Institutionalism,Planning, and the Current Crisis

This article originated in a shock of recognition. In the second volume of his discourse on “Civilization and Capitalism,” Fernand Braudel muses on the “eclecticism” of “the most advanced kind of capitalism”: “As if the characteristic advantage of standing at the commanding heights of the economy … consisted precisely of not having to confine oneself to a single choice, of being able, as today’s businessmen would put it, to keep one’s options open.”¹ My colleagues and I work as venture capitalists and as investment bankers of a specialized kind, engaged in raising capital to support the growth of technologybased companies and in realizing liquidity for their founding investors—often ourselves—by managing public offerings of their shares or by merging them into much larger companies. A primary virtue of our practice is the opportunity to choose with broad discretion where to commit our own and our clients’ capital across what Braudel calls “the differential geography ofprofit.”²     

The Current State of Institutional Economics: The Movement's Limited Impact on the Conventional Science Is Ascribed to Disunity, Disinterest in General Theory

A bstract . The current state of institutional economics is far from being satisfactory. Leading institutionalists have not taken an active role in the institutionalist movement. Also the institutionalists have displayed little unity in either their theoretical or policy positions. They have become engrossed in the analysis of limited issues rather than in an exposition of the theoretical foundations of their economics. An evaluation of the four main groups of institutionalists reveals that their impact on conventional theoretical and applied economics has been very limited. If the institutionalist movement is to improve its status, leading institutionalists will have to support this movement more actively; and more attention will have to be paid to the movement's theoretical Underpinning. Also the institutionalists will have to develop a more unified policy position which can receive the support of a widespread constituency. Failing to move along these lines can only have the result of continuing institutionalism's low status.