History of the institutionalist paradigm: main stages and characteristics

Abstract

The article deals with a retrospective and prospective analysis of the economic thought development within the institutionalist approach. The purpose of the research is to conduct a theoretical and methodological investigation of the history of institutionalism from its origin to the present, identify the main components of the institutionalist paradigm and pinpoint directions of its further research. The author highlights socio-economic conditions for the appearance and growth of institutionalism. The paper also features main scientific and methodological achievements of old institutionalists, namely, T. Veblen, J. Commons, and V. Mitchell. In addition, it substantiates the composition and evolution stages of the institutionalist paradigm. In the subsequent sections, the article provides a brief overview of the institutionalist theories of capitalism and industrial transformation in the 1930s–1980s. Moreover, the peculiarities of scientific concepts of the new institutional economics are revealed, in particular, the findings by R. Coase, A. Alchian, G. Demsetz, O. Williamson, J. Buchanan, D. North. The study refutes the disappearance of interest in the old institutionalism of Veblen, Commons, and Mitchell after the 1930s and emphasizes the peculiarities of its development, revival, and coexistence with new institutional economics in the 1980s–2000s. The article also focuses on the methodology and theoretical concepts of the new wing of old institutionalism, namely, of W. Samuels, J.R. Stanfield, W. Dugger, and G. Hodgson. In addition, it also outlines the post-nonclassical nature, heterogeneity, stability, and adaptability of the institutionalist paradigm. A number of common features and clear criteria for attributing the theories to the paradigm were identified. The theoretical and methodological interests of the institutionalist research in the 21st century are presented, in particular, as to the differences in economic development of countries, quality of legal norms, correlation of institutions and culture, peculiarities of elections and political institutions, relationships of individuals and groups, social capital issues, etc. The results of this study are important for a proper understanding of the fundamentality of the institutionalist approach, as well as for the correct interpretation of particular theories or methodological considerations.