IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201544.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shifting Boundaries in Economics: the Institutional Cognitive Strand

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The paper proposes a critical interpretation of the development of new institutional economics and of its relationship with other economic fields. Consistently with the oil-spot dynamics model, new institutionalism can be described as an enlargement of the mainstream that, in time, seems to further expand towards heterodoxy by branching and specializing. Institutional cognitive economics positions itself at the borders between these two areas. With its focus on the cognitive processes underlying institutional genesis and evolution, it is the result of the integration process between the ideas of new (D.C. North’s in particular) and old institutionalism (T. Veblen’s in particular) plus the injection of F. Hayek’s theories on the link between mind and institutions. Institutional cognitive economics also represents an example of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization that is taking place at the border of social sciences and that might represent the future of our discipline.

Suggested Citation

  • Ambrosino, Angela & Fontana, Magda & Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2015. "Shifting Boundaries in Economics: the Institutional Cognitive Strand," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201544, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2015dip/wp_44_2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fontana, Magda, 2010. "Can neoclassical economics handle complexity? The fallacy of the oil spot dynamic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 584-596, December.
    2. David Colander & Richard Holt & Barkley Rosser, 2004. "The changing face of mainstream economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 485-499.
    3. Richard M. Alston & Michael B. Vaughan, 1993. "Institutionalists: A United Front or Divergent Voices of Dissent?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 351-361, June.
    4. Ambrosino, Angela, 2009. "Institutions as game theory outcomes: toward a cognitive-experimental inquiry," MPRA Paper 42752, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2013.
    5. Cedrini, Mario & Fontana, Magda, 2015. "Mainstreaming. Reflections on the Origins and Fate of Mainstream Pluralism," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201510, University of Turin.
    6. Groenewegen, J. & Kerstholt, F.T.S. & Nagelkerke, A.G., 1995. "On integrating new and old institutionalism : Douglass North building bridges," Other publications TiSEM cc3f6aba-ee41-4256-93de-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Arthur T. Denzau & Douglass C. North, 1994. "Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 3-31, February.
    8. Bronk,Richard, 2009. "The Romantic Economist," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521735155, November.
    9. Angela Ambrosino, 2014. "A Cognitive Approach to Law and Economics: Hayek's Legacy," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(1), pages 19-48.
    10. David Dequech, 2007. "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 279-302.
    11. Bronk,Richard, 2009. "The Romantic Economist," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521513845, November.
    12. John B. Davis, 2008. "The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(3), pages 349-366, May.
    13. John Groenewegen & Frans Kerstholt & Ad Nagelkerke, 1995. "On Integrating New and Old Institutionalism: Douglass North Building Bridges," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 467-475, June.
    14. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2000. "What Is the Essence of Institutional Economics?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 317-329, June.
    15. Christopher Brown, 2013. "Transmutability, generalised Darwinism and the limits to conceptual integration," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(1), pages 209-225.
    16. Leonhard Dobusch & Jakob Kapeller, 2012. "Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a Framework for Interested Pluralism in Economics," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 1035-1058.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2016. "“Reviewing Path Dependence Theory in Economics: Micro–Foundations of Endogenous Change Processes”," MPRA Paper 75310, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Angela Ambrosino & Luca Storti, 2020. "Interdisciplinaritˆ nella teoria economica: riflessioni sulle spalle di Paolo Sylos Labini (Interdisciplinarity and economic theory: Paolo Sylos LabiniÕs legacy)," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 73(292), pages 285-300.
    3. Essiane, Patrick-Nelson Daniel, 2020. "De l'Ancienne Economie Institutionnelle à la Nouvelle Economie Institutionnelle: une introduction à quelques débats [Old Institutional Economics and New Institutional Economics: an Introduction to ," MPRA Paper 102858, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Angela Ambrosino & Magda Fontana & Anna Azzurra Gigante, 2018. "Shifting Boundaries In Economics: The Institutional Cognitive Strand And The Future Of Institutional Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 767-791, July.
    2. Torsten Heinrich & Henning Schwardt, 2013. "Institutional Inertia and Institutional Change in an Expanding Normal-Form Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Mario A. Cedrini & Roberto Marchionatti, 2017. "On the Theoretical and Practical Relevance of the Concept of Gift to the Development of a Non-imperialist Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 633-649, December.
    4. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    5. James Copestake & Richard Williams, 2014. "Political-Economy Analysis, Aid Effectiveness and the Art of Development Management," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 32(1), pages 133-153, January.
    6. Bronk, Richard & Jacoby, Wade, 2016. "Uncertainty and the dangers of monocultures in regulation, analysis, and practice," MPIfG Discussion Paper 16/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    7. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Iazdi, Oz, 2023. "Vieses orto-heterodoxos e os algoritmos economistas do ChatGPT [Ortho-Heterodox biases and the economist algorithms of ChatGPT]," MPRA Paper 117655, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Mario Cedrini & Magda Fontana, 2018. "Just another niche in the wall? How specialization is changing the face of mainstream economics [Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences]," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(2), pages 427-451.
    10. Groenewegen, John, 2022. "Institutional form (blueprints) and institutional function (process): Theoretical reflections on property rights and land," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    11. Michele Di Maio, 2013. "Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1315-1348, November.
    12. Cedrini, Mario & Fontana, Magda, 2015. "Mainstreaming. Reflections on the Origins and Fate of Mainstream Pluralism," CESMEP Working Papers 201501, University of Turin.
    13. William A. Jackson, 2018. "Strategic Pluralism and Monism in Heterodox Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(2), pages 237-251, June.
    14. Magda Fontana, 2014. "Pluralism(s) in economics: lessons from complexity and innovation. A review paper," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 189-204, January.
    15. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    16. Angela Ambrosino, 2017. "The Role of Agents’ Propensity toward Conformity and Independence in the Process of Institutional Change," STOREPapers 1_2017, Associazione Italiana per la Storia dell'Economia Politica - StorEP.
    17. Shinji Teraji, 2017. "Understanding coevolution of mind and society: institutions-as-rules and institutions-as-equilibria," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 16(1), pages 95-112, November.
    18. Alexandre Truc, 2023. "Neuroeconomics: Hype or Hope? An Answer," Post-Print hal-04719266, HAL.
    19. Larysa Tamilina & Natalya Tamilina, 2014. "Heterogeneity in Institutional Effects on Economic Growth: Theory and Empirical Evidence," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 11(2), pages 205-249, December.
    20. Røpke, Inge, 2020. "Econ 101—In need of a sustainability transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uto:dipeco:201544. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Laura Ballestra or Cinzia Carlevaris (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

    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.