“Reasonable Value” versus “Instrumental Value:” Competing Paradigms in Institutional Economics

Ramstad, Yngve

doi:10.1080/00213624.1989.11504937

Cited by 43 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another step that helps clarify the pattern, and also does justice to Veblen, is to shift him from an OIE founder to a founder of evolutionary economics—an adjacent and closely related field where Veblen is often acknowledged for his pioneering role but institutionalists HCMC are not mentioned (e.g., Winter 2014). This separation gives formal recognition to what economists from all sides have recognized since the 1920s, which is that there are simply too many degrees of separation between the economics of Veblen and HCMC for both sides to comfortably live in intellectual union under one roof called “institutional economics” (per Ramstad 1989; Rutherford 2013). If closer and more cohesive collaboration between Veblenian and HCMC traditions is desired, such as intended in the founding mission of the Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE), then a more expansive, inclusive, and ecumenical label is a place to start, such as evolutionary and institutional economics.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Origins and Theoretical Foundation of Original Institutional Economics Reconsidered

Kaufman

2017

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

John Maurice Clark (1936) described original institutional economics (OIE) as an “elusive movement” and observed, “doubt has arisen whether it has any definable meaning at all” (p. 426). Many subsequent books and articles, with Malcolm Rutherford (2011) being the latest, have addressed this conundrum and sought to identify and describe the animating ideas behind OIE, the people who were the key contributors, and the extent to which they developed a common paradigm vision and theoretical statement. However, widely divergent narratives and non-commensurable interpretations remain. This paper, using a new research strategy, provides another examination of the early OIE story. Rather than beginning with Thorstein Veblen about 1900 (the traditional approach), the paper starts with the founding of OIE in 1918 and examines what the four leading OIE scholars—Walton Hamilton, Clark, Wesley Mitchell, and John Commons—say on OIE’s origins, paradigm vision, and role of Veblen. The conclusions are considerably revisionist.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Origins and Theoretical Foundation of Original Institutional Economics Reconsidered

Kaufman

2017

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yngve Ramstad's article is a meaningful contribution to the literature because it should force many of us to think more clearly about the core of institutional theory [Ramstad 1989]. Our own response to his work was not directed at the concern that scholars working in the tradition of John Commons are not proper institutionalists.…”

Section: Rejoindermentioning

confidence: 97%

Rejoinder

Atkinson¹,

Reed²

1991

Journal of Economic Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…V. Vanberg (1989) has given a presentation of some central ideas contained in Commons' Economics of Collective Action where the arguments and explanations are of a non-psychologistic individualist type rather than holist. Biddle (1990) and Ramstad (1987Ramstad ( , 1989Ramstad ( , 1991 also emphasise the analyses by Commons in which human action appears to function as an explanatory variable, whatever the degree of discretion attributed to it.…”

Section: F Tobosomentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional individualism and institutional change: the search for a middle way mode of explanation

Toboso¹

2001

Cambridge Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After noting the lack of enthusiasm of several well-known scholars concerning the adoption of both methodological holism and methodological individualism in its several versions, the present article shows that institutional individualism is a different mode of explanation from both of these and also that it is not the same thing as the so-called Popperian program of situational analysis. Institutional individualism is a mode of explanation that yields non-systemic and non-reductionist explanations at the same time as it allows for the incorporation into economic theories and models of the many formal and informal institutional aspects surrounding all human interactions, whether these interactions take place within stable structures of legal rules and social norms or whether they attempt to change the said rules and norms. Finally, the paper shows that it is possible for old institutionalists to make institutional individualist analyses of institutional changes while retaining the remaining methodological assumptions of the school. The same is true for new institutionalists. Some examples are offered from both camps.

show abstract

“Reasonable Value” versus “Instrumental Value:” Competing Paradigms in Institutional Economics

Cited by 43 publications

References 26 publications

The Origins and Theoretical Foundation of Original Institutional Economics Reconsidered

The Origins and Theoretical Foundation of Original Institutional Economics Reconsidered

Rejoinder

Institutional individualism and institutional change: the search for a middle way mode of explanation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About