Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T13:24:25.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the evolutionary character of North's idea of institutional change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2005

MICHEL ZOUBOULAKIS
MICHEL ZOUBOULAKIS
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Argonauts Str. 38221 Volos, Greece. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main objective is to discuss the historical-evolutionary character of the latest work of Douglass North. His views have been lately criticized, especially as far as their historical insight is concerned, as well as the nature of the concepts and the ideas he used. Three interconnected arguments dealing with North's neoclassical roots, his individualistic point of departure and his inclination to universalistic explanations sustain this allegation, and they will be presented in the first part. In the second part, a response to these arguments is suggested. Finally, the evolutionary character of his later work is discussed and established in the last part. It is held that by introducing ‘culture’ into the heart of the analysis of institutional change, North is oriented toward context dependent and consequently historically specific explanations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , December 2005 , pp. 139 - 153
Copyright
© 2005 The JOIE Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the EAEPE Crete Conference, 2004. Michalis Psalidopoulos and Euclid Tsakalotos have made valuable suggestions and should be thanked for. The author is very grateful to the editor and the anonymous referees of this Journal for their very constructive criticisms, and recognizes responsibility for the remaining deficiencies.