IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v15y2019i02p207-233_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taxonomic definitions in social science, with firms, markets and institutions as case studies

Author

Listed:
  • HODGSON, GEOFFREY M.

Abstract

Definitions are crucial for institutional analysis. This article explains the nature of taxonomic definitions, with particular attention to their use in economics and other social sciences. Taxonomic definitions demarcate one species of entity from another. They are vital for the communication of meaning between scientists, who must share some basic conception of what types of entity they are investigating, to establish a division of labour over subsequent theoretical analysis and empirical investigation of the type of entity defined. Generally, taxonomic definitions build on past usage and are parsimonious: they are not meant to be explanations or descriptions. By contrast, overloaded taxonomic definitions can create square-one disagreement about what is being investigated. As illustrative examples, the paper considers different degrees of progress with attempts to define firms, markets and institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 2019. "Taxonomic definitions in social science, with firms, markets and institutions as case studies," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 207-233, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:15:y:2019:i:02:p:207-233_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137418000334/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Larue, Louis & Meyer, Camille & Hudon, Marek & Sandberg, Joakim, 2022. "The Ethics of Alternative Currencies," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 299-321, April.
    2. Mateusz Borkowski, 2024. "Trust and economic development on the example of European economies in 2017–2020: PLS-SEM modeling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 4257-4280, October.
    3. René Riedl & Mark Stieninger & Manuel Muehlburger & Stefan Koch & Thomas Hess, 2024. "What is digital transformation? A survey on the perceptions of decision-makers in business," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 61-95, March.
    4. Geoffrey M Hodgson, 2023. "How stable routines can empower varied behaviors: defining routines as organizational capacities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(6), pages 1319-1332.
    5. Dan Friesner, 2024. "Is the Prisoner’s Dilemma an Adequate Concept for Ethical Analysis in Healthcare? An Original Institutional Economic Rejoinder," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(2), pages 383-391, August.
    6. Timothy Waring & Taylor Lange & Sujan Chakraborty, 2022. "Institutional adaptation in the evolution of the ‘co-operative principles’," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 333-365, January.
    7. Markus Weinberger, 2022. "What Is Metaverse?—A Definition Based on Qualitative Meta-Synthesis," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Tasneem Sadiq & Rob van Tulder & Karen Maas, 2022. "Building a Taxonomy of Hybridization: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Societal Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Frasser, Cristian & Guzmán, Gabriel, 2024. "The Plurality of Economic Classifications: Toward a New Strategy for Their Investigation," MPRA Paper 121166, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Asta Valackienė & Rafał Nagaj, 2021. "Shared Taxonomy for the Implementation of Responsible Innovation Approach in Industrial Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:15:y:2019:i:02:p:207-233_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.