Search results

The paper provides a detailed historical account of Douglass C. North's early intellectual contributions and analytical developments in pursuing a Grand Theory for why some countries are rich and others poor.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The systematic, continuous and profound attempt to answer the Smithian social coordination problem shaped North's journey from being a young serious Marxist to becoming one of the founders of New Institutional Economics. In the process, he was converted in the early 1950s into a rigid neoclassical economist, being one of the leaders in promoting New Economic History. The success of the cliometric revolution exposed the frailties of the movement itself, namely, the limitations of neoclassical economic theory to explain economic growth and social change. Incorporating transaction costs, the institutional framework in which property rights and contracts are measured, defined and enforced assumes a prominent role in explaining economic performance.

In the early 1970s, North adopted a naive theory of institutions and property rights still grounded in neoclassical assumptions. Institutional and organizational analysis is modeled as a social maximizing efficient equilibrium outcome. However, the increasing tension between the neoclassical theoretical apparatus and its failure to account for contrasting political and institutional structures, diverging economic paths and social change propelled the modification of its assumptions and progressive conceptual innovation. In the later 1970s and early 1980s, North abandoned the efficiency view and gradually became more critical of the objective rationality postulate. In this intellectual movement, North's avant-garde research program contributed significantly to the creation of New Institutional Economics.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the possibility for firms to consider institutional settings to systematically direct dispersed individual efforts of discovery and invention towards objects (products or processes) of their interest in order to enhance their value creation capacity.

The authors conduct a comparative analysis of the different institutional settings within which software products are invented and produced – closed producer-centred model, open user-centred model, and hybrid interactive producer-user model.

The authors draw indications regarding the possibility to design institutional settings for value creation and the potential pitfalls tied to these strategic tools.

A theoretical framework is elaborated in order to understand the different ways in which institutional contexts influence and direct value creation processes. The model analysed shows the firms’ deliberate attempt to stimulate a dynamic process of social interaction and communication which may foster higher levels of creativity and innovation. In order to guarantee the necessary accessibility and to sufficiently motivate external programmers towards the perception of a new code, the firm has to surrender the traditional source through which it appropriates value: barriers to the accessibility of the code developed through IPRs. The adoption of an institutional setting which facilitates dynamic value creation processes suggests, therefore, the need to turn to dynamic mechanisms for value appropriation in parallel.

It is rather common for China’s current academic circles to use western doctrines that originated in situ to explain China’s economic problems, a suspicion of scenario misplacement may thus arise. The root cause lies in the lack of reflection about the current relationship between economic thoughts and realities. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Correctly understanding economic thoughts associated with the brand of “that era” and effectively deducing its characteristics is of great significance to finding new features of this era and constructing new ideas with the characteristics of “this era.”

This motif is exactly the keynote on which to base the study of economic history and economic thought.

In a period of major historical turning points, the economic realities on which the economic thinking about that era (the era of economists) relied was undergoing major changes, and re-emphasizing the ancient topic of the relationship between economic thoughts and economic realities became particularly urgent.