SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2016 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 28

In the New Institutional Economics Approach R. Coase and Law, D. North and Social Psychology Context: Pluralist Approach Opportunities in Economics

Selma ORHAN
Pages
189–208
Publication Date
2016-04-14
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The continuity relation provided by institutions strengthens the pluralist methodology in the economy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study the relation between the OIE and the NIE (New Institutional Economics) approach is analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:OIE and the NIE approaches demonstrate continuity through ontological point of view towards the concept of institution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The continuity relation provided by institutions strengthens the pluralist methodology in the economy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study the relation between the OIE and the NIE (New Institutional Economics) approach is analyzed. In this way, the emphasis is on the main contrasting points of both approaches to mainstream economics. The institutions are as stated by both the precursors of the OIE and NIE approaches, Veblen, Commons, Coase and North analyzed as thinking habits, as behavior constraints in the social rules, as the legal context of the liberal theory. OIE and the NIE approaches demonstrate continuity through ontological point of view towards the concept of institution. Despite theoretical and methodological differences between them, due to the continuity relationship, the NIE plays a carrier role in transferring heterodox terms to mainstream economics. The continuity relation provided by institutions strengthens the pluralist methodology in the economy.

Özet

In this study the relation between the OIE and the NIE (New Institutional Economics) approach is analyzed. In this way, the emphasis is on the main contrasting points of both approaches to mainstream economics. The institutions are as stated by both the precursors of the OIE and NIE approaches, Veblen, Commons, Coase and North analyzed as thinking habits, as behavior constraints in the social rules, as the legal context of the liberal theory. OIE and the NIE approaches demonstrate continuity through ontological point of view towards the concept of institution. Despite theoretical and methodological differences between them, due to the continuity relationship, the NIE plays a carrier role in transferring heterodox terms to mainstream economics. The continuity relation provided by institutions strengthens the pluralist methodology in the economy.

🔖

Cite This Article

ORHAN, S. (2016). In the New Institutional Economics Approach R. Coase and Law, D. North and Social Psychology Context: Pluralist Approach Opportunities in Economics. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 28, 189–208. https://ajindex.com/articles/139642

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Bandura, A. (1999), “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, (Special Issue on Evil and Violence), 3, 193–209.
  2. Baron, R.A. & D. Byrne (1987), Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction, New York: (5th. Ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Commons, J. (1990 - 1934), Institutional Economics: Its Place in Political Economy, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Transaction Publishers Vols. 1-2.
  3. Coase, R.H. (1960), “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.
  4. Coase, R.H. (1977), “Economics and Contiguous Disciplines”, in: The Organization and Retrieval of Economic Knowledge, Ed., Mark Perlman. Coase, R.H. (1988),
  5. The Firm, The Market and The Law, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
  6. Coase R.H. (1992), “The Institutional Structure of Production”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 4. 713-719.
  7. Coase, R.H. (1937), “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica, New Series, 4(16), 386-405. Davis. L.E. & D.C. North (1971), Institutional Change and American Economic Growth, Chambridge, Chambridge University Press.
  8. Denzau, A. & D.C. North (1994), “Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions”, Kyklos, 47, 3-31.
  9. Furubotn, E.G. & R. Richter (2005), Institutions and Economic Theory: An Introduction to and Assessment of the New Institutional Economics, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.
  10. Galbraith, J.K. (1967),
  11. The New Industrial State, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Granovetter, M.S. (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”, Am. J. Soc., 91, 481-510.
  12. Gruchy, A. (1947), Modern Economic Thought: The American Contribution, New York: Prentice-Hall. Korkmaz, İ. (2003),
  13. Sosyal Öğrenme Kuramı, Gelişim ve Öğrenme Psikolojisi, Ed. B. Yeşilyaprak, Ankara:
  14. Pegema Yayıncılık. Langlois, R.H. (1986), “The New Institutional Economics: An Introductory Essay”, Kapitel 1, ed. R.H. Langlois, in: Economics as a Process, Essays in the New Institutional Economics, New York. Malone, Y. (2002), “Social Cognitive Theory and Choice Theory: A Compatibility Analysis”, International Journal of Reality Therapy, 22 (1), 10-13.
  15. McDougall, W. (1908),
  16. An Introduction to Social Psychlogy, London: Methuen. Mearns, J. (2004), The Social Learning Theory of Julian B. Rotters,, 12 Mayıs 2015.
  17. Moscovici, S. (1984), “The Phenomenon of Social Representations”, in: Social Representations, R.M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
  18. Moscovici, S. (1988), “Notes Towar