Unifying Theories of institutions: a critique of Pettit’s Virtual Control Theory

IF 1.7 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
F. Hindriks
{"title":"Unifying Theories of institutions: a critique of Pettit’s Virtual Control Theory","authors":"F. Hindriks","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To unify rival theories is to combine their key insights into a single coherent framework. It is often achieved by integrating the theories and forging new connections between their explanatory factors, which leads to an increase in explanatory power. Philip Pettit has proposed an alternative method that serves to establish that their key insights can be coherently combined. Instead of integrating them, he reconciles them by adjusting their domains of application so as to avoid overlap. As a result, the theories no longer compete. I argue that integration is often to be preferred to reconciliation. First, reconciliation retains the original insights, but only for part of the domain. In contrast, integration preserves and enriches the original insights across the board. Second, integration leads to a substantial increase in explanatory power, whereas reconciliation might even decrease it. I substantiate these claims by comparing Pettit’s Virtual Control Theory to the Rules-and-Equilibrium Theory.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"2012 1","pages":"166 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049853","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT To unify rival theories is to combine their key insights into a single coherent framework. It is often achieved by integrating the theories and forging new connections between their explanatory factors, which leads to an increase in explanatory power. Philip Pettit has proposed an alternative method that serves to establish that their key insights can be coherently combined. Instead of integrating them, he reconciles them by adjusting their domains of application so as to avoid overlap. As a result, the theories no longer compete. I argue that integration is often to be preferred to reconciliation. First, reconciliation retains the original insights, but only for part of the domain. In contrast, integration preserves and enriches the original insights across the board. Second, integration leads to a substantial increase in explanatory power, whereas reconciliation might even decrease it. I substantiate these claims by comparing Pettit’s Virtual Control Theory to the Rules-and-Equilibrium Theory.
制度的统一理论:对佩蒂特虚拟控制论的批判
统一对立的理论就是将它们的主要见解整合到一个连贯的框架中。这通常是通过整合理论和在它们的解释因素之间建立新的联系来实现的,这导致解释能力的增加。菲利普·佩蒂特提出了另一种方法,用于确定他们的关键见解可以连贯地结合在一起。他没有将它们整合起来,而是通过调整它们的应用领域来协调它们,以避免重叠。结果,这些理论不再相互竞争。我认为,融合往往比和解更可取。首先,和解保留了原始的见解,但仅适用于部分领域。相比之下,整合保留并丰富了原始的见解。其次,整合导致解释力大幅增加,而和解甚至可能降低解释力。我通过比较Pettit的虚拟控制理论和规则与均衡理论来证实这些说法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Methodology is a valuable forum which publishes the most current and exciting work in the broad field of economic methodology. The Journal of Economic Methodology addresses issues such as: ■Methodological analysis of the theory and practice of contemporary economics ■Analysis of the methodological implications of new developments in economic theory and practice ■The methodological writings and practice of earlier economic theorists (mainstream or heterodox) ■Research in the philosophical foundations of economics ■Studies in the rhetoric, sociology, or economics of economics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信