制度理论的不同路径:基础二分法与理论框架

IF 0.5 Q4 ECONOMICS Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice Pub Date : 2020-05-10 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3597748
P. Aligica, R. Wagner
{"title":"制度理论的不同路径:基础二分法与理论框架","authors":"P. Aligica, R. Wagner","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3597748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is common for scholars to describe institutions as ‘rules of the game’. This description entails a separation between a society and its rules. Social change thus results as societies amend their framing rules. This article compares the common treatment of institutions\n as rules against an alternative treatment wherein societies and institutions are images of one another. If there were no rules governing interactions among some set of people, you would have a mass of people but that mass would not constitute what we recognise as society. This simple distinction\n between institutions as rules by which a society is governed and institutions as society itself creates divergent paths for institutional theory, which this article explores.","PeriodicalId":53126,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Different paths for institutional theory: foundational dichotomies and theoretical framing\",\"authors\":\"P. Aligica, R. Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3597748\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is common for scholars to describe institutions as ‘rules of the game’. This description entails a separation between a society and its rules. Social change thus results as societies amend their framing rules. This article compares the common treatment of institutions\\n as rules against an alternative treatment wherein societies and institutions are images of one another. If there were no rules governing interactions among some set of people, you would have a mass of people but that mass would not constitute what we recognise as society. This simple distinction\\n between institutions as rules by which a society is governed and institutions as society itself creates divergent paths for institutional theory, which this article explores.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3597748\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3597748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

学者们通常把制度描述为“游戏规则”。这种描述需要将社会与其规则分离开来。因此,社会变革的结果是社会修改其框架规则。这篇文章比较了制度作为规则的常见处理与另一种处理,其中社会和制度是彼此的形象。如果没有规则来管理一群人之间的互动,你会有一群人,但这群人不会构成我们所认为的社会。作为治理社会的规则的制度与作为社会本身的制度之间的这种简单区别,为制度理论创造了不同的路径,本文对此进行了探讨。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Different paths for institutional theory: foundational dichotomies and theoretical framing
It is common for scholars to describe institutions as ‘rules of the game’. This description entails a separation between a society and its rules. Social change thus results as societies amend their framing rules. This article compares the common treatment of institutions as rules against an alternative treatment wherein societies and institutions are images of one another. If there were no rules governing interactions among some set of people, you would have a mass of people but that mass would not constitute what we recognise as society. This simple distinction between institutions as rules by which a society is governed and institutions as society itself creates divergent paths for institutional theory, which this article explores.
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
33.30%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contentious public finance: how entanglement shapes the costs of resisting elitist budgetary preferences Social versus individual work preferences: implications for optimal linear income taxation Introduction: special issue on the political economy of the War in Ukraine Introduction: special issue on the political economy of the War in Ukraine The political economy of public procurement in Ukraine
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1