Suchergebnisse

T. Veblen's conception of technology as containing an 'inscrutable' force impelling it forward & constituting a dynamic factor for ED is analyzed. Veblen is found to have been confused by his adoption of the sci'st's pose of lofty superiority to moral judgment. But he was right in suggesting that superstitions, taboos, & tradition-encrusted status systems work at cross-purposes with the technological process. While anthrop'ts have understood that beliefs, ceremonies & taboos that seem quite irrational to the Western mind bind communities together, they have underemphasized the fact that these aspects of culture likewise make it impossible for the people in question to live better. The over-all ED of any people is conditioned by the interaction of the dynamism of technology & the inhibitory force of instit'ized tradition. This is true for Western society as well as all others. Econ progress is conditioned by the degree of flexibility or of obduracy of instit'ized tradition, one of the most obdurate of which is nat'lism. Industr economies cannot persist through a regime of nuclear warfare based on nat'list sentiments. The instit'alist theory of econ progress is contrasted with Adam Smith's price theory. It is noted that to most avowed instit'alists & to virtually all other econ'ts, instit'alism is not a body of theory. Rather, its effect has been to produce or accentuate a certain degree of disenchantment with various aspects of the prevailing econ scene & a certain degree of impatience not merely with traditional price theory but even with theory as such. Thus the instit'alists as a group have been empiricists rather than theorists. Price theorists on the other hand are not convinced of the usefulness of efforts to reduce the economy to a series of equations, but feel that it is necessary to make specialized studies of an increasingly large number of particular areas. Veblen's work offers the beginnings of a unified field theory for this. It is a technological theory which contains a value criterion re the meaningfulness of improvement. This is the promise of instit'alism. M. Maxfield.

Increased attention is being given to questions of institutional structure in US public policy. A number of areas are examined in which this is true, including social services, civil rights, separation of powers, & reassertion of the role of states, private initiative, & the family as against that of the federal government. This new interest might in time lead to a revitalization of theoretical analysis of institutions & of political economy as a field. W. H. Stoddard.

A biographical outline of Clarence Ayres's background shows the influences on & development of his philosophy. Ayres reacted against the orthodox opinions of the economic theories of the early 1900's under the tutelage of Walton Hamilton. His first book, SCIENCE: THE FALSE MESSIAH repudiates science's ability to solve the mystery of the forces which rule our lives, & warns against the pedestal upon which scientists were placed. His second book, HOLIER THAN THOU was strongly influenced by Thorstein Veblen. In it he elaborates on tradition's role in determining standards. His book on Thomas Huxley (HUXLEY) synthesizes man's use of the Darwinian theory to interpret human concerns, the anthropologists' concept of culture, Ayres's own understanding of the pervasive influence of technology in transforming society, & his own appreciation of the rigidity & pastbindingness of institutions, all serving as foundations for a theoretical institutional economics. Ayres only needed to incorporate Dewey's instrumental value theory into those foundations, which he did in his 1944 masterpiece, THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC PROGRESS. Its theme is that human skills & the tools by which they are exercised are logically inseparable; that the term "technology" must be understood to include all human activities involving the use of all sorts of tools; & that our present age of scientific, enlightenment, & artistic achievement is intelligible only by understanding all of man's achievements. S. Coler.

Contemporary theories of politics tend to portray politics as a reflection of society, political phenomena as the aggregate consequences of individual behavior, action as the result of choices based on calculated self-interest, history as efficient in reaching unique and appropriate outcomes, and decision making and the allocation of resources as the central foci of political life. Some recent theoretical thought in political science, however, blends elements of these theoretical styles into an older concern with institutions. This new institutionalism emphasizes the relative autonomy of political institutions, possibilities for inefficiency in history, and the importance of symbolic action to an understanding of politics. Such ideas have a reasonable empirical basis, but they are not characterized by powerful theoretical forms. Some directions for theoretical research may, however, be identified in institutionalist conceptions of political order.

Abstract. In the book which provoked individualist/institutionalist controversy in several journals, including this one, the author emphasized aspects of "muddled" thinking in the work of Clarence E. Ayres which he believes has brought forth neo‐institutionalist contributions that are a "hodge‐podge." Neo‐institutionalism, he is convinced, is a form of historicism in Karl R. Popper's terms. Lord Robbins is quoted to prove that individualists do not necessarily espouse laissez‐faire capitalism and extreme income inequality. F. A. Hayek is a conservative but some individualists are socialists. The distinction on which individualists base interpersonal comparisons of utility is not between normative and positive but between science and philosophy; Thorstein Veblen never attempted to build a bridge between science and value. The real issue between individualists and neo‐institutionalists is individualism vs. collectivism.

This book studies the relationship between institutionalism and schizophrenia in the lives of mental patients. The authors observed schizophrenic patients in three different mental hospitals over a period of eight years. Their conclusions are important for the better management of institutions and for the future of extra-mural mental health services. The lives of long-term schizophrenic patients are strictly limited by their institutionalised environments, which often produce negative effects. For example, patients are especially vulnerable to social understimulation, reacing with apathy and withdrawal. On the positive side, symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations may actually decrease during institutionalisation. The interesting approach to the positive and negative effects of institutionalisation on schizophrenics will give this book a wide readership in psychiatry, social psychology and the social sciences as well as among social workers, nurses and occupational therapists

Abstract. David Seckler has filled an important gap in the methodological literature of economics by providing a "radical individualist" critique of American institutionalism (1). Seckler argues that institutionalists have been unable to develop a coherent methodology because of their ambivalence on the issue of "free will versus determinism." Thorstein Veblen, he says, entertained both "humanistic" and "behavioristic" hypotheses in his explanations of human behavior and, consequently, descended into obscurantism. The institutionalist literature in general reflects these contradictory methodological tendencies; for example, John R. Commons was a "humanist", whereas Clarence Ayres was a "behaviorist." Seckler's critique is not, however, persuasive. He fails to recognize the difficulties inherent in the philosophical dualisms posited by "radical individualism," and he employs them credulously in his critique of institutionalism. Equally damaging to his argument is his failure to give adequate consideration to the meaning and significance of the "institutional dichotomy" in institutional analysis.