University of Hertfordshire

From the same journal

Standard

On fuzzy frontiers and fragmented foundations : some reflections on the original and new institutional economics. / Hodgson, G.M.

In: Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 10, No. Special issue 4, 31.12.2014, p. 591-611.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{8724598d969c4d108d44fc3670b69275,
title = "On fuzzy frontiers and fragmented foundations: some reflections on the original and new institutional economics",
abstract = "These reflections are prompted by the papers by M{\'e}nard (2014) and M{\'e}nard and Shirley (2014). Their essays centre on the path-breaking contributions to the 'new institutional economics' (NIE) by Ronald Coase, Douglass North and Oliver Williamson. In response, while recognising their substantial achievements, it is pointed out that these three thinkers had contrasting views on key points. Furthermore, M{\'e}nard's and Shirley's three 'golden triangle' NIE concepts - transaction costs, property rights and contracts - are themselves disputed. Once all this is acknowledged, differences of view appear within the NIE, raising interesting questions concerning its identity and boundaries, including its differences with the original institutionalism. There are sizeable overlaps between the two traditions. It is argued here that the NIE can learn from the original institutionalism, particularly when elaborating more dynamic analyses, and developing more nuanced, psychologically-grounded and empirically viable theories of human motivation.",
author = "G.M. Hodgson",
note = "This article has been published in a revised form in Journal of Institutional Economics, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000307 This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. {\textcopyright} 2014 Millennium Economics Ltd, published by Cambridge University Press. ",
year = "2014",
month = dec,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1017/S1744137414000307",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "591--611",
journal = "Journal of Institutional Economics",
issn = "1744-1374",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "Special issue 4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - On fuzzy frontiers and fragmented foundations

T2 - some reflections on the original and new institutional economics

AU - Hodgson, G.M.

N1 - This article has been published in a revised form in Journal of Institutional Economics, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000307 This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. © 2014 Millennium Economics Ltd, published by Cambridge University Press.

PY - 2014/12/31

Y1 - 2014/12/31

N2 - These reflections are prompted by the papers by Ménard (2014) and Ménard and Shirley (2014). Their essays centre on the path-breaking contributions to the 'new institutional economics' (NIE) by Ronald Coase, Douglass North and Oliver Williamson. In response, while recognising their substantial achievements, it is pointed out that these three thinkers had contrasting views on key points. Furthermore, Ménard's and Shirley's three 'golden triangle' NIE concepts - transaction costs, property rights and contracts - are themselves disputed. Once all this is acknowledged, differences of view appear within the NIE, raising interesting questions concerning its identity and boundaries, including its differences with the original institutionalism. There are sizeable overlaps between the two traditions. It is argued here that the NIE can learn from the original institutionalism, particularly when elaborating more dynamic analyses, and developing more nuanced, psychologically-grounded and empirically viable theories of human motivation.

AB - These reflections are prompted by the papers by Ménard (2014) and Ménard and Shirley (2014). Their essays centre on the path-breaking contributions to the 'new institutional economics' (NIE) by Ronald Coase, Douglass North and Oliver Williamson. In response, while recognising their substantial achievements, it is pointed out that these three thinkers had contrasting views on key points. Furthermore, Ménard's and Shirley's three 'golden triangle' NIE concepts - transaction costs, property rights and contracts - are themselves disputed. Once all this is acknowledged, differences of view appear within the NIE, raising interesting questions concerning its identity and boundaries, including its differences with the original institutionalism. There are sizeable overlaps between the two traditions. It is argued here that the NIE can learn from the original institutionalism, particularly when elaborating more dynamic analyses, and developing more nuanced, psychologically-grounded and empirically viable theories of human motivation.

U2 - 10.1017/S1744137414000307

DO - 10.1017/S1744137414000307

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 591

EP - 611

JO - Journal of Institutional Economics

JF - Journal of Institutional Economics

SN - 1744-1374

IS - Special issue 4

ER -