Search results

This paper is an initial attempt to discuss the American institutionalist movement as it changed and developed after 1945. Institutionalism in the inter-war period was a relatively coherent movement held together by a set of general methodological, theoretical, and ideological commitments (Rutherford, 2011). Although institutionalism always had its critics, it came under increased attack in the 1940s, and faced challenges from Keynesian economics, a revived neoclassicism, econometrics, and from new methodological approaches derived from various versions of positivism. The institutionalist response to these criticisms, and particularly the criticism that institutionalism “lacked theory,” is to be found in a variety of attempts to redefine institutionalism in new theoretical or methodological terms. Perhaps the most important of these is to be found in Clarence Ayres’ The Theory of Economic Progress (1944), although there were many others. These developments were accompanied by a significant amount of debate, disagreement, and uncertainty over future directions. Some of this is reflected in the early history of The Association for Evolutionary Economics.

This chapter proposes a global agenda to eliminate racism in nursing by targeting reform at nursing education administration internationally. First, the history of racism in nursing is reviewed, along with two models – the diversity model and the cultural competence model – that were applied unsuccessfully to counteract racism in nursing. Second, a description of how racism is entrenched in nursing leadership globally is presented. Third, the recalcitrant structures that serve to maintain institutionalized racism (IR) in the international nursing education system are carefully examined. Specifically, the components and constructs involved in IR in nursing education are delineated, and the way in which these negatively impact both ethnic minority (EM) students and faculty are explained. Based on this, a global agenda to eliminate racism in nursing education internationally is proposed. Eliminating racism in higher education in nursing is a mandatory social responsibility if global healthcare is ever to be equitable. Five actionable recommendations are made to eliminate racism in higher education are summarized as follows: (1) components of nursing programs which are designed to eliminate racism in nursing education should be governed at the country level, (2) to design and implement a system of surveillance of the global nursing community to enable standardized measurement to ensure nursing education programs in all countries are meeting anti-racism benchmark targets, (3) nursing education programs should be established worldwide to provide individual pipeline and mentorship programs to ensure the career success of EM nursing students and faculty, (4) nursing education programs should be conducted to reduce barriers to EM participation in these individual support programs, and (5) nursing education programs are required to teach their nursing faculty skills in developing anti-racist curricula that seeks to eliminate implicit bias.

The first Wisconsin Ph.D.s who came to MSU with an institutional bent were agricultural economists and included Henry Larzalere (Ph.D. 1938) whose major professor was Asher Hobson. Larzalere recalls the influence of Commons who retired in 1933. Upon graduation, Larzalere worked a short time for Wisconsin Governor Phillip Fox LaFollette who won passage of the nation’s first unemployment compensation act. Commons had earlier helped LaFollette’s father, Robert, to a number of institutional innovations.⁴ Larzalere continued the Commons’ tradition of contributing to the development of new institutions rather than being content to provide an efficiency apologia for existing private governance structures. He helped Michigan farmers form cooperatives. He taught land economics prior to Barlowe’s arrival in 1948, but primarily taught agricultural marketing. One of his Master’s degree students was Glenn Johnson (see below). Larzalere retired in 1977.

This chapter provides a review of existing research on learning gain and related topics in higher education. The methodology adopted is a form of systematic review. The origins and meaning of learning gain, and its relation to similar terms, are discussed. The ways in which learning gain has been applied in practice and in research are considered. The issues raised by this practice and research are examined, and the various criticisms made are reviewed. Some conclusions are then drawn.

In 1978, Philip Klein wrote about institutional economists of the Veblen-Commons-Mitchell-Ayres variety: Whatever we call ourselves, we are not given much credit generally among our fellow economists, but I think there is evidence that an ever-wider group of economists has begun to hear what we are saying and to accept a number of our premises…institutionalism must be viewed as either never having died or as being in the process of a resurrection which I suggest will endure (Klein, 1978, p. 252).Klein’s optimism seems justified by the following quote from Joseph Stiglitz’s new book, Globalization and its Discontents: Old-fashioned economics textbooks often talk about market economics as if it had three essential ingredients: prices, private property, and profits. Together with competition, these provide incentives, coordinate economic decision making, ensuring that firms produce what individuals want at the lowest possible cost. But there has also long been a recognition of the importance of institutions (Stiglitz, 2002, p. 139; emphasis in original).Klein and other original institutionalists should be buoyed when they hear such a statement from a recent Nobel Prize winner. One problem, however, is that the “old-fashioned textbooks” are still being published in 2003. The quote also raises a question: just who recognized the importance of institutions and when did they recognize it? Statements such as the above by Stiglitz irk original institutionalists, but why? Is it because he underestimates the prominence of perfect competition in current texts, because he is understating original institutionalists’ positions as “keepers of the faith,” or both? In any case, we may not be able to hoist the V(eblen)-C(ommons) banner and claim total victory but, increasingly, more of economics today is institutional economics. A recent article by Allan Schmid demonstrates that indeed though everyone is not an institutionalist in the Veblen-Commons mold, “good economists find it useful to embrace some of its various elements” (Schmid, 2001, p. 281).

Purpose — This chapter reviews the key findings of the reported research in this volume using the wider international literatures on transport and social exclusion as its conceptual framework. It begins by briefly summarising the research and policy context in which the study is set. It then provides an overview of major conceptual, theoretical and methodological advancements relevant to this area over the last 10 years in order to evaluate the study’s contribution to research, policy and practice internationally.

Methodology — The conceptual framework for this chapter is based on a comprehensive review of the international literatures on transport and social exclusion. After a brief introduction to these, it outlines key conceptual, theoretical and methodological advancements as they pertain to transport-related social exclusion. In addition, it evaluates the scope and implications of the methodological approach with particular reference to contemporary scholarly debates in this area. The chapter subsequently explores the applicability of the research in policy and practice, both inside and outside the Australian context.

Findings — The chapter concludes that the research has made a significant contribution to conceptual, theoretical and methodological developments within the area of transport-related exclusion, and has helped move forward related debates within policy circles. Opportunities for further research are also identified.