The Nature and Significance of Institutional Economics

Kapp, K. William

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.1976.tb01971.x

Cited by 87 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gunnar Myrdal and also K. William Kapp [30] pointed to the role of values in economics research and education. I have rather emphasized the terms of "ideological orientation" and "mission".…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Economics and Democracy in Institutional Change for Sustainability

Söderbaum

2014

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional change for sustainable development does not happen by itself. Individuals and organizations function as actors to influence development processes. Reference is made to a "political economic person" (PEP) guided by her/his "ideological orientation" and "political economic organization" (PEO), guided by its "mission". Leaving present unsustainable trends behind is a matter of politics and ideology and even power positions, where democracy plays a crucial role. The perspectives of influential (and other) actors are essential in facilitating (or hindering) change. I will discuss ideas of the role of science in society, mainstream neoclassical economics in relation to institutional economics in the spirit of K. William Kapp and Gunnar Myrdal as well as neo-liberalism as ideology (where neoclassical economics has contributed to strengthen the legitimacy of neo-liberalism). Various aspects of inertia and flexibility in institutional change processes, such as path dependence, are discussed. Emphasis is on the role of economics and how a strengthened democracy can open the door for a degree of pluralism.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Economics and Democracy in Institutional Change for Sustainability

Söderbaum

2014

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resources have "capabilities." Commons (1924) Hamilton (1932, Kapp (1976) Neale (1987, Mayhew (1987) DeGregori (1987), Ranson (1987) Hodgson (1994 10. Transaction cost economics Coase (1937) Opportunism occurs.…”

Section: Respects Other Disciplinesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Developing successful theories in marketing: insights from resource-advantage theory

Hunt

2011

AMS Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 Yadav's (2010) analysis actually understates the importance of theoretical articles because, unquestionably, many of the articles classified as "empirical" in his study were subsequently cited because of the theory developed in the "front half" of the articles, not the empirical part in the "back half." That is many articles (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994) classified as "empirical" by Yadav (2010) are subsequently cited for their theories, not their empirics.Abstract All disciplines require both (1) the development of theories that explain and predict important phenomena and (2) empirical research that tests the theories. Purely conceptual/theoretical articles are central to theory development and are generally more influential than empirical articles. However, not all conceptual articles are equally successful. This article addresses the issue of why some theoretical articles are more successful than others. Using a highly successful theory in marketing, resource-advantage theory, as a case-example, this article develops five guides for authors seeking to develop successful theories: (1) focus theory development on important issues in macromarketing and/or micromarketing, (2) craft theories with high explanatory and predictive power, (3) respect other disciplines' literatures, (4) publish the theory in nonmarketing journals, and (5) explore the normative implications of the theory.

show abstract

“…So communication across heterodox schools seems a more reasonable way ahead. For example, linking with institutional economics, especially in the critical mode of Kapp (1970Kapp ( , 1976 and Myrdal (1978), has been suggested by Söderbaum (1992Söderbaum ( , 2000 and several other ecological economists (Munda, 1997;Røpke, 1998;Spash, 2009b;Spash and Villena, 1999;Vatn, 2005).…”

Section: The Case Against Methodological Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%