scholarly journals Reputation and its measurement. An institutional approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 51-61
Author(s):  
Agata Adamska ◽  
Tomasz J. Dąbrowski

The article deals with the issue of identifying and measuring institutions. As an example, reputation was taken into consideration. The analysis leads to the conclusion that reputation could be treated as an institution and could be measured in the context of its impact on economic outcomes. This measurement can be carried out at three levels of detail: micro, meso and macro, among these the third is the least recognised in new institutional economics.

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 716-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Betts ◽  
Naohiko Omata ◽  
Louise Bloom

In the context of protracted refugee situations, there has been a revival in concern among policymakers to transcend the so-called humanitarian-development divide and create greater opportunities for self-reliance. Yet, these discussions too often neglect an analytical focus on refugees' own economic lives, and their own interactions with markets. Despite a growing literature on the economic lives of refugees, much of that work has lacked theory or data. The work that has been quantitative has generally focused on the economic impact of refugees on host countries rather than explaining variation in economic outcomes for refugees. In order to explain variation in economic outcomes for refugees, this paper asks three questions about the economic lives of refugees: 1) what makes the economic lives of refugees distinctive from other populations; 2) what explains variation in refugees' income levels; and 3) what role does entrepreneurship play in shaping refugees' economic outcomes? In order to answer these questions, the paper draws upon extensive qualitative and quantitative research conducted in Uganda by the Humanitarian Innovation Project at Oxford University. The quantitative data set is based on a survey of 2,213 refugees in three types of contexts: urban (Kampala), protracted camps (Nakivale and Kyangwali settlements), and emergency camps (Rwamwanja). It supplements this with qualitative research from other parts of Africa and the Middle East. The economic lives of refugees are argued to be distinctive not because refugees are any different qua human beings but because they often occupy a distinctive institutional space. Following new institutional economics, the paper argues that “refugee economies” represent a distinctive analytical space insofar as refugees face different formal and informal institutional barriers and distortions in their economic lives compared to nationals or other migrants. Even within the same country, refugees exhibit significant variation in their economic outcomes, most notably in their income levels. A number of variables are significant in explaining this variation. These include: regulatory context, education, occupation, social networks, gender, and the number of years spent in exile. Entrepreneurship is an important explanation for “outliers” within the refugee community, explaining why some refugees have significantly higher incomes. However, refugees also often play a wider role within the community, creating opportunities for others. Furthermore, a significant part of refugee entrepreneurship is social rather than simply for-profit. In order to enhance opportunities for greater refugee self-reliance, policymakers need to develop a better understanding of the transnational, national, and local markets within which refugees participate. Instead of engaging in top-down interventions, enabling environments should be created that enable autonomous, community-led initiatives to flourish.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 020-036
Author(s):  
Vitaly L. Tambovtsev ◽  

The institutional approach in economic science arose, as is known, more than a century ago and is now called "the original institutional economics." In the middle of the last century, an alternative version of this approach emerged, called the "new institutional economics". Over the past forty years, in the institutional approach, it has been declared the creation of a significant number of new economic institutionalisms, such as cognitive, critical, monetary, “incomplete”, “new new”, generic, post-institutionalism, post-Keynesian, and legal institutionalisms. This article is devoted to the analysis of the main provisions of the listed above institutionalisms in economics, in order to answer the question whether they are alternatives to the previously created original and new institutional economics, or whether they clarify some details in these basic institutionalisms. The study showed that the most developed part of the institutionalisms that have arisen in recent decades expands the fields and methods of research within either the original institutionalism or the new institutional economics, without suggesting the grounds that would go beyond the foundations of the named "basic" institutionalisms. Based on this, the article concludes that the growth in the number of institutionalisms indicates the development of "basic" institutionalisms, and not that they have exhausted the research opportunities inherent in them.


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
AVNER GREIF ◽  
JOEL MOKYR

AbstractProfessor McCloskey makes many telling and insightful points in her survey and criticism of what she terms the new institutional economics; yet there are a number of shortcomings to her paper. One is that she has bundled together a variety of quite disparate approaches to the role institutions play, and refers to them as ‘neo-institutionalist’. We unbundle these different strands, and show that an undifferentiated critique is unwarranted. A second argument made by her is that an institutional approach cannot explain either the Industrial Revolution or what she calls ‘the Great Enrichment’. We show that this conclusion is unwarranted and results from an overly narrow definition of institutions.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Caballero Miguez ◽  
María Dolores Garza Gil

In recent decades, the New Institutional Economics has brought about the “return of institutions” to the economic mainstream, and institutional theory and analysis have been developed from Ronald Coase’s notion of transaction costs and Douglass North’s view on institutions. The Nobel Prize award in Economics to Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom in 2009 has pointed out the relevance of the new institutional approach. Natural Resource Economics has included the institutional determinants of the management of natural resources into its research agenda. In this sense, the advances of the New Institutional Economics allows the development of institutional analysis in the field of the Economics of Natural Resources, such as Elinor Ostrom’s work has shown. This paper presents an integral and updated perspective of the foundations of the New Institutional Economics that constitute a set of theoretical inputs for the analysis of institutions and governance in the management of natural resources.


2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
BAS VAN BAVEL ◽  
JESSICA DIJKMAN ◽  
ERIKA KUIJPERS ◽  
JACO ZUIJDERDUIJN

Although the importance of New Institutional Economics and the institutional approach for understanding pre-industrial economic development and the early growth of markets are widely accepted, it has proven to be difficult to assess more directly the effects of institutions on the functioning of markets. This paper uses empirical research on the rise of markets in late medieval Holland to illuminate some of the factors behind the development of the specific institutional framework of markets for land, labour, capital and goods, and some effects of these institutions on the actual functioning of the markets. The findings are corroborated by a tentative comparison with the functioning of markets in Flanders and eastern England.


2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind K. Sharma

Governance, as the term came to be used since the 1980s and the 1990s under the influence of the neo-liberals, is about a minimalist state. It seeks a state rollback on the ground that state is inherently inefficient when compared with the markets. Apart from this, since then other versions have developed, which led one commentator to say that so numerous are the definitions of governance that it has become analytically an intractable construct. This article presents its subject matter in three sections. The first section focuses on the semantics; it underlines the need to distinguish between the conventional and the neo-liberal usages of the term governance. The second section, which forms the bulk of the present article, discusses the five strands that collectively form the complex whole we call governance. The third and the concluding section contrasts the positivism of the neoclassical economics and new institutional economics, from which the neo-liberal governance paradigm is shaped, with the normative orientation of the classical school of administrative thoughts that dominated the discipline of public administration during the first fifty years (the 1887–1937 period).


2010 ◽  
pp. 110-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Avdasheva ◽  
N. Dzagurova

The article examines the interpretation of vertical restraints in Chicago, post-Chicago and New Institutional Economics approaches, as well as the reflection of these approaches in the application of antitrust laws. The main difference between neoclassical and new institutional analysis of vertical restraints is that the former compares the results of their use with market organization outcomes, and assesses mainly horizontal effects, while the latter focuses on the analysis of vertical effects, comparing the results of vertical restraints application with hierarchical organization. Accordingly, the evaluation of vertical restraints impact on competition differs radically. The approach of the New Institutional Theory of the firm seems fruitful for Russian markets.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Raquel Fernández González ◽  
Marcos Íñigo Pérez Pérez

The return of institutions to the main research agenda has highlighted the importance of rules in economic analysis. The New Institutional Economics has allowed a better understanding of the case studies that concern different areas of knowledge, also the one concerning the management of natural resources. In this article, the institutional analysis focuses on the maritime domain, where two large civil liability regimes for pollution coexist (OPA 90-IMO), each in a different geographical area (United States - Europe). Therefore, a comparative analysis is made between the two large regimes of civil responsibility assignment applying them to the Prestige catastrophe. In this way, the allocation and distribution of responsibilities in the investigation and subsequent judicial process of the Prestige is compared with an alternative scenario in which the applicable compensation instruments are governed by the provisions of the Oil Polution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), in order to establish a rigorous analysis on the effects that the different norms can have in the same scenario. In the comparative established in the case of the Prestige, where the responsibilities were solved very slowly in a judicial process with high transaction costs, the application of rules governed by the OPA 90 would not count with such a high degree of imperfection. This is so, since by applying the preponderance of the evidence existing in OPA 90 there would be no mitigation for the presumed culprits. On the other hand, the agents involved in the sinking would not be limited only to the owner, but also that operators or shipowners would be responsible as well. In addition, the amount of compensation would increase when counting in the damage count the personal damages, the taxes without perceiving and the ecological damage caused in a broad sense, damages not computable in the IMO.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document