Introduction to the special issue on the future of institutional and evolutionary economics

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEOFFREY M. HODGSON ◽  
J. W. STOELHORST
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Evolutionary Economics ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common

Abstract:This special issue of the Journal of Institutional Economics on the future of institutional and evolutionary economics consists of this introduction, four full essays, and two sizeable comments. Ménard and Shirley (2014) and Ménard (2014) discuss the future of the new institutional economics, and their two essays are followed by a reflection by Hodgson. Winter (2014) and Witt (2014) discuss the future of evolutionary economics, and their essays are followed by a comment by Stoelhorst. Here, we introduce these essays and comments by putting them in a broader historical perspective. In particular, we trace the common origins of modern institutional and evolutionary economics, particularly in the work of Veblen, as well as important additional influences such as Schumpeter and Simon. We highlight how the two approaches became disconnected, and signal the possibility of, and need for, re-establishing closer connections between them. Possible elements of a future overlapping research programme are outlined.

The future of new institutional economics: from early intuitions to a new paradigm?

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 541-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLAUDE MÉNARD ◽  
MARY M. SHIRLEY
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Economics ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Success Story ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Future ◽  
Nobel Laureates ◽  
Analytical Tools

Abstract:The trajectory of institutional economics changed in the 1970s when new institutional economics (NIE) began to take shape around some relative vague intuitions which eventually developed into powerful conceptual and analytical tools. The emergence of NIE is a success story by many measures: four Nobel laureates in less than 20 years, increasing penetration of mainstream journals, and significant impacts on major policy debates. This rapid acceptance is remarkable when we consider that it was divided from birth into distinct schools of thought. What will be the future of NIE? Will it be quietly absorbed by mainstream theory, or will it radically transform neoclassical economics into a new paradigm that includes institutions? To address these questions, we follow the sometimes-bumpy road to NIE's current successes and ponder the challenges that lie ahead.

New Institutional Economics and economic history

2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Ankarloo
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
Classical Economics

New Institutional Economics (NIE) has been celebrated as a path-breaking approach to the understanding of capitalism. This article advances a conceptual critique of NIE approaches to economic history. The author suggests that NIE cannot solve the underlying tension, that its economics remains ahistorical, and that when history, social relations and realism are invoked, the economics disappears, being replaced by various cultural and state-centred explanations. Therefore NIE is not so much a research programme in progress, but rather an indication of the degeneration of the tools of neo-classical economics.

scholarly journals Editorial—Using Applied Economics to Study Participatory Irrigation Institutions and their Impact in South Asia

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 2056
Author(s):  
Lin Crase
Keyword(s):  
South Asia ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Irrigation Management ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
Applied Economics ◽  
High Status ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
Poor Countries ◽  
Participatory Irrigation Management

For many decades, participatory approaches, with their emphasis on farmer-centred management, have been presented as panaceas for overcoming weaknesses in irrigation systems. Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) has assumed such a high status that it is regularly mandated by donors sponsoring irrigation upgrades in poor countries. However, the success of PIM is mixed, and economic analysis can help explain why PIM might work in some settings and not in others. This Special Issue focusses on PIM and aims to scrutinise its usefulness, particularly in South Asia. The focus on South Asian irrigation is driven by the reality that smallholder agriculture is destined to be the mainstay for this most populous region, at least in the medium term, and finding solutions to raise agricultural productivity is a high priority. The Special Issue comprises nine papers employing several strands of economics, including New Institutional Economics, Game Theory, and Behavioural Economics. A synopsis of each paper is provided in this editorial.

The future of evolutionary economics: why the modalities of explanation matter

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 645-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
ULRICH WITT
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Evolutionary Economics ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Paradigmatic Shift ◽  
The Future ◽  
Darwinian Paradigm

Abstract:Far from inspiring that paradigmatic shift in economics that was envisioned by its early proponents, ‘evolutionary’ economics today represents a patchwork of unconnected theories and topics. In other disciplines, evolutionary thinking has induced a paradigm shift, resulting from the adoption of the Darwinian paradigm extended by hypotheses about cultural evolution. Concerning economics, however, even a preliminary discourse on the potential of this paradigm for future theorizing remains controversial. The present paper therefore focuses on the methodological implications of the paradigm. It is shown that hitherto unnoticed common ground can be identified underlying the diversity of approaches to evolutionary economics. It rests in the modalities of causal explanations germane to the Darwinian paradigm. Understanding these modalities also makes it possible to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary research irrespective of the specific theories and topics concerned. The argument is illustrated for the exemplary case of institutional economics.

scholarly journals New Institutional Economics’ Perspective on Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Concise Review and General Remarks on Acemoglu and Robinson’s Concept

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (s1) ◽  
pp. 11-18
Author(s):  
Joanna Dzionek-Kozłowska ◽  
Rafał Matera
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Economic History ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Concise Review ◽  
The People ◽  
Open Discussion ◽  
The Common

Abstract Many thinkers made attempts to explain differences in economic development between countries, and point out what should be done to foster development. We review briefly some spectacular theories focused on these fundamental problems. We use the tools of economic analysis and the methods characteristic especially for institutional economics and economic history. However, the paper’s central aim is to analyse and assess one of the newest voices in that still open discussion coming from Acemoglu and Robinson and presented in their “Why Nation Failed? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty”. Their book is brimmed with compelling illustrations, which we acknowledge as its strongest point. While the accuracy and coherence of their generalisations leave much to be desired. The analysis of those examples let to infer that the most important element encouraging or hampering economic development is the common participation of the people in economic and political processes.

Toward a new (evolutionary) economics of sports

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Potts ◽  
Stuart Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Optimal Allocation ◽  
Evolutionary Economics ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Life Cycles ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Sports Economics ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Economics Of Sports

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a new classification of rules-driven sports and technology-driven sports that suggests different models of how sports develop. This paper outlines some key aspects of an evolutionary view of sports economics research and, separately, an institutional view of sports economic research. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a conceptual/theoretical piece rather than an empirical analysis of a research question. The authors scaffold a proposed analytic framework that is a combination of evolutionary economics and new institutional economics. Findings A new dynamic approach to the study of sports industries is called for. The authors observe that sports and sports industries exhibit dynamic qualities but in the study of sports there is no analogue of “industrial dynamics” as in economics. What is missing is the field of “evolutionary sports dynamics.” To build this, the authors frame a new evolutionary approach to the study of the sports economy and sports industries – by examining the evolution of sports, their industries, and the complex industrial ecosystems they operate in, through the lens of institutional and evolutionary economics. Originality/value The paper establishes a theoretical basis for a “New Economics of Sports” – as a shift in the types of questions that sports economics seeks to answer. These are away from “sports statics” – as a branch of applied economics of industrial organization and optimal allocation of sports resources (ala Rottenberg, 1956; Neale, 1964) – and toward concern with the economics of “sports dynamics.” The prime questions are less with the optimal organization of existing sports, and more toward understanding the origin of new sports and the evolutionary life cycles of sports.

From New Institutional Economics of the Commons to the Common as a Mode of Production

2019 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-787
Author(s):  
Alfonso Giuliani ◽  
Carlo Vercellone
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
New Institutional Economics ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Regulation ◽  
Political Conception ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Mode Of Production

The vitality of the new field of study on the commons crosses the entire field of social sciences, and it is analyzed from very different perspectives. On the one side, the Ostromian new Institutional economics uses the term commons as plural and seeks to give an account of the variety of the institutional forms of economic regulation. On the other, some new approaches interpret commons as an element of subversion of capitalism. These authors insist on the use of the concept as singular and they interpret it as a general principle of reorganization of economy and society. This article aims at analyzing the meanings of common and commons at stake in this debate. After a critical assessment of Elinor Ostrom’s contribution, the analysis will focus on the presentation of the theories of common as singular, distinguishing two currents of thought: the political conception of Dardot and Laval and the neo-workerist thesis of common as mode of production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document