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The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.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 conflict between institutionalism and neoclassicism in the 20th century has been investigated by scholars over the years. Many of them believe that in the postwar period, neoclassicism triumphed while institutionalism largely disappeared. The present chapter takes a very different view. The late 20th century represents a broad synthesis of neoclassical and institutional themes in a methodology we call pragmatic empiricism. That approach combines the mathematical model building and theoretical formalism of neoclassical economics with the institutional economist’s data-driven statistical analysis and concern for developing institutional forms. We use as a case study the history of American locational economics from the 1930s to the present. The mixing of institutional and neoclassical themes is quite evident in the work of three young scholars at Harvard who effectively initiated American locational economics. In the postwar period, we find a series of outstanding, well-published papers that capture the spirit of the “founders.” These papers do use more modeling, but they also focus on major institutional developments. A broader review of locational works is consistent with the pragmatic empiricism label. The history of locational economics supports the claim that institutionalism, far from disappearing, continues to provide fundamental questions and techniques for modern pragmatic empiricism.

This study is a comment on Geoffrey Hodgson’s “Discovering Institutionalism: One Person’s Journey.” In this self-description of the evolution of his thought, Hodgson distinctly acknowledges Thorstein Veblen’s influence on his own institutional perspective. This is the issue that I explore in this study. My argument is that Hodgson can be understood as a Veblenian, but he does not fit in the Veblenian notion that became popular in the mid-twentieth century. I argue that Hodgson’s notion of habits is the strongest Veblen’s influence on him, and his reconstitutive downward and upward causations are in line with Veblen’s institutionalism, albeit without the mid-twentieth century Veblenian writings. I also address the approach to the content of habits as a break between Hodgson’s and Veblen’s institutionalism. By offering an unprecedented Veblenianism, I argue that Hodgson’s institutional economics can be understood as a new institutionalist segmentation.

This essay charts an intellectual journey. Geoffrey M. Hodgson became an institutional economist in the 1980s. He explains how he discovered institutional economics and what strains of institutional thought were attractive for him. Another issue raised in this essay is how institutional researchers organize and move forward. Hodgson argues for an interdisciplinary approach, but this is not without its problems.

The rise of the regulatory state during the Gilded Age was closely associated with the development of institutionalist ideas in American academia. In their analysis of the emergent regulatory environment, institutionalists like John Commons operated with a fundamentally marginalist theory of value and distribution. This engagement is a central explanation for the ultimate ascendancy of neoclassical economics, and the limitations of the regulatory environment that emerged in the Progressive Era. The eventual rise of the Chicago School and its deregulatory ambitions did constitute a rupture, but one achieved without rejecting preceding conceptions of competition and value. The substantial compatibility of the view of markets underlying both the regulatory and deregulatory periods is stressed, casting doubt about the transformative potential of the resurgent regulatory impulse in the New Gilded Age.

This paper aims to determine the status of the socialist market economy through a logical analysis of the evolution of economic systems in human society.

This paper presents an analysis of uncertainty and the functions performed by different economic systems in managing and resolving it, thereby explaining the evolutionary rationale behind economic system evolution.

Firstly, the socialist market economy empowers the market to play a decisive role in resource allocation, which serves as the foundation for activating individuals' motivation to engage in economic activities. Secondly, the socialist market economy adheres to the basic socialist economic system, which is the basis for the socialist market economy to stabilize the economy and society or to address the risk of economic uncertainty that may trigger macro-level inconsistencies in economic operations. Thirdly, the advantages of a socialist market economy in adapting to economic uncertainties do not arise spontaneously and must be exerted through continuous improvement of the socialist market economy.

The innovation of this paper lies in introducing uncertainty to clarify the logic behind the evolution of economic systems in human society and explaining the typical significance of the socialist market economy and its advantages in accommodating and resolving uncertainty.

The purpose of this paper is to have a deeper understanding of the nonlinear relationship between the impact of climate change on tourism development. Current studies on the effects of climate change on tourism development primarily rely on linear correlation assumptions.

Based on the New Institutional Economics theory, the institutional setting inherently motivates and ensures the growth of the tourism industry. For a precise evaluation of the nonlinear consequences of climate change on tourism, this paper concentrates on Chinese cities between 2011 and 2021, methodically analyzing the influence of climate change on tourism.

The study findings suggest that there is an “inverse U”-shaped nonlinear relationship between climate change and tourism development, initially strengthening and subsequently weakening. Based on these findings, the research further delves into how institutional contexts shape the nonlinear association between climate change and tourism growth. It was found that in a higher institutional backdrop, the “inverse U” curve tends to flatten and surpass the curve adjusted for a lesser institutional context. Upon deeper mechanism analysis, it was observed that cities with more advanced marketization, improved industrial restructuring and enhanced educational growth exhibit a more evident “inverse U”-shaped nonlinear connection between climate change and tourism evolution.

First, previous studies on climate change and tourism development largely rely on questionnaire data (Hu et al., 2022). In contrast to these studies, this paper uses dynamic panel data, which to some extent overcomes the subjectivity and difficulty of causality identification in questionnaire data, making our research conclusions more accurate and reliable. Second, this study breaks through the linear relationship hypothesis of previous literature regarding climate change and tourism development. By evaluating the nonlinear relationship of climate change to tourism development from the institutional pressure perspective, it more intricately delineates their interplay mechanism, expanding and supplementing the research literature on the relationship mechanism between climate change and tourism development. Thirdly, the conclusions of this study are beneficial for policymakers to better understand and assess the scope of climate change impacts. It also aids relevant departments in clarifying the direction of institutional environment optimization to elevate the level of tourism development when faced with adverse impacts brought about by climate change.