Comentarios sobre el enfoque de la Economía Institucional

Loaiza Quintero, Osmar Leandro (2007): Comentarios sobre el enfoque de la Economía Institucional.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to offer a general overview of the institutionalist approach to economics, hoping to make clear some of its main advantages as a framework of study of the economic process. In doing so, a brief exposition about some of the weaknesses of neoclassical economics will be performed in latter sections of the article -being one of them the ignorance of its own implicit value premises. The paper concludes that the advantages of the institutionalist framework are anchored on the fact that it offers a broader perspective about the social system, a more plausible hypothesis than the equilibrium one about the functioning of the social system -the cumulative circular causation-, a cautious treatment of quantitative analysis, and the recognition of the impossibility to avoid value premises in scientific analysis.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: Comments on the approach of Institutional Economics
• Language: Spanish
• Keywords: Institutional economics; Gunnar Myrdal; value premises; economic methodology; transdisciplinary
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B52 - Institutional ; Evolutionary; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines

References

Asso, Pier Francesco y Fiorito, Luca. 2004. “Human Nature and Economic Institutions: Instinct Psychology, Behaviorism, and the Development of American Institutionalism”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 445-477.

Ayala, José. 1999. Instituciones y economía: una introducción al neoinstitucionalismo, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México.

Bentham, Jeremy. 2000. “Chapter I: Of the Principle of Utility”, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Batoche Books, Kitchener. Consúltese en: http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/bentham/morals.pdf.

Castrillón, Alberto. 2006. “In memoriam John Kenneth Galbraith”, Revista de Economía Institucional, Vol. 8, No. 14, pp. 299-302.

Cataño, José Felix. 2003. “Teoría económica y neoinstitucionalismo: Comentarios a “El neoinstitucionalismo como escuela” de Salomón Kalmanovitz”, Revista de Economía Institucional, Vol. 5, No. 9, pp. 213-227.

Cataño, José Félix. 2004. “La teoría neoclásica del equilibrio general. Apuntes críticos”, Cuadernos de Economía, V. XXIII, n. 40, Bogotá, pp. 175-204.

Commons, John. 1931. “Institutional Economics”, American Economics Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 648-657.

First World Congress of Trandisciplinarity. 1994. Charter of Transdisciplinarity, Convento de Arrábida, Portugal, 6 de Noviembre. Consúltese en: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/charten.htm.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1999. “Introduction”, en The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press, United States of America.

Gillies, Donald. 2004. “Modern Economics: the Problem and a Solution”, en: Edward Fullbrook (editor), A Guide to What´s Wrong with Economics, Anthem Press.

Hodgson, Geoffrey. 1998. “The approach of Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 166-192.

James, William. 1888. “What the Will Effects”, Scribner's Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 240-250.

Kalmanovitz, Salomón. 2003. “El neoinstitucionalismo como escuela”, Revista de Economía Institucional, Vol. 5, No. 9, pp. 189-212.

Lawson, Tony. 2004. “Can Mathematics be used Successfully in Economics?”, en: Edward Fullbrook (editor), A Guide to What´s Wrong with Economics, Anthem Press.

Martínez Míguelez, Miguel. 2001. “La lógica dialéctica en el proceso de la investigación científica”, Anthropos, Vol. 22, No. 43, pp. 7-38.

Martínez Míguelez, Miguel. 2004. “Transdisciplinariedad y lógica dialéctica. Un enfoque para la complejidad del mundo actual”, Lectiva, No. 6-7, pp. 119-133.

Max-Neef, Manfred. 2003. Saber y Comprender. Conferencia, Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia, 11 de septiembre.

Max-Neef, Manfred. 2005. “Foundations of Transdisciplinarity”, Ecological Economics, No. 53, pp. 5-16. Versión en Español en: Lectiva, No. 6-7 (2004), pp. 105-117.

Mitchell, Wesley. 1944. “Facts and Values in Economics”, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 212-219.

Moore, George Edward. 2004. Principia Ethica, Dover Publications Inc., New York.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. “Prologue: The Beam in Our Eyes”, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, Vol. 1, Pantheon, New York

____________. 1962. “Apéndice: Nota metodológica sobre los conceptos y las premisas de valor”, Solidaridad o desintegración, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México.

____________. 1968a. Teoría económica y regiones subdesarrolladas. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, pp. 7-34 y 114-120.

____________. 1972. Concepto de valor en la teoría social: ensayos sobre metodología, Venezuela.

____________. 1978. “Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 771-783.

Nicolescu, Basarab. 1997. La Transdisciplinariedad: Manifiesto (Fragmento). Consúltese en: http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/espagnol/visiones.htm.

North, Douglass. 1993. Instituciones, cambio institucional y desempeño económico, “Primera Parte”, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. “Introduction to the Transaction Edition”, en: Gunnar Myrdal (autor), The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, Transaction Books, United States of America, pp. vii-viii. Consúltese en: http://books.google.com/books?hl=es&lr=&id=O2IwO28IyTUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&sig=2zORKcSmtDBIReNgP2SX71l0NiM&dq=%22Myrdal%22+%22The+Political+Element+in+the+Development+of+Economic+Theory%22+#PPR8,M1.

Vaury, Olivier. 2003. “Is GDP a Good Measure of Economic Progress”, Post Autistic Economics Review, No. 20. Consúltese en: www.paecon.net/PAEReview/wholeissues/issue20.htm#_Is_GDP_a.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1898. “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 373-397.