从而使我们得以超越传统发展经济学的局限,构建一种更有普适性和解释力的人本发展经济学理论体系.     

Imperfect competition in financial markets and capital structure

We consider a model of corporate finance with imperfectly competitive financial intermediaries. Firms can finance projects either via debt or via equity. Because of asymmetric information about firms’ growth opportunities, equity financing involves a dilution cost. Nevertheless, equity emerges in equilibrium whenever financial intermediaries have sufficient market power. In the latter case, best firms issue debt while the less profitable firms are equity-financed. We also show that strategic interaction between oligopolistic intermediaries results in multiple equilibria. If one intermediary chooses to buy more debt, the price of debt decreases, so the best equity-issuing firms switch from equity to debt financing. This in turn decreases average quality of equity-financed pool, so other intermediaries also shift towards more debt.     

Does mother nature punish rotten kids?

The theory of parent-offspring conflict predicts that mothers and their offspring may not agree about how resources should be allocated among family members. An offspring, for example, may favor a later weaning date than does its mother. Despite a parent's physical superiority, it may be that offspring are able to manipulate their parents' behavior. In this paper, we investigate a two-locus population genetic model of weaning conflict in which offspring can attempt to extort resources from their parents by reducing their own chances of survival if their demands are not met. We find that the frequency of recombination between the genes controlling maternal behavior and those controlling juvenile behavior determines the evolutionary outcome of this genetic conflict. When these genes are tightly linked, the mother will be able to get her way. When they are not, offspring can successfully 'blackmail' their parents into providing additional resources.     

Schumpeter and the `Schmollerprogramm': integrating theory and history in the analysis of economic development

This essay addresses the historical and institutional aspects of Schumpeter's thought. It suggests that Schumpeter prepared a pluralist research agenda, formulated in accordance with the conceptual perspective of the German Historical School, as presented by major scholars such as Schmoller, Sombart, Spiethoff and Max Weber. Schumpeter's notion of development, with its emphasis on the correspondence of economic and socio-cultural evolution, is therefore to be viewed in the context of the comprehensive Schmollerian approach. Moreover the ethical-evolutionary components of Schmoller's ideas point at the vital role of the German Historical School in the elaboration of a modern evolutionary economics in Schumpeterian terms. The essay concludes that the Schmollerprogramm is going to inspire further developments in Schumpeterian economics, as the integration of theory and history continuously marks the research agenda of evolutionary approaches to economic development.