Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Max U versus Humanomics: a critique of neo-institutionalism

  • DEIRDRE NANSEN McCLOSKEY (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

‘Institutions’ do not mean the same thing to Samuelsonian economists as they mean to other people. North's ‘rules of game’, like chess, dominates, even when it is claimed that ‘informal institutions’ are allowed into the tale. The tale is that institutions were once clotted, and then became unclotted, and the Great Enrichment occurred. But the enrichment was by a factor of upwards of a hundred, which cannot be explained by routine movements to an efficient equilibrium. And changes of institutions did not in fact happen much in England. Ethics changed, not laws and procedures. For presently poor countries, too, it will not suffice, as the World Bank and Acemoglu recommend, to add institutions and stir. Economies rely on ethics, which neo-institutionalists, being at heart Samuelsonian, have not wanted to admit. Ideas matter. Indeed, metaphors and stories matter, as in Searle's account.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Max U versus Humanomics: a critique of neo-institutionalism
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Max U versus Humanomics: a critique of neo-institutionalism
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Max U versus Humanomics: a critique of neo-institutionalism
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: deirdre2@uic.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. Adams (1994), ‘Economy as Instituted Process: Change, Transformation, and Progress’, Journal of Economic Issues, 28: 331355.

A. M. Carlos and F. D. Lewis (1999), ‘Property Rights, Competition, and Depletion in the Eighteenth-century Canadian Fur Trade: The Role of the European Market’, Canadian Journal of Economics Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 32: 705728.

E. Chamlee-Wright and V. H. Storr (eds.) (2010), The Political Economy of Hurricane Katrina and Community Rebound, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

J. Davis (2012), Medieval Market Morality: Life, Law and Ethics in the English Marketplace, 1200–1500, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

A. Greif (2006), Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D. N. McCloskey (2008), ‘Not by P Alone: A Virtuous Economy’, Review of Political Economy, 20: 181197.

D. N. McCloskey (2010), Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

J. Mokyr (2009), ‘Intellectual Property Rights, the Industrial Revolution, and the Beginnings of Modern Economic Growth’, American Economic Review, 99 (2): 349355.

D. C. North (1991), ‘Institutions’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1): 97112.

J. R. Searle (2010), Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

M. Tomasello (2014), A Natural History of Human Thinking, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

O. Williamson (1999), ‘Public and Private Bureaucracies; A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective’, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15: 306342.

B. J. Wilson (2010), ‘Social Preferences Aren't Preferences’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73: 7782.

S. Zamagni (2010), ‘Catholic Social Thought, Civil Economy, and the Spirit of Capitalism’, in D. K. Finn (ed.), The True Wealth of Nations: Catholic Social Thought and Economic Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6393.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Institutional Economics
  • ISSN: 1744-1374
  • EISSN: 1744-1382
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 30
Total number of PDF views: 455 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 605 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 30th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.