Under the Cover of Meta-Institutions. Home as a Meta-Institutional Concept

IF 0.5 Q4 ECONOMICS
D. Litvintsev, G. Litvintseva
{"title":"Under the Cover of Meta-Institutions. Home as a Meta-Institutional Concept","authors":"D. Litvintsev, G. Litvintseva","doi":"10.17835/2076-6297.2023.15.1.023-033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In institutional studies, there is still no unified approach to understanding meta-institutions and the criteria for referring to them. The purpose of this work is to establish the methodological legitimacy of using the term \"meta-institution\" in various sciences (economics, sociology, philosophy, etc.), consider the level of mental models and explore individual examples of meta-institutional concepts. The article presents a critical analysis of the theories of meta-institutions in various foreign and Russian studies, based on an interdisciplinary approach. It is concluded that meta-institutions should not be identified with basic, global, total and macro-institutions. The most adequate interpretation of meta-institutions, which are actually mental models (constructs) in terms of D. North, is the theory of meta-institutional concepts (for example, power, solidarity, exchange, etc.). The habit of thinking and the instinct of idle curiosity, according to T. Veblen, create the basis for the formation and, in fact, are the condition for the possibility of the existence of all institutions and relevant social practices. In conclusion, the authors put forward a hypothesis about the possibility of considering home as a meta-institutional concept. The results and conclusions obtained in the course of this study contribute to the further development of institutional theory and can serve as a basis for the analysis of specific socio-economic institutions and meta-institutional concepts.","PeriodicalId":43842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Institutional Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Institutional Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2023.15.1.023-033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In institutional studies, there is still no unified approach to understanding meta-institutions and the criteria for referring to them. The purpose of this work is to establish the methodological legitimacy of using the term "meta-institution" in various sciences (economics, sociology, philosophy, etc.), consider the level of mental models and explore individual examples of meta-institutional concepts. The article presents a critical analysis of the theories of meta-institutions in various foreign and Russian studies, based on an interdisciplinary approach. It is concluded that meta-institutions should not be identified with basic, global, total and macro-institutions. The most adequate interpretation of meta-institutions, which are actually mental models (constructs) in terms of D. North, is the theory of meta-institutional concepts (for example, power, solidarity, exchange, etc.). The habit of thinking and the instinct of idle curiosity, according to T. Veblen, create the basis for the formation and, in fact, are the condition for the possibility of the existence of all institutions and relevant social practices. In conclusion, the authors put forward a hypothesis about the possibility of considering home as a meta-institutional concept. The results and conclusions obtained in the course of this study contribute to the further development of institutional theory and can serve as a basis for the analysis of specific socio-economic institutions and meta-institutional concepts.
在元制度的掩护下。家作为一个元制度概念
在制度研究中,仍然没有统一的方法来理解元制度及其引用标准。这项工作的目的是建立在各种科学(经济学、社会学、哲学等)中使用“元制度”一词的方法论合法性,考虑心理模型的水平,并探索元制度概念的个别例子。本文基于跨学科的方法,对各种国外和俄罗斯研究中的元制度理论进行了批判性分析。元制度不应等同于基本制度、全球制度、总量制度和宏观制度。对元制度最恰当的解释是元制度概念理论(例如,权力、团结、交换等),它实际上是D. North所说的心理模型(结构)。凡勃伦认为,思考的习惯和无所事事的好奇心是形成的基础,实际上是一切制度和相关社会实践存在的可能性的条件。最后,作者提出了将家作为一个元制度概念的可能性假设。本研究的结果和结论有助于制度理论的进一步发展,并可作为分析具体社会经济制度和元制度概念的基础。
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
自引率
33.30%
发文量
24
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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