History as a laboratory to better understand the formation of institutions

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAS VAN BAVEL
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Social History ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Social ◽  
Main Instrument

AbstractA main instrument for better understanding the formation of institutions, and explaining the differences in their long-run development between periods and societies, would be to use history as a laboratory, allowing us to test the hypotheses developed in the social sciences. This paper discusses the study by Douglas Allen,The Institutional Revolution, in that context, in order to identify some of the pitfalls in the current attempts by economists to use historical analysis. Next, the paper places his English case into a comparative perspective, helped by the recent insights gained by economic and social history, to see how these pitfalls can be avoided. Based on this, I argue for comparisons at the regional, national and global levels, and for a multidimensional view which includes social contextualization, combined with an open eye for discontinuity in long-run patterns, in order to avoid one-dimensional and teleological approaches to institutional change.

Historical Overview of Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-58
Author(s):  
Svend Brinkmann ◽  
Michael Hviid Jacobsen ◽  
Søren Kristiansen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Social History ◽  
Historical Overview ◽  
Conceptual History ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
Technological History

Qualitative research does not represent a monolithic, agreed-on approach to research but is a vibrant and contested field with many contradictions and different perspectives. To respect the multivoicedness of qualitative research, this chapter will approach its history in the plural—as a variety of histories. The chapter will work polyvocally and focus on six histories of qualitative research, which are sometimes overlapping, sometimes in conflict, and sometimes even incommensurable. They can be considered articulations of different discourses about the history of the field, which compete for researchers’ attention. The six histories are: (a) the conceptual history of qualitative research, (b) the internal history of qualitative research, (c) the marginalizing history of qualitative research, (d) the repressed history of qualitative research, (e) the social history of qualitative research, and (f) the technological history of qualitative research.

School Notes: Committee on Historical Studies

1987 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-236
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Processes Of Change ◽  
Graduate Faculty ◽  
New School ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Historical Moment

The Committee on Historical Studies was established in the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research in 1984. The Graduate Faculty has long emphasized the contribution of history to the social sciences. Committee on Historical Studies (CHS) courses offer students the opportunity to utilize social scientific concepts and theories in the study of the past. The program is based on the conviction that the world changes constantly but changes systematically, with each historical moment setting the opportunities and limiting the potentialities of the next. Systematic historical analysis, however, is not merely a diverting luxury. Nor is it simply a means of assembling cases for present-oriented models of human behavior. It is a prerequisite to any sound understanding of processes of change and of structures large or small.

“The Burdens of Urban History”: Comment

1989 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 30-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira Katznelson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social History ◽  
Urban History ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Critical Scholarship ◽  
The Social ◽  
State And Society ◽  
The City

How, if at all, can studies of the city help us understand the distinctive qualities of the American regime? In “The Burdens of Urban History,” which refines and elaborates his earlier paper “The Problem of the Political in Recent American Urban History,” Terrence McDonald, a historian who has written on urban fiscal policy and conflict, argues that students of the city have focused their work too narrowly on bosses and machines, patronage and pluralism. In so doing, they have obscured other bases of politics and conflict, and, trapped by liberal categories of analysis, they have perpetuated a self-satisfied, even celebratory, portrait of American politics and society. This unfortunate directionality to urban research in some measure has been unwitting because historians and social scientists have been unreflective about the genealogies, and mutual borrowings, of their disciplines. Even recent critical scholarship in the new social history and in the social sciences under the banner of “bringing the state back in” suffers from these defects. As a result, these treatments of state and society relationships, and of the themes that appear under the rubric of American “exceptionalism,” are characterized by an epistemological mish-mash, a contraction of analytical vision, and an unintended acquiescence in the self-satisfied cheerleading of the academy that began in the postwar years.

History and the Study of Inequality

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-441
Author(s):  
Herbert S. Klein
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
First Century ◽  
Global Inequality ◽  
Historical Factors ◽  
The Social ◽  
Oxford Group ◽  
Over Time

Economic inequality has become one of the most important themes in the social sciences. The debate has revolved around two basic models. Was Kuznets correct in his prediction that inequality declines with economic growth, or was Piketty, along with others in the Berkeley/Paris/Oxford group, correct to counter that capitalism without severe constraints inevitably leads to increasing inequality? The resolution will depend on long-term historical analysis. In Global Inequality, Milanovic proposed new models to analyze the social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence changes in inequality over time and space. In Capitalism, Alone, he changes direction to examine what patterns of capitalism and inequality will look like in the twenty-first century and beyond, as well as how inequality might be reduced without violence.

Market dominance and endogenous decline: the contribution of historical analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-183
Author(s):  
Bas van Bavel
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Social History ◽  
Feedback Loop ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Invisible Hand ◽  
The Past ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Factor Markets ◽  
Political Leverage ◽  
Endogenous Process

AbstractThe advances in economic and social history over the past years enabled me to empirically test assumptions about the long-run development of markets. The review by Geoff Hodgson of the resulting book, The Invisible Hand?, is lucid but incomplete. I argue that the rise to dominance of factor markets, followed by that of financial markets, took place already in several early cases, and that all market economies, through an endogenous process, saw the accumulation of wealth and, next, the translation of this wealth into political leverage, creating a feedback loop with negative outcomes which is very hard to break.

scholarly journals Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
ELINOR OSTROM ◽  
XAVIER BASURTO
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
General Theory ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Processes Of Change ◽  
Mechanistic Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Predictive Theory ◽  
Analytical Tools

Abstract:Most powerful analytical tools used in the social sciences are well suited for studying static situations. Static and mechanistic analysis, however, is not adequate to understand the changing world in which we live. In order to adequately address the most pressing social and environmental challenges looming ahead, we need to develop analytical tools for analyzing dynamic situations – particularly institutional change. In this paper, we develop an analytical tool to study institutional change, more specifically, the evolution of rules and norms. We believe that in order for such an analytical tool to be useful to develop a general theory of institutional change, it needs to enable the analyst to concisely record the processes of change in multiple specific settings so that lessons from such settings can eventually be integrated into a more general predictive theory of change.

In Search of the Proper Scientific Approach: Hayek's Views on Biology, Methodology, and the Nature of Economics

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 567-585 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Beck
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
Important Place ◽  
The Social ◽  
The One ◽  
Complex Phenomena

ArgumentFriedrich August von Hayek (1899–1992) is mainly known for his defense of free-market economics and liberalism. His views on science – more specifically on the methodological differences between the physical sciences on the one hand, and evolutionary biology and the social sciences on the other – are less well known. Yet in order to understand, and properly evaluate Hayek's political position, we must look at the theory of scientific method that underpins it. Hayek believed that a basic misunderstanding of the discipline of economics and the complex phenomena with which it deals produced misconceptions concerning its method and goals, which led in turn to the adoption of dangerous policies. The objective of this article is to trace the development of Hayek's views on the nature of economics as a scientific discipline and to examine his conclusions concerning the scope of economic prediction. In doing so, I will first show that Hayek's interest in the natural sciences (especially biology), as well as his interest in epistemology, were central to his thought, dating back to his formative years. I will then emphasize the important place of historical analysis in Hayek's reflections on methodology and examine the reasons for his strong criticism of positivism and socialism. Finally, in the third and fourth sections that constitute the bulk of this article, I will show how Hayek's understanding of the data and goal of the social sciences (which he distinguished from those of the physical sciences), culminated in an analogy that sought to establish economics and evolutionary biology as exemplary complex sciences. I will challenge Hayek's interpretation of this analogy through a comparison with Darwin's views inThe Origin of Species, and thus open a door to re-evaluating the theoretical foundations of Hayek's political claims.

Individuals and Aggregates

1980 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-250
Author(s):  
Paul F. Bourke ◽  
Donald A. DeBats
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social History ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Electoral Behavior ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Basis ◽  
Political Implications ◽  
The Social ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Vexing Question

After more than a decade's impressive achievement in the “new” social history and the “new” political history, two distinct though related problems require us to reconsider the data appropriate to these inquiries. First, recent commentators (Foner, 1974; Formi-sano, 1976) have pointed to the relative failure of research in these areas to converge, a failure made more obvious in the light of the programmatic optimism of the 1960s which held out the prospect of an integrated approach to the social basis of politics and to the political implications of social structure. Second, there has been in recent years some acknowledgment by historians (see below) of the vexing question of inferences across levels of data, a matter central to other social sciences and particularly pressing for historians of electoral behavior.

scholarly journals The “false” debate between positivism and Verstehen in the origins of sociology

Human Affairs ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Ullan de la Rosa
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Early Twentieth Century ◽  
The Social ◽  
Late Nineteenth

AbstractThe article revisits the debate between the positivists and non-positivists currents in sociology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, concluding that it is actually a false debate, due to the fact that, beyond their differences, both shared some of the basic principles of the paradigm of modernity. From this historical analysis the article seeks to draw lessons for the social sciences in the present, at a time when these seem to have reached a certain synthesis between the modern and postmodern epistemologies. The article shows us that such a synthesis was already prefigured in the writing of classical theorists as it is, in fact, an ineluctable structural law of science itself if it wants to escape from the trap of skepticism and epistemological nihilism. The article also explores how, as a consequence of the pervasiveness of the modern paradigm, a common ethnocentric bias can be traced in all the fathers of sociology and wonders whether sociology today has actually got rid of this problem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document