New Institutional Economics: What My Students Ask

30 May 2006 at 7:49 am 10 comments

| Peter Klein |

At the September 2005 meeting of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE) in Barcelona I participated in a roundtable organized by Claude Menard and Mary Shirley, “Challenges and New Directions in NIE,” celebrating the Handbook of New Institutional Economics (Springer, 2005). Because I teach a required first-year PhD course in the NIE, I thought it would be interesting to discuss how students react to the material as the seek to integrate it with what they are learning in the general economics curriculum. Many scholars research and teach aspects of the NIE, but only rarely step back and evaluate the entire field, as a whole. Preparing to teach this course for the first time last year gave me an opportunity to do so.

Here are the most common questions students ask about the NIE and my course, “Economics of Institutions and Organizations”:

1. Is this a tools course or a field course?

In other words, is the NIE foundational to all fields of economics (and, possibly management), or an applied field like industrial organization, labor economics, international trade, etc.?

Williamson treats it as a foundational field — “any issue that can be formulated as a contracting problem can be investigated to advantage in transaction cost economizing terms” — as does Coase, who talks about “revolutionizing economics” through the study of contracts. Personally, I tend to treat my course as a field course, the application of (more-or-less standard) economic reasoning to particular applied phenomena (firms, contracts, the institutional environment, etc.).

2. Is NIE an alternative to neoclassical economics?

My usual answer is to equivocate, pointing out that it depends who you ask. “Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man’s doxy” (William Warburton). To put the question differently, is Williamson a neoclassical economist? Oliver Hart or Jean Tirole might say no, while Mark Granovetter or Jeffrey Pfeffer would surely say yes. More seriously, my sense is that most NIE practitioners see themselves not as opposing the neoclassical orthodoxy, but rather as applying orthodoxy to new topics and problems. On the other hand, it is true that some NIE economists embrace cognitive issues like bounded rationality (Williamson) and learning (North), and evolutionary, rather than equilibrium-based, approaches.

3. What ties the course topics together?

My syllabus topics include the legal environment and property rights; norms, culture, and social conventions; economic history, growth, and development; political economy; Coase and the nature of the firm; moral hazard and agency; transaction cost economics; the property-rights approach; resource-based theories; and innovation and organizational change. A potpourri or a systematic, unified treatment?

I used to think I could answer this question easily; institutions are man-made rules, or constraints, that guide individuals’ behavior; this includes two categories, the institutional environment (“orders,” in Hayek’s terminology, rules that are the “product of human action but not human design,” constraints the decision-maker takes as exogenous) and institutional arrangements (Hayek’s “organizations,” constraints deliberately designed by decision-makers to achieve particular ends). Lately, however, I’ve become more sensitive to the difficulty of drawing sharp distinctions among orders and organizations. Much of what is usually considered part of the institutional environment (e.g., political decision making) is clearly the result of human design (e.g., in legislatures), while many functions or routines that take place within institutional arrangements have an unplanned, “spontaneous order” aspect.

4. Why doesn’t the economics department offer this course?

My appointment is not in the Department of Economics, but in the Division of Applied Social Sciences in the College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources. I think it is no coincidence that economics departments, which tend to be more rigid and less interested in institutions, organizations, strategy, etc., don’t offer many courses like this. To the extent that the NIE challenges the neoclassical orthodoxy, it will not gain much of a toe-hold in economics departments unless that orthodoxy is itself seriously challenged.

Entry filed under: - Klein -, Institutions, Teaching.

Ken Lay, Local Boy Review Paper on the Economics of Clusters

10 Comments Add your own

  • 1. p  |  30 May 2006 at 12:15 pm

    Both Harvard and MIT have courses on organizational economics, which certainly cover a lot of the same ground that your course seems to, and they are in the economics departments.

  • 2. Peter Klein  |  30 May 2006 at 12:18 pm

    Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that no economics departments teach this material, only that (as far as I know) none of them put it in the first-year, required core.

  • 3. Bo Nielsen  |  30 May 2006 at 12:25 pm


    very interesting – could you share with us the reading list for this course? My guess is that this list would help your students (and you?) answer question 1-3..

  • 4. Peter Klein  |  30 May 2006 at 12:32 pm

    Sure, you can view the reading list here.

    BTW, to clarify, I meant that these are questions students ask while they’re taking the course, not before they’ve seen the readings!

  • 5. Bo Nielsen  |  30 May 2006 at 1:18 pm

    I understand that – thank you. What I meant was that perhaps your reading list is biased. Just from looking at it briefly, however, it does seem that you have readings that would support both a foundational and application-based approach to NIE. Great course!

  • 6. simon  |  1 June 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Peter- a great read list … I will agree with Bo that the list is biased … The reading looks like macro OT without a sociological perspective… this leading me to say it is biased …

    Ithink question 1 … the answer is a theory course … neither tools or field (as I use the terms … As to your questions, 2 and 3, I think they are interrelated … a common theme is how the theories (most of them) frame and operationalize organizational logics and actions … The perspective taken is largely assumes economic assumptions of “rationality” and static analytics … A gale of creative destruction is missing as is a more dynamic view of action …

    To its merit the list is very rich in levels and perspectives of classic static assumptions … North is a great start to appreciate the framing of economic theory to problems away from … Becker would be a great adds for their flavoring of extending classic economic model assumptions … March and Simon would be great addition of framing limits to rational logics and goal structures that give rise to organizations and how they evolve as the organization achieves inertia …

  • 7. Kevin Rubio  |  5 November 2007 at 10:13 pm

    The reading list link doesn’t work and I’d love to see the reading list.-Kevin

  • 8. Peter Klein  |  5 November 2007 at 10:45 pm

    Sorry, try this one:

    Click to access 8050_reading_list.pdf

  • […] students take in the first year not only microeconomic theory and econometrics, but also my course “Economics of Institutions and Organizations,” designed to focus on broader issues and questions typically ignored in the technical part of the […]

  • 10. Utmärkta val | Sänd mina rötter regn  |  12 October 2009 at 3:56 pm

    […] mot det neoklassiska tankeramarna, samtidigt som de inte har samma utgångspunkter. För att citera Peter Klein: Is NIE an alternative to neoclassical […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Nicolai J. Foss | home | posts
Peter G. Klein | home | posts
Richard Langlois | home | posts
Lasse B. Lien | home | posts


Former Guests | posts


Recent Posts



Our Recent Books

Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Peter G. Klein and Micheal E. Sykuta, eds., The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Mises Institute, 2010).
Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy (Routledge, 2007).
Nicolai J. Foss, Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Coordination of Firms and Resources (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Raghu Garud, Arun Kumaraswamy, and Richard N. Langlois, eds., Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations (Blackwell, 2003).
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, eds., Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Elgar, 2002).
Nicolai J. Foss and Volker Mahnke, eds., Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research (Oxford, 2000).
Nicolai J. Foss and Paul L. Robertson, eds., Resources, Technology, and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-based Perspective (Routledge, 2000).

%d bloggers like this: