Interessen und Ideen

Lepsius, M. Rainer

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-94352-1_2

“…Although definitions of institutions abound, they are commonly understood as social rules, norms and ideas (Leitideen) that guide, but also restrain, social behavior (North 1990;Lepsius 1990). Seen from an anthropological perspective, institutions are imminently functional: as "taken-for-granted" behavioral routines they ease everyday decision-making; as social norms they regulate social interaction; and as cognitive scripts they reduce uncertainty in a complex world.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform

Ebbinghaus¹

2009

The Evolution of Path Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MPIfG Discussion Papers are refereed scholarly papers of the kind that are publishable in a peer-reviewed disciplinary journal. Their objective is to contribute to the cumulative improvement of theoretical knowledge. The papers can be ordered from the institute for a small fee (hard copies) or downloaded free of charge (PDF). AbstractPath dependence as a concept in institutional theories has become increasingly popular in economics and other social sciences. The key idea is that in a sequence of events, the latter events are not (completely) independent from those that occurred in the past. Yet, common usage of the concept often subsumes two markedly different models and approaches to understand historical sequencing. The two main processes of the past shaping the future -diffusion and developmental pathways -must be distinguished analytically. This paper juxtaposes (1) the unplanned "trodden path" that takes shape through the subsequent repeated use by other individuals of that spontaneously chosen path, and (2) the "branching pathways" or juncture at which one of the available alternative pathways must be chosen in order to continue a journey. Furthermore, the typical approaches and their explanatory purchase are discussed in reference to explanations of institutional change. The paper shows that the first path dependence theorem is too deterministic and inflexible, whereas the second approach is sufficiently supple to analyze various forms of institutional change. ZusammenfassungPfadabhängigkeit wird in den Sozial-und Wirtschaftswissenschaften zunehmend als Konzept institutioneller Theorien angewendet. Der Grundgedanke ist, dass in einer Sequenz von Ereignissen (oder Entscheidungen) spätere nicht (vollkommen) unabhängig von vorangegangenen sind. Jedoch wird in gängigen Anwendungen des Konzepts oft versäumt, nach zwei äußerst unterschiedlichen Verständnissen historischer Sequenzen zu differenzieren. Die zwei Prozesse der Strukturierung der Zukunft durch die Vergangenheit -Diffusionspfade und Entwicklungspfade -sollen analytisch getrennt werden. Dieser Aufsatz unterscheidet (1) den zufälligen "Trampelpfad", welcher durch die vermehrte Benutzung eines Pfades spontan entsteht, von (2) dem "Scheideweg", an dem einer der möglichen Pfade gewählt werden muss, um den Weg fortzusetzen. Im Weiteren wird der Erklärungsbeitrag der beiden Ansätze in Bezug auf die Erklärung institutionellen Wandels erörtert. Es zeigt sich, dass das erste Pfadabhängigkeitstheorem zu deterministisch und inflexibel ist, der zweite Pfadabhängig-keitsansatz hingegen offen genug, unterschiedliche Formen institutionellen Wandels zu analysieren.

show abstract

“…In short, complementarities imply a functional interdependence so that institutions in different domains affect the outcomes or utility of institutions across different domains. Such interdependence may also involve tensions when institutions imply confl icting principles of rationality (Lepsius 1990). 6 Tensions may have destabilizing or adverse economic effects, but may also serve positive economic functions by creating space for diverse organizational patterns and maintaining requisite variety for future adaptation in a population of fi rms (Stark 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Many Varieties of Capitalism? Comparing the Comparative Institutional Analyses of Capitalist Diversity

Jackson

¹

,

Deeg

²

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MPIfG Discussion Papers are refereed scholarly papers of the kind that are publishable in a peer-reviewed disciplinary journal. Their objective is to contribute to the cumulative improvement of theoretical knowledge. The papers can be ordered from the institute for a small fee (hard copies) or downloaded free of charge (PDF). AbstractThis essay reviews the development of approaches within the comparative capitalisms (CC) literature and points to three theoretical innovations which, taken together, defi ne and distinguish these approaches as a group. First, national economies are characterized by distinct institutional confi gurations that generate a particular systemic "logic" of economic action. Second, the CC literature suggests a theory of comparative institutional advantage in which different institutional arrangements have distinct strengths and weaknesses for different kinds of economic activity. Third, the literature has been interpreted to imply a theory of institutional path dependence. Behind these unifying characteristics of the literature, however, lie a variety of analytical frameworks and typologies of capitalism. This paper reviews and compares these different frameworks by highlighting the fundamental distinctions among them and drawing out their respective contributions and limitations in explaining economic performance and institutional dynamics. The paper concludes that the way forward for this literature lies in developing a more dynamic view of individual institutions, the linkages between domains, and the role of politics and power.

show abstract

“…Consequentemente, a lógica da situação compreende tanto uma dimensão sistêmica (lógica do observador) quanto uma dimensão hermenêutica (lógica do ator). A dimensão objetiva da lógica da situação poderia ser também resumida nos termos "interesses", "instituições" e "ideias", trilogia que ficou famosa na sociologia alemã a partir de M. Rainer Lepsius (1990).…”

Section: O Modelo De Explicação Sociológica De Múltiplos Níveisunclassified

Em busca do grande uno: Hartmut Esser e o modelo macro-micro-macro como síntese final da teoria sociológica.

Sell

¹

2019

Mediações - Rev. Cien. Soc.

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O artigo examina criticamente o modelo explicativo de múltiplos níveis de Hartmut Esser. Após apresentar as características principais de sua teoria [1. Lógica da situação, 2. Lógica da ação e 3. Lógica da agregação e da transformação], discute-se a tentativa de Esser em integrar a teoria da ação social com a teoria da prática social em um único modelo denominado de Frame Selektion, bem como sua utilização de elementos da teoria dos sistemas. Apesar dos problemas e limites da teoria de Esser, argumenta-se que o modelo “macro-micro-macro” representa uma importante plataforma meta-teórica para a análise comparativa de paradigmas sociológicos.

show abstract

Interessen und Ideen

Cited by 33 publications

References 0 publications

Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform

Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform

How Many Varieties of Capitalism? Comparing the Comparative Institutional Analyses of Capitalist Diversity

Em busca do grande uno: Hartmut Esser e o modelo macro-micro-macro como síntese final da teoria sociológica.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About