Institutions are.....
What are institutions? We gather here many different definitions...
Douglass North (2005)..."institutions are the constraints that human beings impose on human interaction. Those constraints, together with standard constraints of economics, define the opportunity set in the economy". One important point is that institutions are contrasted with belief systems which are defined as, "internal representations" and institutions are "the external manifestation of that representation". Thus, North is trying to make clear that in his viewpoint institutions are external to the observer and can be analyzed.
David Reisman (2002) (from Kasper and Streit, 1998)...."institutions are the rules of human interaction that constrain possibly opportunistic and erratic individual behavior, thereby making human behavior more predictable and thus facilitating the division of labour and wealth creation".
John R. Commons (1934)....."institutions are collective action in control of individual action". Commons often focused on judicial rulings as an important external mainfestation, in the words of North, of institutions and institutional change.
Dan Bromley (1998) defines institutions as, "all human activity requires regularizing conventions that facilitate social processes" and then later "daily life is replete with rules that are both positive and negative sanctions concerning behavior". Bromley later in his book adopts much of the framework from John R. Commons concerning an institutional analytical framework.
A Allan Schmid defined institution as "sets of ordered relationships (connections) among people that define their rights, their exposure to the rights of others, their privileges and their responsibilities" (2004, pg. 6). Again here, we the influence of Commons. Schmid also heavily focuses on the fact that institutions are constraints for one party and enablers of other parties, it is a dual relationship. This is a point missed by many definitions that only focus on constraints or treating institutions as having a one sided nature.
Elinor Ostrom (2005, pg 22) defines institutions as "the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured interactions" and then later as "opportunities and constraints individuals face in any particular situation, the information they obtain, the benefits they obtain or are excluded from and how they reason about the situation". A new point brought forward by Ostrom is that institutions play a role in the kinds of information that are received by individuals and groups. Ostrom also emphasizing as with Schmid the dual nature of institutions.
Our overall view is that there is some consensus that institutions are an external entity or thing and not just in the mind of participants. That said, participants have in their a certain view of what the institution, what it does and even whether it should be followed. Many of these authors explore the cognitive and psychological foundations of the how human cognition works and our understanding of language and other symbols that externally express the nature of institutions.
There is also generally a point of consensus that institutions act to help shape and organize the ongoing interactions of human beings. The words "repetitive" and "regularizing" and "predictable" emphasize the point of an ongoing relationship where expectations of the participants matter.
There is less clarity or at least consensus from these definitions as to the singular or dual nature of institutions. Are insertions merely constraints or do they act as both constrains and enablers of behavior and action? Also none of these definitions really address the origins of institutions or the nature of how they change.
Douglass North (2005)..."institutions are the constraints that human beings impose on human interaction. Those constraints, together with standard constraints of economics, define the opportunity set in the economy". One important point is that institutions are contrasted with belief systems which are defined as, "internal representations" and institutions are "the external manifestation of that representation". Thus, North is trying to make clear that in his viewpoint institutions are external to the observer and can be analyzed.
David Reisman (2002) (from Kasper and Streit, 1998)...."institutions are the rules of human interaction that constrain possibly opportunistic and erratic individual behavior, thereby making human behavior more predictable and thus facilitating the division of labour and wealth creation".
John R. Commons (1934)....."institutions are collective action in control of individual action". Commons often focused on judicial rulings as an important external mainfestation, in the words of North, of institutions and institutional change.
Dan Bromley (1998) defines institutions as, "all human activity requires regularizing conventions that facilitate social processes" and then later "daily life is replete with rules that are both positive and negative sanctions concerning behavior". Bromley later in his book adopts much of the framework from John R. Commons concerning an institutional analytical framework.
A Allan Schmid defined institution as "sets of ordered relationships (connections) among people that define their rights, their exposure to the rights of others, their privileges and their responsibilities" (2004, pg. 6). Again here, we the influence of Commons. Schmid also heavily focuses on the fact that institutions are constraints for one party and enablers of other parties, it is a dual relationship. This is a point missed by many definitions that only focus on constraints or treating institutions as having a one sided nature.
Elinor Ostrom (2005, pg 22) defines institutions as "the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured interactions" and then later as "opportunities and constraints individuals face in any particular situation, the information they obtain, the benefits they obtain or are excluded from and how they reason about the situation". A new point brought forward by Ostrom is that institutions play a role in the kinds of information that are received by individuals and groups. Ostrom also emphasizing as with Schmid the dual nature of institutions.
Our overall view is that there is some consensus that institutions are an external entity or thing and not just in the mind of participants. That said, participants have in their a certain view of what the institution, what it does and even whether it should be followed. Many of these authors explore the cognitive and psychological foundations of the how human cognition works and our understanding of language and other symbols that externally express the nature of institutions.
There is also generally a point of consensus that institutions act to help shape and organize the ongoing interactions of human beings. The words "repetitive" and "regularizing" and "predictable" emphasize the point of an ongoing relationship where expectations of the participants matter.
There is less clarity or at least consensus from these definitions as to the singular or dual nature of institutions. Are insertions merely constraints or do they act as both constrains and enablers of behavior and action? Also none of these definitions really address the origins of institutions or the nature of how they change.
Comments
Post a Comment