后制度主义与经济科学:批判性分析

IF 0.7 Q3 ECONOMICS
D. Trubitsyn
{"title":"后制度主义与经济科学:批判性分析","authors":"D. Trubitsyn","doi":"10.32609/0042-8736-2024-3-143-159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes post­institutionalism, highlighting its inability to present a “new mainstream” in institutional studies in economics. Pointing out some real problems of institutional studies of modern society, post­institutionalism does not provide what economic theory needs. The rejection of functionalism, rationalism and efficiency and optimality criteria sidetracks this approach to the field of sociology and cultural studies; de­economization is also effected on account of target substitution of institution transplanting. Another essential problem is the confusion of notions through their “unsealing” that enables an “alternate” interpretation of blockchain and allows to oppose against the transaction costs minimization principle, basing on the criticisms of the Coase Theorem. Rejecting this interpretation, the article claims that the studies of the institutional complexity of modern society does not require refusal of classical approaches, but their clarification. The paper also criticizes the call for “postdisciplinarity” and raises the question of the quality of interdisciplinary institution researches.","PeriodicalId":45534,"journal":{"name":"Voprosy Ekonomiki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-institutionalism versus economic science: Critical analysis\",\"authors\":\"D. Trubitsyn\",\"doi\":\"10.32609/0042-8736-2024-3-143-159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article analyzes post­institutionalism, highlighting its inability to present a “new mainstream” in institutional studies in economics. Pointing out some real problems of institutional studies of modern society, post­institutionalism does not provide what economic theory needs. The rejection of functionalism, rationalism and efficiency and optimality criteria sidetracks this approach to the field of sociology and cultural studies; de­economization is also effected on account of target substitution of institution transplanting. Another essential problem is the confusion of notions through their “unsealing” that enables an “alternate” interpretation of blockchain and allows to oppose against the transaction costs minimization principle, basing on the criticisms of the Coase Theorem. Rejecting this interpretation, the article claims that the studies of the institutional complexity of modern society does not require refusal of classical approaches, but their clarification. The paper also criticizes the call for “postdisciplinarity” and raises the question of the quality of interdisciplinary institution researches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Voprosy Ekonomiki\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Voprosy Ekonomiki\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2024-3-143-159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Voprosy Ekonomiki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2024-3-143-159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章分析了后制度主义,强调后制度主义无法为经济学中的制度研究提供 "新主流"。后制度主义指出了现代社会制度研究中的一些现实问题,并没有提供经济理论所需要的东西。对功能主义、理性主义以及效率和最优化标准的摒弃,使这一方法偏离了社会学和文化研究的领域;制度移植的目标替代也造成了去经济学化。另一个重要问题是通过 "解封 "混淆概念,从而对区块链进行 "另类 "解释,并根据科斯定理的批评反对交易成本最小化原则。文章反对这种解释,认为研究现代社会的制度复杂性并不需要拒绝经典方法,而是需要对其进行澄清。文章还批评了 "后学科性 "的呼声,并提出了跨学科制度研究的质量问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Post-institutionalism versus economic science: Critical analysis
The article analyzes post­institutionalism, highlighting its inability to present a “new mainstream” in institutional studies in economics. Pointing out some real problems of institutional studies of modern society, post­institutionalism does not provide what economic theory needs. The rejection of functionalism, rationalism and efficiency and optimality criteria sidetracks this approach to the field of sociology and cultural studies; de­economization is also effected on account of target substitution of institution transplanting. Another essential problem is the confusion of notions through their “unsealing” that enables an “alternate” interpretation of blockchain and allows to oppose against the transaction costs minimization principle, basing on the criticisms of the Coase Theorem. Rejecting this interpretation, the article claims that the studies of the institutional complexity of modern society does not require refusal of classical approaches, but their clarification. The paper also criticizes the call for “postdisciplinarity” and raises the question of the quality of interdisciplinary institution researches.
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
Voprosy Ekonomiki
Voprosy Ekonomiki ECONOMICS-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
86
×
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