Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T20:03:56.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blockchain and institutional complexity: an extended institutional approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2020

Daniil Frolov Open the ORCID record for Daniil Frolov [Opens in a new window]
Daniil Frolov*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics and Management, Volgograd State Technical University, Volgograd, Russia
*
Corresponding author. Email: ecodev@mail.ru
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From a modern institutional economics viewpoint, blockchain is an institutional technology that minimizes transaction costs and greatly reduces intermediation. Through an analysis of blockchain, I demonstrate the possibilities of extended institutional approach – a new generation of complexity-focused methodologies and theories of institutional analysis that complement and expand the standard institutional paradigm. By using the theory of transaction value, I argue blockchain technologies not only will lead to a significant reduction in transaction costs but will also reorient intermediaries toward improving the quality of transactions and expanding the offer of additional transaction services. The theory of institutional assemblages indicates it is impossible to form a homogeneous system of blockchain-based institutions associated exclusively with the principles of decentralization, transparency, and openness. Blockchain-based institutions will be of a hybrid and conflicting nature, combining elements of opposing institutional logics – regulatory and algorithmic law, Ricardian and smart contracts, private and public systems, and uncontrollability and arbitration.

Keywords

Blockchaininstitutional assemblageinstitutional complexityinstitutional logicstransaction coststransaction value

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 21 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2020

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

Accenture (2017), Put Your Trust in Hyper-Relevance: Global Consumer Pulse Research 2017, Dublin: Accenture, https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-hyper-relevance-gcpr (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Alchian, A. A. and Allen, W. R. (2018), Universal Economics, Carmel: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Alexandre, A. (2018), New Study Says 80 Percent of ICOs Conducted in 2017 Were Scams, https://perma.cc/F7ZY-95DD (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Aoki, M. (2011), ‘Institutions as Cognitive Media between Strategic Interactions and Individual Beliefs’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 79: 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atzori, M. (2017), ‘Blockchain Technology and Decentralized Governance: Is the State Still Necessary?’, Journal of Governance and Regulation, 6: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. (2008), ‘Where Do Transactions Come From? Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 17: 155–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. and Woodard, C. J. (2009), ‘The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View’, in Gawer, A. (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
Bhatt, S. (2017), How Digital Communication Technology Shapes Markets: Redefining Competition, Building Cooperation, London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binance Research (2020), Decentralisation, Governance and EOS – A Lost Case?, Binance Research, https://research.binance.com/analysis/eos-governance (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. A. (2000), Innovation, Profits and Growth: Schumpeter and Penrose, Reading, UK: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Cartier, K. (1994), ‘The Transaction Costs and Benefits of the Incomplete Contract of Employment’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18: 181–196.Google Scholar
Casey, A. J. and Niblett, A. (2019), ‘A Framework for the New Personalization of Law’, University of Chicago Law Review, 86: 333–358Google Scholar
Castells, M. (2009), Communication Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
CPA Canada, AICPA (2017), Blockchain Technology and Its Potential Impact on the Audit and Assurance Profession, Toronto: CPA Canada, New York: AICPA, https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/interestareas/frc/assuranceadvisoryservices/downloadabledocuments/blockchain-technology-and-its-potential-impact-on-the-audit-and-assurance-profession.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P. and Potts, J. (2018), ‘Blockchains and the Economic Institutions of Capitalism’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 14: 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Filippi, P. and Hassan, S. (2016), ‘Blockchain Technology as a Regulatory Technology: From Code is Law to Law is Code’, First Monday, 21(12): https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7113/5657 (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
De Filippi, P. and Wright, A. (2018), Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLanda, M. (2016), Assemblage Theory, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G and Guattari, F. (2005), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G and Parnet, C. (1977), Dialogues, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deloitte (2016), Blockchain Technology a Game-Changer in Accounting?, London: Deloitte, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/Innovation/Blockchain_A%20game-changer%20in%20accounting.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Deloitte (2017), Blockchain in Commercial Real Estate: The Future is Here!, London: Deloitte, https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/financial-services/articles/blockchain-in-commercial-real-estate.html (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Drahokoupil, J. and Piasna, A. (2017), ‘Work in the Platform Economy: Beyond Lower Transaction Costs’, Intereconomics, 52: 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggertsson, T. (2005), Imperfect Institutions: Possibilities and Limits of Reform, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. C. and Gawer, A. (2016), The Rise of the Platform Enterprise: A Global Survey, New York : The Center for Global Enterprise, https://www.thecge.net/app/uploads/2016/01/PDF-WEB-Platform-Survey_01_12.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Günther, S. (2018), Lisk – The Mafia Blockchain, CryptoGo, https://medium.com/coinmonks/lisk-the-mafia-blockchain-47248915ae2f (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1967), Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1976), Denationalization of Money: An Analysis of the Theory and Practice of Concurrent Currencies, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Hazard, J., Sclavounis, O. and Stieber, H. (2016), ‘Are Transaction Costs Drivers of Financial Institutions? Contracts Made in Heaven, Hell, and the Cloud in Between’, in Tasca, P., Aste, T., Pelizzon, L. and Perony, N. (eds.), Banking Beyond Banks and Money: A Guide to Banking Services in the Twenty-First Century, Cham: Springer, pp. 213–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herian, R. (2018), ‘Regulating Disruption: Blockchain, GDPR, and Questions of Data Sovereignty’, Journal of Internet Law, 22: 1, 8–16.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2015), Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaeseberg, T. (2019), ‘The Code-ification of Law and Its Potential Effects’, Computer Law Review International, 20: 107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamalipour, H. and Peimani, N. (2015), ‘Assemblage Thinking and the City: Implications for Urban Studies’, Current Urban Studies, 3: 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, E. (2017), Is Blockchain a General Purpose Technology? Melbourne: RMIT University, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2932585 (accessed 27 March 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. (2005), Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
King, B. (2018), Bank 4.0: Banking Everywhere, Never at a Bank, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komesar, N. K. (1994), Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
KPMG (2019), Blockchain and the Future of Finance: A Potential New World for CFOs – and How to Prepare, Amstelveen: KPMG, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ca/pdf/2019/05/blockchain-and-the-future-of-finance.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Kritikos, M. (2018), What if Blockchain Were to be Truly Decentralised?, Strasbourg : European Parliament, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2018/624248/EPRS_ATA(2018)624248_EN.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Lanzara, G. F. (2009), ‘Building Digital Institutions: ICT and the Rise of Assemblages in Government’, in Contini, F. and Lanzara, G. F. (eds.), ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector: Technology, Work and Globalization, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 9–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J. (2004), After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K. I. and Bekar, C. T. (2005), Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-term Economic Growth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipton, A., Shrier, D. and Pentland, A. (2016), Digital Banking Manifesto: The End of Banks?, Cambridge: MIT, https://www.getsmarter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mit_digital_bank_manifesto_report.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
MacCormack, A., Lagerstrom, R., Dreyfus, D. E. and Baldwin, C. Y. (2015), Building the Agile Enterprise: IT Architecture, Modularity and the Cost of IT Change, Boston: Harvard Business School, pp. 15–60.Google Scholar
MacDonald, T. J., Allen, D. W. E. and Potts, J. (2016), ‘Blockchains and the Boundaries of Self-Organized Economies: Predictions for the Future of Banking’, in Tasca, P., Aste, T., Pelizzon, L. and Perony, N. (eds.), Banking Beyond Banks and Money: A Guide to Banking Services in the Twenty-First Century, Cham: Springer, pp. 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martens, B. (2016), An Economic Policy Perspective on Online Platforms, Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Digital Economy Working Paper 2016/05, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/JRC101501.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinsey & Co. (2017), Capital Markets Infrastructure: An Industry Reinventing Itself, New York: McKinsey & Co., https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/how-the-capital-markets-infrastructure-industry-is-reinventing-itself (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
McKinsey & Co. (2018), Blockchain Beyond the Hype: What is the Strategic Business Value?, New York: McKinsey & Co., https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/blockchain-beyond-the-hype-what-is-the-strategic-business-value (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
McMillan, J. (2014), The End of Banking: Money, Credit, and the Digital Revolution, Zurich: Zero/One Economics.Google Scholar
Mendelson, M. (2019), ‘From Initial Coin Offerings to Security Tokens: A U.S. Federal Securities Law Analysis’, Stanford Technology Law Review, 22: 52–94.Google Scholar
Molnár, J. (2018), ‘What Does Financial Intermediation Theory Tell Us About Fintechs?’, Budapest Management Review, 49: 38–46.Google Scholar
Morabito, V. (2017), Business Innovation Through Blockchain: The B3 Perspective, Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, M. C. (2018), Tomorrow 3.0: Transaction Costs and the Sharing Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2016), OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2016, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesch, U. and Ishmaev, G. (2019), ‘Fictions and Frictions: Promises, Transaction Costs and the Innovation of Network Technologies’, Social Studies of Science, 49: 264–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, M. (2016), ‘Blockchain Technology: Principles and Applications’, in Olleros, F. and Zhegu, M. (eds.), Research Handbook on Digital Transformations, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PwC (2017), Blockchain, A Catalyst for New Approaches in Insurance, London: PwC, https://www.pwc.ch/en/publications/2017/Xlos_Etude_Blockchain_UK_2017_Web.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Querbes, A. (2018), ‘Banned from the Sharing Economy: An Agent-Based Model of a Peer-to-Peer Marketplace for Consumer Goods and Services’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28: 633–665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quintais, J., Bodo, B., Giannopoulou, A. and Ferrari, V. (2019), ‘Blockchain and the Law: A Critical Evaluation’, Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 2: 86–112.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, U. R. (2019), ‘Law and the Blockchain’, Iowa Law Review, 104: 679–729.Google Scholar
Sandler, T. and Cauley, J. (1977), ‘The Design of Supranational Structures: An Economic Perspective’, International Studies Quarterly, 21: 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEC (2017), Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO, Washington: SEC, https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Shackelford, S. J. and Myers, S. (2018), ‘Block-by-Block: Leveraging the Power of Blockchain Technology to Build Trust and Promote Cyber Peace’, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 19: 334–388.Google Scholar
Swan, M., Potts, J., Takagi, S., Witte, F. and Tasca, P. (eds.) (2019), Blockchain Economics: Implications Of Distributed Ledgers – Markets, Communications Networks, And Algorithmic Reality, London: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TokenAnalyst (2020), Centralisation in Bitcoin Mining: A Data-Driven Investigation, TokenAnalyst, https://research.tokenanalyst.io/the-state-of-bitcoin-mining-10-years-on/ (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Walch, A. (2017), ‘The Path of the Blockchain Lexicon (and the Law)’, Review of Banking & Financial Law, 36: 713–765.Google Scholar
Wallis, J. J. and North, D. C. (1986), ‘Measuring the Transaction Sector in the American Economy, 1870–1970’, in Engerman, S. L., and Gallman, R. E. (eds.), Long Term Factors in American Economic Growth, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 95–148.Google Scholar
Wallis, J. J. and North, D. C. (1988), ‘Should Transaction Costs be Subtracted from Gross National Product?’, The Journal of Economic History, 48: 651–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walport, M. (2016), Distributed Ledger Technology: Beyond Block Chain. A Report by the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser, London: Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
World Bank (2017), Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and Blockchain, Washington: World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/blockchain-dlt (accessed 27 March 2020).Google Scholar
Zajac, E. J. and Olsen, C. P. (1993), ‘From Transaction Costs to Transactional Value Analysis: Implications for the Study of Interorganizational Strategies’, Journal of Management Studies, 30: 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar