DOCSLIB.ORG

Phd Thesis ROBERT BUTLER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phd Thesis ROBERT BUTLER PhD Thesis ROBERT BUTLER STATE DEVELOPMENT, INSTITUTIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND LONG-RUN ECONOMIC GROWTH: A CROSS-COUNTRY EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION Submitted to the University of Hertfordshire in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of PhD JULY 2013 Supervisors: Professor Geoffrey Hodgson, Dr Christopher Tofallis & Dr Francesca Gagliardi Word Count: 62,658 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements 7 Abstract 10 List of Tables 11 List of Figures 12 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS 13 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Rationale For Research 16 1.3 Research Questions 18 1.4 Summary of Structure 21 1.5 Conclusion 24 CHAPTER 2 – STATE-BUILDING & MODERNISATION 25 2.1 Introduction 25 2.2 Institutions & States 26 2.2.1 What are Institutions? 26 2.2.2 Defining the State 29 2.2.3 State Capacity 32 2.3 The Evolution of the State 35 2.3.1. The Autocratic State 38 2.3.1.1 Fragile Autocratic State 40 2.3.1.2 Basic Autocratic State 41 2.3.1.3 Mature Autocratic State 42 2.3.2 The Democratic State 44 2.3.2.1 Shared Belief System & Universal Inclusion 45 2.3.2.2 Spread of Citizen Rights, Extension of Franchise & Clerical Decline 47 2.3.2.3. Incentive Systems Preventing Rent-Seeking & Impersonal Exchange 50 2.3.3 The Process of Modernisation in Democratic States 52 2.4 Conceptual Frameworks of State Development 56 2.4.1 Theoretical Framework of the Autocratic State 56 2 2.4.2 Black’s (1996) Model of Comparative State Development 62 2.4.2.1 The Challenge of Modernity – Fragile to Basic Autocratic State 65 2.4.2.2 Consolidation of Modern Leadership – Basic to Mature Autocratic State 65 2.4.2.3 Economic and Social Transformation – Mature Autocratic State to Democratic State 66 2.4.2.4 Integration of Society – Modernisation of Democratic State 66 2.4.3 Deficiencies in Black’s Model of Comparative State Development 67 2.5 Conclusion 69 CHAPTER 3 – A REHABILITAION OF MANCUR OLSON 3.1 Introduction 70 3.2 The Ideas of Mancur Olson 72 3.2.1 The Logic of Collective Action 72 3.2.1.1 Second-order Implications 75 3.2.1.2 Third-order Implications 78 3.2.2 The Rise and Decline of Nations 80 3.2.2.1 Great Britain and the Disease of Institutional Sclerosis 80 3.2.2.2 Eurosclerosis – The Disease Spreads 84 3.2.3 Rational Ignorance 88 3.2.4. Opponent of the “Rise and Decline” Hypothesis – Criticism of Mancur Olson 89 3.3 Modelling Institutional Flexibility 93 3.3.1 Institutional Flexibility 93 3.3.2 Fusing Black, Choi, North, Hodgson & Olson 95 3.4 Conclusion 99 CHAPTER 4 – DEMOCRACY AND ECOMOMIC GROWTH 101 4.1 Introduction 101 4.2 The Relationship Between Democracy & Economic Growth 104 4.3 Measurements of Democracy 109 3 4.3.1 Freedom House Gastil Index 109 4.3.2 Polity IV 110 4.4 Previous Studies on Democracy & Economic Growth 112 4.4.1 Compatibility Hypothesis – Democracy is Growth-Promoting 113 4.4.2 Conflict Hypothesis – Democracy is Growth-Retarding 118 4.4.3 Democracy has No Impact on Economic Growth 121 4.5 Discussion of Empirical Results 123 4.5.1 Developed and Developing Countries 123 4.5.2 Measurement of Democracy 124 4.5.3 Length of Time Considered 125 4.6 Conclusion 128 CHAPTER 5 – SOURCES OF DATA AND EMPIRICAL MODELS 130 5.1 Introduction 130 5.2. Construction of Variables 133 5.2.1 Real GDP per Capita 133 5.2.2 Nominal National Output 134 5.2.3 Nominal General Government Expenditure & Revenue 135 5.2.4 Volume of Exports and Imports 136 5.2.5 Educational Enrolment Numbers at Primary School Level 137 5.2.6 Freight Traffic on Railway Lines 138 5.2.7 Democracy Index 138 5.2.8 Independence, Revolutions & Occupations 141 5.2.9 Polity IV 144 5.2.9.1 Regime Durability 145 5.2.9.2 Political Competition 146 5.2.10 Institutional Flexibility 147 5.2.11 Global Era Dummies 150 5.2.12 Relative Productivity – Diffusion Hypothesis 150 5.3 Empirical Models 152 5.3.1. Logistic Curve 152 5.3.2. Three Measures of Institutional Flexibility 153 5.3.2.1 FLX Years 154 5.3.2.2 DEMFLX Years 155 4 5.3.2.3 LOGCUR 155 5.5.3 Panel Regression Models 156 5.3.3.1 Fixed Effects Model 156 5.3.3.2 Random Effects Model 157 5.3.3.3 Variance Inflation Factors 158 5.3.3.4 Breusch-Pagan Lagrangian Multiplier Test 158 5.3.3.5 Hausman Test 159 5.4 Newly Created Datasets 160 5.5 Conclusion 167 CHAPTER 6 – EMPIRICAL RESULTS 169 6.1 Introduction 169 6.2 The Peak of Institutional Flexibility 172 6.2.1 Comparing FLX, DEMFLX & LOGCUR 172 6.3 Research Statements & Panel Regression Results 177 6.3.1 Empirical Results – FLX Years of Institutional Flexibility 179 6.3.2 Empirical Results – DEMFLX Years of Institutional Flexibility 183 6.3.3 Empirical Results – LOGCUR Institutional Flexibility 188 6.4 Discussion of Findings 191 6.4.1 Percentage of the Population above the Voting Age with Voting Rights 193 6.4.2 Dummy Variable for the Period 1919 to 1938 & 1945 to 1973 194 6.4.3 Regime Durability 194 6.4.4 Institutional Flexibility 195 6.4.5 Insignificant Independent Variables 196 6.5 Conclusion 197 CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION 199 7.1 Introduction 199 7.2 Main Contributions 200 7.3 Findings and Further Research 203 7.4 Conclusion 205 REFERENCES 206 5 APPENDICES 221 Appendix 3.1 Changes to Voting Rights in Europe since 1820 – 1975 221 Appendix 5.1 Disruption due to National Independence (DISNAT) 233 Appendix 5.2 Disruption due to Occupation (DISOCC) 234 Appendix 5.3 Disruption due to Revolution or Civil War (DISREV) 235 Appendix 5.4 Country-specific Conditions 236 Appendix 5.5 Rate of GDP per Capita Growth 251 Appendix 5.6 General Government Revenue as % of National Output 259 Appendix 5.7 Exports %of National Output 267 Appendix 5.8 Freight Traffic – Metric Tonnes per Person 273 Appendix 5.9 Democracy Index 283 Appendix 5.10 Diffusion Hypothesis – Relative Productivity 291 Appendix 5.11 Country Logistic Curves 299 Appendix 6.1 Hausman Test (FLX) 307 Appendix 6.2 Variance Inflation Factor Test (FLX) 307 Appendix 6.3 Breusch-Pagan Lagrangian Multiplier Test (FLX) 308 Appendix 6.4 Hausman Test (DEMFLX) 309 Appendix 6.5 Variance Inflation Factor Test (DEMFLX) 309 Appendix 6.6 Breusch-Pagan Lagrangian Multiplier Test (DEMFLX) 310 Appendix 6.7 Hausman Test (LOGCUR) 311 Appendix 6.8 Variance Inflation Factor Test (LOGCUR) 311 Appendix 6.9 Breusch-Pagan Lagrangian Multiplier Test (LOGCUR) 312 Appendix 6.10 Random Effects GLS Regression (FLX Years) 313 Appendix 6.10 Random Effects GLS Regression (DEMFLX Years) 314 Appendix 6.10 Random Effects GLS Regression (LOGCUR) 315 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project commenced in late 2007 when I first began to think about completing a doctoral thesis. Since then many people have helped bring the work before you together. The main protagonist in this endeavour has been Professor Geoffrey Hodgson. Geoff has been a constant source of advice since taking me under his wing in 2008. His commitment to the project, especially through difficult times in 2009 and 2010, has been unwavering. I am extremely fortunate to have found a supervisor who not only helped facilitate this project, but who also took an interest in my cognitive development and has trained me in the wider discipline of economics. Geoff’s supervision has been ably supported by Dr Chris Tofallis and, more recently, Dr. Francesca Gagliardi. Chris has offered timely and detailed advice on this work, particularly the empirical work and has been very generous with his time from the outset. I am extremely grateful to him for the input he has made. Francesca has been very helpful in drafting this thesis and her comments have allowed me to develop areas of the work I had taken for granted. Again, I am very grateful for her support and advice. Annual GROE Research Workouts during the period of my supervision, held in Privas, France and organised by Geoff for the University of Hertfordshire Group for Research in Organisational Evolution, have offered me the chance to present and discuss my work in the presence of some exceptional academics, with a keen interest in this area. I would like to express my gratitude to Germana Bottone, Béatrice Boulu, John Davis, Denise Dollimore, Zohreh Emami, David Gindis, Pavel Lukska, Vinny Logan and Ariell Reshef for their comments and advice, particularly on the earlier phases of this work. 7 Completing this thesis has been made far easier thanks to the professional and financial support I received from University College Cork. I would like to express my thanks to Head of School Connell Fanning, School Manager Mary Maguire and the administration members in the School of Economics and University College Cork for the support I have received from the outset of this work. I am fortunate the School has such a successful new staff development programme. These sessions have moulded my work and for that, I would like to thank Daniel Blackshields, Jane Bourke, Lee- Ann Burke, Eleanor Doyle, Declan Jordan, Ella Kavanagh, Brendan McElroy, Eoin O’Leary, Bernadette Power, Edward Shinnick and Brian Turner for comments on drafts. A special word of thanks goes to Garrett Barden, Seamus Coffey, Hulya Dagdeviren, Justin Doran, John Eakins, Gerry Hughes, Shane Kilcommins, Klaus Nielsen, Geraldine Ryan, Meadhbh Sherman and Don Walshe, each of whom has been incredibly generous with their time and advice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform
    State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform Mushtaq H. Khan Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London. Abstract: The analysis of state failure and the policy debate have been driven by two very different underlying views of what the state does. The first, which we call the “service- delivery” view says the role of the state is to provide law and order, stable property rights, key public goods and welfarist redistributions. In failing to provide these, state failure contributes to economic under-performance and poverty. State failure of this type is in turn related to an inter-dependent constellation of governance failures including corruption and rent-seeking, distortions in markets and the absence of democracy. All of these need to be addressed to focus the state on its core service-delivery tasks. The second locates the developing country state in the context of “social transformation”: the dramatic transition these countries are going through as traditional production systems collapse and a capitalist economy begins to emerge. Dynamic transformation states have heavily intervened in property rights and devised rent-management systems to accelerate the capitalist transition and the acquisition of new technologies. State failure according to this view has been driven by the lack of institutional capacities in these respects, and more importantly, the incompatibility of institutional capacities with pre-existing distributions of power. An examination of the econometric data and historical evidence raises serious doubts as to whether the governance reforms suggested by the first view can improve growth, while the need for reforms identified by the second view are much better supported.
    [Show full text]
  • Mumbai Law and Economics of Institutions
    Instructor: Jayati Sarkar email: [email protected] skype id: jayati.sarkar13 LAW AND ECONOMICS OF INSTITUTIONS EMLE Third Term: April – June 2020 Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, INDIA Course Description This course is designed to expose the student to fundamental theoretical perspectives and empirical research that have developed over the years to study the emergence and functions of institutions, with special emphasis placed on law as an institution. Insights gained in the course will be helpful in understanding the role of institutions in development, and in analysing the process of economic change. The course is divided into three main sections, namely (i) why study institutions matter (ii) theoretical perspectives in institutional economics, and (iii) how institutions matter. Topics covered under these sections include how social, political and legal institutions impact economic development, bounded rationality and institutions, the function of institutions in mitigating collective action problems, rent seeking, interest groups and policy formulation, role of institutions in reduction of transaction costs and the role of rules and norms in coordinating and protecting institutions. Course Requirement In view of the Covid 19 pandemic, the course this year will be in the form of self study with directed readings as specified in this reading list. Soft copies of all readings in this list will be provided to you.. Power point presentations of lectures that go with the readings will also be sent to you on pre-specified dates. There will be 12 such power points presentations to be covered over a span of four weeks. In these four weeks, we will meet online via Skype every Tuesday at a mutually convenient time to discuss any questions that you may have on the lecture notes and readings.
    [Show full text]
  • Are We There Yet? IZA DP No
    IZA DP No. 6934 Are We There Yet? Time for Checks and Balances on New Institutionalism Murat Iyigun October 2012 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Are We There Yet? Time for Checks and Balances on New Institutionalism Murat Iyigun University of Colorado and IZA Discussion Paper No. 6934 October 2012 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of International Politics
    Theory of International Politics KENNETH N. WALTZ University of Califo rnia, Berkeley .A yy Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Reading, Massachusetts Menlo Park, California London • Amsterdam Don Mills, Ontario • Sydney Preface This book is in the Addison-Wesley Series in Political Science Theory is fundamental to science, and theories are rooted in ideas. The National Science Foundation was willing to bet on an idea before it could be well explained. The following pages, I hope, justify the Foundation's judgment. Other institu­ tions helped me along the endless road to theory. In recent years the Institute of International Studies and the Committee on Research at the University of Califor­ nia, Berkeley, helped finance my work, as the Center for International Affairs at Harvard did earlier. Fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and from the Institute for the Study of World Politics enabled me to complete a draft of the manuscript and also to relate problems of international-political theory to wider issues in the philosophy of science. For the latter purpose, the philosophy depart­ ment of the London School of Economics provided an exciting and friendly envi­ ronment. Robert Jervis and John Ruggie read my next-to-last draft with care and in­ sight that would amaze anyone unacquainted with their critical talents. Robert Art and Glenn Snyder also made telling comments. John Cavanagh collected quantities of preliminary data; Stephen Peterson constructed the TabJes found in the Appendix; Harry Hanson compiled the bibliography, and Nacline Zelinski expertly coped with an unrelenting flow of tapes. Through many discussions, mainly with my wife and with graduate students at Brandeis and Berkeley, a number of the points I make were developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Economics: Its Glorious Past and Cloudy Future Richarda
    Law and Economics: Its Glorious Past and Cloudy Future RichardA. Epsteint The title I have given to this short comment is one that does not speak to any great optimism about the future of Law and Economics, and it is incumbent upon me, even in a short essay, to indicate the sources of my uneasiness. When I entered legal academia in 1968, Law and Economics was just getting started as a separate field. The magnitude of the intellectual revolution is hard to recount today because virtually everyone who works in common law subjects is familiar with the now routine exercise of showing why it is, or has to be, the case that this or that common law rule is, or is not, efficient. But the present familiarity should not be read back into the past. In my student days at Oxford be- tween 1964 and 1966, I engaged in an exhaustive study of the common law of contract, property, and torts. I studied legal his- tory and jurisprudence, and learned Roman and international law to boot, all with reference to contract, property, and torts. Yet I cannot recall a single instance in which common law rules were praised for their efficient properties or criticized for their lack thereof. For our normative work, we relied on some intuitive notion of fairness or justice, which seemed to produce on average better economic results than the self-conscious instrumentalism that guides so many judges today. For our descriptive work, we relied on stare decisis and close case readings. To be sure, English academics and judges were less innova- tive than their American counterparts.
    [Show full text]
  • From Olson to Veblen: the Stagflationary Rise of Distributional Coalitions
    FROM OLSON TO VEBLEN: THE STAGFLATIONARY RISE OF DISTRIBUTIONAL COALITIONS Jonathan Nitzan Department of Economics McGill University 855 Sherbrooke St. West Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7 Paper presented at the annual meeting of The History of Economics Society Fairfax, Virginia May 30-June 2, 1992 Contents Introduction 2 1. Distributional Coalitions 2 2. Distributional Coalitions and Macroeconomics: Beginnings 11 3. Industry and Business 19 4. Ownership, Earnings and Capital 25 5. Corporate Finance and the Structural Roots of Inflation and Stagflation 46 6. Toward a Dynamic Theory of Distributional Coalitions and Stagflation 63 References 72 1 Introduction This essay deals with the relationship between stagflation and the process of restructuring. The literature dealing with the interaction of stagnation and inflation is invariably based on some explicit or implicit assumptions about economic structure, but there are very few writings which concentrate specifically on the link between the macroeconomic phenomenon of stagflation and the process of structural change. Of the few who dealt with this issue, we have chosen to focus mainly on two important contributors – Mancur Olson and Thorstein Veblen. The first based his theory on neoclassical principles, attempting to demonstrate their universality across time and place. The second was influenced by the historical school and concentrated specifically on the institutional features of modern capitalism. Despite the fundamental differences in their respective frameworks, both writers arrive at a similar conclusion, namely, that the phenomenon of stagflation is inherent in the dynamic evolution of collective economic action, particularly in the rise and consolidation of ‘distributional coalitions.’ 1. Distributional Coalitions It is perhaps convenient to begin our discussion of institutional dynamics with the general theoretical framework proposed by Olson, first in his 1965 work on The Logic of Collective Action and, later, in his 1982 book on The Rise and Decline of Nations.1 According to Olson (1982, p.
    [Show full text]
  • 14.770: Introduction to Political Economy Lecture 12: Political Compromise
    14.770: Introduction to Political Economy Lecture 12: Political Compromise Daron Acemoglu MIT October 18, 2017. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 12 October18,2017. 1/22 Political Compromise Introduction Political Compromise We have so far stayed away from repeated game considerations. but these are potentially important, because they can generate political compromise. This this true under both democratic and nondemocratic institutions. In this lecture, we will discuss some of the implications and limits of such political compromise. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 12 October18,2017. 2/22 Political Compromise Political Compromise in Democracy Commitment and Noncommitment in Democracy Consider a model related to Alesina (1989). There are two parties that are ideologically different and unable to commit to policies. But they are competing dynamically. Can they compromise and stay away from their ideological extremes? Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 12 October18,2017. 3/22 Political Compromise Political Compromise in Democracy Description: Parties Suppose that there are two ideological parties A and B. There is no policy commitment, so once in offi ce a party chooses policy in an unconstrained fashion. The two parties are competing for election every period. The utilities of the two parties are ¥ 2 ¥ 2 t A t B ∑ b pt p and ∑ b pt + p t=0 t=0 where pt is the policy choice at time t, and b < 1 is the discount factor. Let us also assume that pA > pB > 0. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Political Economy Lecture 12 October18,2017. 4/22 Political Compromise Political Compromise in Democracy Description: Citizens Citizens as in our basic models, but with dynamic preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (Pdf)
    Can a Safety Net Subsidy Be Contained? John R. Walter n 1997 the U.S. Congress introduced legislation that would broaden op- portunities for combining banks with nonbank ®nancial and non®nancial I businesses.1 There has been some concern, however, that such combina- tions would possibly allow a safety net subsidy that banks might receive to spill over to nonbanking companies af®liated with banks. In response to the concern, supporters of this reform have suggested various proposals to try to keep a subsidy within the bank itself.2 Two mechanisms, in particular, have received considerable attention: the ®rst would restrict nonbanking activities to bank holding company (BHC) subsidiaries and deny them to bank subsidiaries; the second would allow nonbank activities in bank subsidiaries but restrict intracompany transactions.3 In this article, I assess the potential of these proposals to contain any ex- isting safety net subsidy, without evaluating the usefulness of the proposals for other purposes.4 I explain how supervisory and regulatory policies that support This article bene®ted greatly from suggestions from Marvin Goodfriend, Thomas Humphrey, Rowena Johnson, Wenli Li, Elaine Mandaleris, Roy Webb, and John Weinberg. The views expressed herein are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond or the Federal Reserve System. 1 For example, one might imagine a large ®nancial supermarket offering commercial bank- ing, investment banking, and insurance services, together with some non®nancial services, such as manufacturing. 2 Discussions of such proposals can be found in Greenspan (1997), Helfer (1997), Kwast and Passmore (1997), Ludwig (1997), and Whalen (1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Inequality and Democratization
    Inequality and Democratization Ben Ansell & David Samuels University of Minnesota March 2009 (Under Review) Inequality and Democratisation Ben Ansell and David Samuels University of Minnesota Scholars continue to grapple with the impact of economic development on democratisation; prominent recent research has focused on the effects of economic inequality. Acemoglu and Robinson (2001, 2006) argue that democratisation is likelier when inequality is at middling levels, while Boix (2003) suggests that democratisation is likelier when inequality is low. Both assume that democratisation is a function of autocratic elites’ fear of the extent to which a future median voter would redistribute under different levels of inequality. Drawing on contractarian political theory, we suggest that democratisation is instead a function of demands by rising economic groups for protection from the state. This alternative approach suggests that land and income inequality impact democratisation differently, and generates counterintuitive predictions about the relationship between income inequality and democratisation: Autocracies with unequal land distribution are less likely to democratise, while autocracies with high income inequality are more likely to democratise. 1. Introduction Recent research on the origins of democracy continues to scrutinise the core idea behind modernisation theory, that economic development somehow generates pressure to liberalise non- democratic regimes. While some have sought to dismiss this hypothesis once and for all,1 others find renewed support for the argument’s fundamental claim. In particular, recent books by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson and Carles Boix have offered new theoretical twists on long- established arguments.2 Both sets of authors shift the theoretical focus from the effect of the level of wealth to that of the distribution of wealth on elites’ incentives to block democratisation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preface to Neoclassical Legal Thought
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 6-28-2011 A Preface to Neoclassical Legal Thought Herbert J. Hovenkamp University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Corporate Finance Commons, Economic Policy Commons, Economic Theory Commons, Finance Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal History Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Repository Citation Hovenkamp, Herbert J., "A Preface to Neoclassical Legal Thought" (2011). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1867. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1867 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hovenkamp, Neoclassical Legal Thought in the United States July 2011, Page 1 A Preface to Neoclassical Legal Thought Herbert Hovenkamp * Introduction This preliminary essay explores the roots of fundamental changes in American legal thought that began to take hold in the United States after Reconstruction. It is written in contemplation of a larger project that is not yet finished. The term “neoclassical legal thought” seems appropriate to describe this set of developments for a number of reasons. First, neoclassical legal thought overlapped with but also succeeded its predecessor, classical legal thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Political Economy Political Science 5781--Fall 2011
    Global Political Economy Political Science 5781--Fall 2011 Andrew Sobel x5-5845, [email protected] Siegle 237, By appointment I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of those he has an assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones. (Sherlock Holmes) Thirty years ago some investigators studying international relations argued for a separate discipline, implicitly suggesting the politics of international relations were fundamentally different from those of the rest of Political Science. At that time, the high politics of security and conflict dominated academic IR, not unnatural given issues of national survival in a nuclear world captured the attention of many. The nation-state was the primary unit of analysis and non-state actors were often ignored in research.
    [Show full text]
  • 09 CORR 218.Indd
    Czech S. (2016), Mancur Olson’s Collective Action Th eory 50 Years Later. Journal A View from Th e Institutionalist Perspective, of International Journal of International Studies, Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 114-123. DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-3/9 Studies c Papers c © Foundation fi of International Mancur Olson’s Collective Action Th eory 50 Years Later. Studies, 2016 © CSR, 2016 A View from Th e Institutionalist Perspective Scienti Sławomir Czech University of Economics in Katowice Poland [email protected] Abstract. Th is essay is a tribute paid to one of the most distinguished landmarks in social Received: Aril, 2016 theory – Mancur Olson’s Th e Logic of Collective Action, which has recently turned 50 1st Revision: years old. We look at it as a specifi c stage in the debate that takes place in social sci- September, 2016 ences. In 1965 it was path-breaking due to the use of economic reasoning applied to Accepted: November, 2016 social phenomena, but today the very same method of analysis is being challenged by institutionalist thought. Th is is, however, the way that social sciences evolve and DOI: Olson’s theory is no exception. Th e very assumptions employed by Olson are being 10.14254/2071- questioned nowadays with respect to their compliance with reality and proper depic- 8330.2016/9-3/9 tion of incentives that drive human behaviour. Nonetheless, it still remains a milestone in the process of recognizing the mechanisms governing collective actions. Keywords: interest groups, methodological individualism, interpersonal relations, scien- tifi c progress.
    [Show full text]