Abstract
A main instrument for better understanding the formation of institutions, and explaining the differences in their long-run development between periods and societies, would be to use history as a laboratory, allowing us to test the hypotheses developed in the social sciences. This paper discusses the study by
Douglas Allen, The Institutional Revolution, in that context, in order to identify
some of the pitfalls in the current attempts by economists to use historical
analysis. Next, the paper places his English case into a comparative perspective,
helped by the recent insights gained by economic and social history, to see how
these pitfalls can be avoided. Based on this, I argue for comparisons at the regional, national and global levels, and for a multidimensional view which includes social contextualization, combined with an open eye for discontinuity in
long-run patterns, in order to avoid one-dimensional and teleological approaches to institutional change.
Douglas Allen, The Institutional Revolution, in that context, in order to identify
some of the pitfalls in the current attempts by economists to use historical
analysis. Next, the paper places his English case into a comparative perspective,
helped by the recent insights gained by economic and social history, to see how
these pitfalls can be avoided. Based on this, I argue for comparisons at the regional, national and global levels, and for a multidimensional view which includes social contextualization, combined with an open eye for discontinuity in
long-run patterns, in order to avoid one-dimensional and teleological approaches to institutional change.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 69-91 |
| Journal | Journal of Institutional Economics |
| Volume | 11.1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |