The nature of policy reform needed in the face of the polycrisis of the twenty-first century remains a serious point of contention. Many scholars have argued that there is a fundamental split in the OIE (Original Institutional Economics) community between Veblenian radical approaches and Commons' incremental or pragmatic approaches. In the camp with Commons, scholars have included Clarence Ayres and John Dewey as using incremental and pragmatic approaches to reform and change. This split was evident, probably going back to the 1930s. The question raised here is whether there is a reconciliation that can be conceived of to try and overcome this divide. For a long time, going back to the 1930s, the Commons (and Dewey and Ayres) approaches were considered to narrow the field of potential changes that could be considered. This article considers the specific notion of institution that was being used by Veblen and Commons and the differences and similarities in their approaches. Underlying their definitions were explicit and implicit notions of power and collective action. This exposition of institutional concepts can help clarify the two founders' thinking on policy reform and perhaps pave the way for a partial reconciliation of views on policy reform and change. This article will use documentation found in the Commons' archive to shed further light on this ongoing debate, along with previous writings by other scholars.
原文链接
分享
引用
