Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T08:10:01.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Nature and Economic Institutions: Instinct Psychology, Behaviorism, and the Development of American Institutionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Pier Francesco Asso  and
Luca Fiorito
Pier Francesco Asso
Affiliation:
Università di Palermo. E-mail: pfasso@unipa.it
Luca Fiorito
Affiliation:
Università di Palermo. E-mail: lucafiorito@sciepo1.unipa.it.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent articles have explored from different perspectives the psychological foundations of American institutionalism from its beginning to the interwar years (Hodgson 1999; Lewin 1996; Rutherford 2000a, 2000b; Asso and Fiorito 2003). Other authors had previously dwelled upon the same topic in their writings on the originsand development of the social sciences in the United States (Curti 1980; Degler 1991; Ross 1991). All have a common starting point: the emergence during the second half of the nineteenth century of instinct-based theories of human agency. Although various thinkers had already acknowledged the role of impulses and proclivities, it was not until Darwin's introduction of biological explanations into behavioral analysis that instincts entered the rhetoric of the social sciences in a systematic way (Hodgson 1999; Degler 1991). William James, William McDougall, and C. Lloyd Morgan gave instinct theory its greatest refinement, soon stimulating its adoption by those economists who were looking for a viable alternative to hedonism. At the beginning of the century, early institutionalists like Thorstein Veblen, Robert F. Hoxie, Wesley C. Mitchell, and Carleton Parker employed instinct theory in their analysis of economic behavior. Their attention wasdrawn by the multiple layers of interaction between instinctive motivation and intentional economic behavior. Debates on the role of instinctsin economicswere not confined to the different souls of American Institutionalism, and many more “orthodox” figures, like Irving Fisher or Frank Taussig, actively participated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 445 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Albert, A. & Ramstad, Y. 1998. “The Social Psychological Underpinnings of Commons's” Institutional Economics II: The Concordance of George Herbert Mead's ‘Social Self’ and John R. Commons's ‘Will’.” Journal of Economic Issues 32 (1): 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. G. D. & Hicks, J. R. 1934. “A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value.” Economica, New Series 1 (1): 52–76; 1 (2): 196–219.Google Scholar
Ardzrooni, L. 1920. “The Economicsof the Social Uplift.” Political Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 126–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asso, P. F. & Fiorito, L. 2003. “Waging War Against Mechanical Man: Frank Knight's Critique of Behavioristic Psychology.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 21-A: 65–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asso, P. F. & Fiorito, L. 2004. “Lawrence Kelso Frank's Proto-Ayreasian Dychotomy.” History of Political Economy 36 (3): 559–80.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1918. “The Epistemological Significance of Social Psychology.” Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Method 17 (1): 35–44.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1921. “Instinct and Capacity I.” Journal of Philosophy 18 (3): 561–65.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1936. “Fifty Years' Development in Ideas of Human Nature and Motivation.” American Economic Review 26 (1): 224–54.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1938. The Problem of Economic Order. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1952. The Industrial Economy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1958. “Veblen's Theory of Instincts Reconsidered.” In Dowd, D. F., ed., Thorstein Veblen: A Critical Reappraisal. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1962. The Theory of Economic Progress, 2nd edition. New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1982. “Foreword” to reprint edition of Freedom and Reform, Essays in Economics and Social Philosophy, by Frank H. Knight. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press, pp. i–xii.Google Scholar
Bye, R. T. 1924. “Some Recent Development of Economic Theory”, In Tugwell, Rexford G., ed., The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf, pp. 271–300.Google Scholar
Carver, T. N. 1919. “The Behavioristic Man.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 33 (1): 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. M. 1918. “Economics and Modern Psychology, Parts I and II.” Journal of Political Economy 26 (1): 1–30; 26 (2): 136–66, reprinted in: J. M. Clark, Preface to Social Economics. New York: Augustus Kelley, 1967, pp. 92–169.Google Scholar
Clark, J. M. 1927. “Recent Developments in Economics.” In Hayes, E. C., ed., Recent Developments in the Social Sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, pp. 213–306.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. 1919. “Review of Instincts in Industry by Ordway Tead, and Creative Impulse in Industry by Helen Marot.” American Economic Review 9 (2): 512–16.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. (1934) Institutional Economics: Its Place in Political Economy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. 1950. The Economics of Collective Action. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1921. Some Phases of Institutional Value Theory. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. M. A. Copeland Papers, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1924. “Communities of Economic Interest and the Price System.” In Tugwell, R. G., ed., The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf, pp. 104–52.Google Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1925. “Professor Knight on Psychology.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 40 (1): 134–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1926. “Desire, Choice, and Purpose from a Natural-Evolutionary Standpoint.” Psychological Review 33 (2): 245–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1930. “Psychology and the Natural Science Point of View.” Psychological Review, 37 (3): 461–87, reprinted in: M. A. Copeland, Fact and Theory in Economics. Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1973, pp. 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1931. “Economic Theory and the Natural Science Point of View.” American Economic Review 21 (1): 67–79.Google Scholar
Copeland, M. A. 1936. “Commons's Institutionalism in Relation to Problems of Social Evolution and Economic Planning.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 50 (1): 333–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curti, M. E. 1980. Human Nature in American Thought. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Degler, C. N. 1991. In Search of Human Nature: the Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Economic Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1922. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Dorfman, J. 1934. Thorstein Veblen and His America. New York: The Veblen Press.Google Scholar
Dorfman, J. 1959. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, Vols. 4 and 5. New York: The Viking Press.Google Scholar
Dunlap, K. 1919. “Are There Any Instincts?” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 34 (2): 307–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edie, L. D. 1922. Principles of the New Economics. New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell Co.Google Scholar
Fetter, F. 1918. “Discussion of Carleton H. Parker's ‘Motives in Economic Life’.” American Economic Review 8 (1): 237–39.Google Scholar
Fiorito, L. 2000. “The Years of High Pluralism, US Interwar Economics: New Light from the Mitchell Correspondence.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology Vol. 18C: 267–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorito, L. & Samuels, W. J. 2000. “The Quantitative Method in Economics: Its Promise, Strength and Limits.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology Vol. 18C: 263–66.Google Scholar
Fisher, I. 1918. “Health and War.” American Labor Legislation Review 8 (2): 1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Fisher, I. 1919. “Economists in Public Service.” American Economic Review 9 (1): 5–21.Google Scholar
Frank, L. K. 1923. “A Theory of Business Cycle.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 37 (4): 625–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, L. K. 1924. “The Emancipation of Economics.” American Economic Review 14 (1): 17–38.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. H. 1919. “The Institutional Approach to Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 9 (1): 309–18.Google Scholar
Hands, D. W. & Mirowski, P. 1988. “A Paradox of Budgets: The Postwar Stabilization of American Neoclassical Demand Theory.” In Morgan, M. S. & Rutherford, M., eds, From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 260–92.Google Scholar
Haney, L. H. 1936. History of Economic Thought. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 1997. “The Ubiquity of Habits and Rules.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 21 (6): 663–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 1999. Evolution and Institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 2001. “Frank Knight as an Institutionalist.” In Biddle, J., Davis, J. B., , S. G. M., eds, Economics Broadly Considered: Essays in Honour of Warren J. Samuels. New York: Routledge, pp. 64–93.Google Scholar
Kantor, J. R. 1922. “An Essay Toward an Institutional Conception of Social Psychology.” American Journal of Sociology 27 (5): 611–27; 27 (6): 758–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantor, J. R. 1924. “The Institutional Foundation of a Scientific Social Psychology.” American Journal of Sociology 29 (6): 674–87.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1922. “Ethics and the Economic Interpretation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 36 (3): 454–81.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1923. “Some Bookson Fundamentals.” Journal of Political Economy 31 (3): 542–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1924. “The Limitations of Scientiic Method in Economics.” In Tugwell, R. G., ed., The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf, pp. 229–67, reprinted in F. H. Knight, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Bros, 1935, pp. 104–47.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1925a. “Economic Psychology and the Value Problem.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 39 (3): 372–409, reprinted in: F. H. Knight, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays, New York: Harper & Bros., 1935, pp. 76–104.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1925b. “Fact and Metaphysics in Economic Psychology.” American Economic Review 15 (2): 247–66.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1935. The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1944. “Realism and Relevance in the Theory of Demand.” Journal of Political Economy 52 (4): 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F. H. (Undated) “Some Notes on Copeland.” Frank H. Knight Papers, Joseph Regenstein Library, Department of Special Collection. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Koopmans, T. C. 1947. “Measurement without Theory.” Review of Economics and Statistics 29 (3): 161–72.Google Scholar
Leathers, C. G. 1990. “Veblen and Hayek on Instincts and Evolution.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 12 (2): 162–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, S. B. 1996. “Economics and Psychology: Lessons For Our Own Day From the Early Twentieth Century.” Journal of Economic Literature 34 (3): 1293–323.Google Scholar
Marot, H. 1918. The Creative Impulse in Industry. New York: H. P. Dutton & Company.Google Scholar
McDougall, W. 1924. “Can Sociology and Social Psychology Dispense with Instincts?” American Journal of Sociology 29 (6): 657–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, F. C. 1924. “On Measurement in Economics.” In Tugwell, R. G., ed., The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf, pp. 37–72.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 1987. “The Philosophical Basis of Institutional Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues 21 (3): 1001–38.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1910. “The Rationality of Economic Activity I.” The Journal of Political Economy 18 (2): 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1914. “Human Behavior and Economics: A Survey of Recent Literature.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 29 (1) pp. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1915. Types of Economic Theory: From Mercantilism to Institutionalism, 2 vols. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1917. “Wieser's Theory of Social Economics.” Political Science Quarterly 32 (2): 95–118.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1918. “Discussion of Carleton H. Parker's ‘Motives in Economic Life’.” American Economic Review 8 (1): 235–37.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1925. “Quantitative Analysis in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 15 (1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. S. 1990. The History of Econometric Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M. & Rutherford, M., eds, 1998. From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, J. M. 1985. The Origins of Behaviorism: American Psychology, 1870–1920. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, C. H. 1918. “Motivesin Economic Life.” American Economic Review 8 (1): 212–31, reprinted in: C. H. Parker, The Casual Laborer and Other Essays. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1972, pp. 125–65.Google Scholar
Parker, C. S. 1919. An American Idyll: The Life of Carleton H. Parker. Boston, MA: The Atlantic Monthly Press.Google Scholar
Ramson, B. 1977. “The Alternative Paths to Theory of Clark and Ayres.” Journal of Economic Issues 11 (2): 461–67.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, reprinted with a new foreword by William J. Baumol. New York: New York University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Ross, D. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1984. “Thorstein Veblen and the Process of Institutional Change.” History of Political Economy 16 (3): 331–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1994. Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1998. “Veblen's Evolutionary Programme: A Promise Unfulfilled.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 22 (4): 463–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1999. “Institutionalism as ‘Scientific’ Economics.” In Backhouse, R. & Creedy, J., eds., From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm: Essays in Honour of D. P. O' Brien. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 223–42.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 2000a. “Understanding Institutional Economics: 1918–1929.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (3): 277–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, M. (2000b.) “Institutionalism Between the Wars.” Journal ofEconomic Issues 34 (2): 291–303.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 2002. “Morris A. Copeland: A Case Study in the History of Institutional Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 24 (3): 261–90.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1938. “A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer Behavior.” Economica New Series 5 (17): 61–71.Google Scholar
Schultz, H. 1937. “The Quantitative Method with Special Reference to Economic Theory: A Public Lecture Given Before The Division of the Social Sciences.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 18C, 2000, pp. 343–55.Google Scholar
Seckler, D. (1975) Thorstein Veblen and the Institutionalists: A Study in the Social Philosophy of Economics. Denver, CO: Colorado Associated University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1982. “Economicsand Psychology.” In Herbert A. Simon, Models of Bounded Rationality, Vol. 2, Behavioral Economics and Business Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slutsky, E. E. 1915. “Sulla teoria del Bilancio del Consumatore.” Giornale degli Economisti 51, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Smith, L. D. 1986. Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: a Reassessment ofthe Alliance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, A. 1924. “Psychology in Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 32 (4): 487–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suranyi-Unger, T. 1931. Economics in the Twentieth Century: The History of its International Development. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Taussig, F. 1915. Inventors and Money Makers. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tead, O. 1918. Instincts in Industry: a Study of Working Class Psychology. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Tilman, R. 1996. The Intellectual Legacy of Thorstein Veblen: Unresolved Issues. Westport, CT: Greenwond Press.Google Scholar
Tugwell, R. G. 1922. “Human Nature in Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 30 (3): 317–45.Google Scholar
Tugwell, R. G., ed., 1924a. The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Tugwell, R. G. 1924b. “Experimental Economics.” In Tugwell, Rexford G., ed., The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf, pp. 370–422.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: A. M. Kelley, 1965.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. 1914. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. New York: A. M. Kelley, 1964.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. 1913. “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It.” Psychological Review 20 (3): 158–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. B. 1918. Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.Google Scholar
Wolfe, A. B. 1924. “Functional Economics.” In Tugwell, R. G., ed., The Trend of Economics. New York: Alfred Knopf, pp. 443–82.Google Scholar