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

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 28, 189 - 208, 14.04.2016

Selma Orhan

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

• Bandura, A. (1999), “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, (Special Issue on Evil and Violence), 3, 193–209.
• 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.
• Coase, R.H. (1960), “The Problem of Social Cost”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.
• Coase, R.H. (1977), “Economics and Contiguous Disciplines”, in: The Organization and Retrieval of Economic Knowledge, Ed., Mark Perlman.
• Coase, R.H. (1988), The Firm, The Market and The Law, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
• Coase R.H. (1992), “The Institutional Structure of Production”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 4. 713-719.
• 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.
• Denzau, A. & D.C. North (1994), “Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions”, Kyklos, 47, 3-31.
• 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.
• Galbraith, J.K. (1967), 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.
• Gruchy, A. (1947), Modern Economic Thought: The American Contribution, New York: Prentice-Hall.
• Korkmaz, İ. (2003), Sosyal Öğrenme Kuramı, Gelişim ve Öğrenme Psikolojisi, Ed. B. Yeşilyaprak, Ankara: 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.
• McDougall, W. (1908), An Introduction to Social Psychlogy, London: Methuen.
• Mearns, J. (2004), The Social Learning Theory of Julian B. Rotters, <http:/psych. fullerton.edu/jmearns/rotter.htm>, 12 Mayıs 2015.
• Moscovici, S. (1984), “The Phenomenon of Social Representations”, in: Social Representations, R.M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
• Moscovici, S. (1988), “Notes Towards A Description of Social Representations”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 211-250.
• Hodgson, G.M. (1998), “The Approach of Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 166-192.
• Knight, J. (1997) “Social Institutions and Human Cognition”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153(4): 693-99.
• North, D.C. (1978), “Structure and Performance: The Task of Economic History”, Journal of Economic Literature, 16, 963-978.
• North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.VIII, 152. ISBN, 0521 394163, 0521397340.
• North, D.C. (1995), The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development, in: Harriss, Hunter and Lewis (1995a), 17–26.
• Orhan, S.S. (2016), Türkiye’de Kuramsal Olarak İktisadi Düşünce: İktisat Kurumunun Modernist Sosyal Bilişi, Otoriter Sosyal Temsiller ve Liberal Retorik, E. Yücelkaya (Ed.), İletişim Yay. Basım Aşaması.
• Parada, J. (2001), “Original Institution Economics: A Theory for 21st. Century”, Oeconomicus, Vol. 5, Fall 2001, 46-60.
• Parada, J. (2002), “Original Institutional Economics and New Institutional Economics: Revisiting the Bridges (Or the Divide)”, Oeconomicus, Volume VI, Fall 2002.
• Richter, R. (2005), “The New Institutional Economics - Its Start, Its Meaning, Its Prospects 1”, Revised 9 November, 2005, An earlier version appeared in: The European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR), 6:2, 161- 200.
• Rutherford, M. (1994), The Old and The New Institutionalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rutherford, M. (1995), “The Old and The New Institutionalism: Can Bridges Be Built?”, Journal of Economic Issues, 29, 443-451.
• Scheerer, M. (1954), “Cognitive Teory”, G. Lindzey (Ed.), in: Handbook of Scoial Psychology, Vol. 1., Cambridge, Addison-Wesle.
• Sears, D.O. & J.L. Freedman & L.A. Peplau (1989), Social Psychology, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc.
• Simon, H. (1965), “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
• Simon, H.A. (1987), “Bounded Rationality”, J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman, (eds.), in: The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 1:266–68, London: Macmillan.
• Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, NY: Free Press.