法律制度与制度变迁的实证分析:多方法方法及其在公司治理研究中的应用

J. Buchanan, D. Chai, S. Deakin
{"title":"法律制度与制度变迁的实证分析:多方法方法及其在公司治理研究中的应用","authors":"J. Buchanan, D. Chai, S. Deakin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2394681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The claim that institutions matter for economic growth and development has so far received a more extensive theoretical treatment than an empirical or methodological one. Basing our approach on a coevolutionary conception of relations between law and the economy, we link theory to method and explore three techniques for analysing legal institutions empirically: ‘leximetric’ measurement of legal rules, time-series econometrics, and interview-based fieldwork. We argue that while robust measurement of institutions is possible, quantitative techniques have their limits, and should be combined with fieldwork in a multiple-methods approach.","PeriodicalId":150523,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Other Development & Political Institutions (Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirical Analysis of Legal Institutions and Institutional Change: Multiple-Methods Approaches and Their Application to Corporate Governance Research\",\"authors\":\"J. Buchanan, D. Chai, S. Deakin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2394681\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The claim that institutions matter for economic growth and development has so far received a more extensive theoretical treatment than an empirical or methodological one. Basing our approach on a coevolutionary conception of relations between law and the economy, we link theory to method and explore three techniques for analysing legal institutions empirically: ‘leximetric’ measurement of legal rules, time-series econometrics, and interview-based fieldwork. We argue that while robust measurement of institutions is possible, quantitative techniques have their limits, and should be combined with fieldwork in a multiple-methods approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":150523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Other Development & Political Institutions (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"52\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Other Development & Political Institutions (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394681\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Other Development & Political Institutions (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

摘要

制度对经济增长和发展的重要性这一主张,迄今为止得到的理论处理比经验主义或方法论的处理更为广泛。基于法律与经济关系的共同进化概念,我们将理论与方法联系起来,并探索了三种经验分析法律制度的技术:法律规则的“弹性”测量、时间序列计量经济学和基于访谈的实地调查。我们认为,虽然对机构进行强有力的测量是可能的,但定量技术有其局限性,应该以多方法的方式与实地调查相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Empirical Analysis of Legal Institutions and Institutional Change: Multiple-Methods Approaches and Their Application to Corporate Governance Research
The claim that institutions matter for economic growth and development has so far received a more extensive theoretical treatment than an empirical or methodological one. Basing our approach on a coevolutionary conception of relations between law and the economy, we link theory to method and explore three techniques for analysing legal institutions empirically: ‘leximetric’ measurement of legal rules, time-series econometrics, and interview-based fieldwork. We argue that while robust measurement of institutions is possible, quantitative techniques have their limits, and should be combined with fieldwork in a multiple-methods approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信