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The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.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

Fresh out of the two-century-old British legacy, Bangladesh, formerly known as East Pakistan from 1947 to 1971, was searching for a post-colonial architectural style. Colonial architecture in the region in general often imposed imported European elements, ignoring the preceding legacies of the Sultanate and the Mughals. The critical challenge was to find a balance between the prevailing high modernism in architecture and the local vernacular and climatic forces. The Pakistani government invited international architects to fill the gap left by a non-existent local architectural industry. Unfortunately, their work has rarely been properly analyzed. With selected case studies, this paper analyzes their work in an attempt to explore their contribution to creating a national architectural identity.

This study uses a case study approach with selected architectural projects from the period. It uses research tools such as systematic analysis of drawings, volumes and photographs and archival research.

The international architects took inspiration from the strong vernacular and climatic forces of the region. The resultant expressions of the two-decade-long search in their combined body of work are some of the finest examples of vernacular and climate-responsive architecture in the region. They transcended the regular international style and became context-specific and unique. The quest for East Pakistan's post-colonial architectural identity was partially met by the newly found identity through vernacular and climate-responsive adaptation in architecture.

This study explores how a unified vernacular and climate-responsive adaptations potentially shaped the post-colonial architectural identity of the region. No prior study exists on this issue for the time period.

Working conditions, pay rates and the rights of workers to collectively negotiate have become important points of discussions in recent years, with support for unions and union applications rising to levels long unseen in America. In many instances, though, companies have responded aggressively. This is not the first time such a dynamic has played out in American business. This study aims to take a fresh look at one of America’s most prominent historical disputes between labor and ownership – the Homestead Massacre of 1892 – to glean lessons from that conflict that remain relevant to today’s business environment.

This study adopts game theory and the principles of repeated interaction to assess how differing discount factors led to differences in time orientations between the workers and the Carnegie company. These differing time orientations affected both the strategy each side deployed in the negotiations and the payoffs received by the parties. Letters, contemporary news reports and histories of the events leading up to and immediately following the 1892 Homestead Massacre are qualitatively analyzed with a genealogical pragmatic approach.

Differences in temporal orientation between management and workers exacerbated the conflict, with the workers adopting a more cooperative stance and distal time orientation, while the Carnegie company negotiated with a proximal time orientation and played to “win” a game that, in fact, could not be fully won or lost given its infinitely repeating nature. The result was a short-term victory for the Carnegie company but with long-term negative consequences that highlight the suboptimal outcome the company achieved by playing a proximal strategy in an infinite game.

Although the incident at Homestead is a well-studied labor dispute, many of the themes that preceded the incident have resurfaced in the modern work context. This work, by adopting game theory as an analytical framework, provides new insights into management mistakes that led to the labor conflict and lessons for what present-day managers can do to avoid exacerbating labor strife.