Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T07:14:49.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual issues in institutional economics: clarifying the fluidity of rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2010

JAMIE MORGAN  and
WENDY OLSEN
JAMIE MORGAN*
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Centre of Excellence in Global Governance Research, University of Helsinki
WENDY OLSEN
Affiliation:
Senior lecturer, IDPM, University of Manchester
*
*Email: zen34405@zen.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This paper addresses the issue of how rules are conceptualized by Hodgson in Old Institutional Economics (OIE). The argument is put forward that the concept of rules can be constructively clarified. Rather than provide a general form of single rules within a rule system, we argue for a taxonomic range of single rule forms. This approach has the additional advantage of providing a more explicit account of how rules operate as part of a rule system. It also provides one way to address the fluidity of rules. Rules are understood to be more or less fluid (incomplete) and subject to a practical dynamism. This, we argue, can be differentiated from the idea of tendency based on the capacity of agents not to follow rules. A useful concept here is that of ‘mezzo rules’ or recodifications that both define the rule and distance the agent from their own rule-following behaviour. In pursuing the argument we also highlight various methodological implications. First, conceptual development is a key aspect of the OIE, particularly when it is located within Dow's structured pluralism. As such elaboration on rule forms enhances the consistency of OIE as methodology. Second, the exploration of a taxonomic range of rules and of forms of fluidity can provide useful resources in mapping out institutional processes in real research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 7 , Special Issue 3: Evolution of Institutions , September 2011 , pp. 425 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, M. (2007), Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assiter, A. (2009), Kierkegaard, Metaphysics and Political Theory, London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1961), Philosophical Papers, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M. (2008), An Introduction to Many-Valued and Fuzzy Logic: Semantics, Algebras and Derivation Systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigo, V. and Negru, I. (2008), ‘From fragmentation to ontologically reflexive pluralism’, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 1 (2): 127–150.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. (1992), The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, S. (2002), ‘The ramifications of John Searle's social philosophy in economics’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 9 (1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1988), Homo Academicus, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Buller, D. (2005), Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature, Boston, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Chick, V. and Dow, S. (2005), ‘The meaning of open systems’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 12 (3): 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colander, D. (2000), ‘The death of neoclassical economics’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2): 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collin, F. (1997), Social Reality, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dequech, D. (2002), ‘The demarcation between the “Old” and the “New” institutional economics: recent complications’, Journal of Economic Issues, 36 (2): 565–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1920/1957), The Reconstruction of Philosophy, Boston: Beacon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, C. (ed.) (1976), Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge, 1939, Hassocks: Harvester.Google Scholar
Dow, S. (2004), ‘Structured pluralism’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 11 (3): 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downward, P. and Mearman, A. (2003), ‘Critical realism and econometrics’, in Downward, P. (ed.), Applied Economics and the Critical Realist Critique, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fleetwod, S. (2008a), ‘Structure, institution, agency, habit and reflexive deliberation’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 4 (2): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleetwod, S. (2008b), ‘Institutions and social structures’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38 (3): 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullbrook, E (2004), ‘“Descartes” legacy: inter-subjective reality, intra-subjective theory’, in Davis, J., Marciano, A., and Runde, J. (eds.), Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy, London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Fullbrook, E. (ed.) (2009), Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and his Critics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. ‘Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “strong objectivity”?’, in Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harre, R. and Krausz, M. (1996), Varieties of Relativism, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heilbroner, R. and Milberg, W. (1995), The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (1988), Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics, Cambridge: Polity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (1998), ‘The approach of institutional economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (1): 166–192.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2001), How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2002), ‘Reconstitutive downward causation: social structure and the development of individual agency’, in Fullbrook, E. (ed.), Inter-subjectivity in Economics: Agents and Structures, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2003), ‘John. R. Commons and the foundations of institutional economics’, Journal of Economic Issues, 37 (3): 547–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2004), The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2006), ‘What are institutions?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2007a), ‘Evolutionary and Institutional Economics as the New Mainstream?’, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics, Review, 4 (1): 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2007b), ‘The revival of Veblenian institutional economics’, Journal of Economic Issues, 41 (2): 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (ed.) (2007c), The Evolution of Economic Institutions: A Critical Reader, London: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, Martin (1996), ‘How biological beasts learn the rules of the game’, The Times Literary Supplement, 12 January.Google Scholar
Koepsell, D. and Moss, L. (eds.) (2003), Searle on the Institutions of Social Reality: Extensions, Criticisms and Reconstructions, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1982), Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lahno, B. (2007), ‘Rational choice and rule-following behaviour’, Rationality and Society, 19 (4): 425–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, T. (1997), Economics and Reality, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, M. (1948), The Portable Veblen, New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, A. (1973), ‘Life among the econ’, Western Economic Journal, 11 (3): 327–337.Google Scholar
Maki, U. (1993), ‘Economics with institutions: agenda for methodological enquiry’, in Maki, U., Gustaffson, B., and Knudsen, C. (eds.) Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. (2009a), ‘How should we conceive the continued resilience of the US Dollar as a reserve currency?’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 41 (1): 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. (2009b), Private Equity Finance: Rise and Repercussions, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. (2009c), ‘The limits of central bank policy: economic crisis and the limits of effective solutions’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33 (4): 581–608.Google Scholar
Mundle, C. (1971), ‘Behaviourism and the private language argument’, in Jones, O. (ed.), The Private Language Argument, Basingstoke: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Neilsen, P. and Morgan, J. (2005), ‘No new revolution in economics?’, Economy and Society, 34 (1): 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nellhaus, T. (1998), ‘Signs, sociology and critical realism’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1986), ‘An agenda for the study of institutions’, Public Choice, 48 (1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrish, J. (1967), ‘Rise of economics as an academic discipline: the formative years to 1900’, The Southern Economic Journal, 34 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1974), Collected Papers Of Charles Sanders Peirce: Volume 1, Cambridge MA: Bellknap, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perraton, J. and Tarrant, I. (2007), ‘What does tacit knowledge actually explain?’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 14 (3): 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962/1998), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1993), ‘Incorporating fairness into Game Theory And Economics’, American Economic Review, 83 (5): 1281–1301.Google Scholar
Ransdell, J. (1971), ‘Constitutive rules and speech act analysis’, Journal of Philosophy, 68 (13): 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruben, D.-H. (1997), ‘John Searle's Construction of Social Reality’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57 (2): 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runde, J. (2002), ‘Filling in the Background’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 9 (1): 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rust, J. (2006), John Searle and the Construction of Social Reality, London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Santos, A. (2009), ‘Behavioural experiments: how and what we can learn about human behaviour’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 16 (1): 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph (1997), History of Economic Analysis, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969), Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1999), Mind, Language and Society, London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Tilman, R. (2007), Thorstein Veblen and the Enrichment of Evolutionary Naturalism, Columbia, MI: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (1997), ‘Searle on social institutions’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57 (2): 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanberg, V. (2007), Rational Choice, Preferences Over Actions and Rule-Following Behaviour, Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics, Freiburg: Walter-Euken Inst.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. (1914/2006), The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts, Cosimo Classics Series, New York: Cosimo, Inc.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1997), Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar