More thinking about Komesar

Upon further reflection of Komesar’s critique of Schmid and others approach to IE and the notion of institutions, here are some further rebuttal remarks.  Schmid perceived that institutions lie within the mind of each individual in a society or group and not simply as a written down dead letter law or rule which appears to be Komeasr’s main point of contention.  John R. Commons wrote of the “institutionalized mind”. I will only focus on the main thinkers in the Great Lakes IE tradition and no others such as North or Williamson.

Schmid believed and wrote that institutions are ordered or structured sets of relationships amongst individuals.  Borrowing from John R. Commons and Wesley Hohfeld, an institution told the hodler in their mind of what they can, cannot, must, must not may and may not do.  These “institutions” are carried around in people's minds how they act and react to others around them. The stability of institutions varies and can certainly change over time.

Komesar states that institutions are decision making processes with rules and frameworks for how they operate.  The three key institutions, although there are subcategories, are markets, judiciary and the political process. I think it is fair to say that Al schmid and others would not necessarily argue that these are not institutions but perhaps only a subset of the total.  The difference is that Schmid and the great Lakes school generally view institutions as in the mind of the actors and shape how actors take in and process information from the environment and then act and react. Certainly the three entities that Komesar talks about would fit the bill as well.  However, for Komesar to say that schmid sees institutions as mere written dead letter construcuts is simply not a fair reading.