Talk:Institution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Institution, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
The economics discussion about institutions looks inaccurate (or at least, old-fashioned) to me. FWICT, institutions are mostly viewed as (Nash) equilibria in games, rather than the structure of the game itself. That is, game theory analyses of institutions often attempt to demonstrate why a particular social structure is stable or self-enforcing. Am I being biased here? Is there anything I should read to get a more balanced view of modern economic thinking relating to institutions?
Obviously, if you want to understand the effects of an institution, rather than understand the institution itself, then you could take the institution as exogenous, and construct games in which the only possible actions are ones that follow the rules of the institution.
Any objections to a rewrite of the economics section along these lines?
--Clausen 05:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Economics section rewrite
I have done the rewrite of the economics section I proposed earlier. --Clausen 11:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category:institutions
The category linked with this article, category:institutions (deleted history), had been developed into a category for organisations, instead of the subject matter of this article. For this reason it was voted to deletion and the content was merged into category:organisations (see also #1, #2, #3). Is it necessary to recreate (or, alternatively, request to undelete) the category according to the definition in this article? — Instantnood 12:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger with social organisation
It should not be merged, I access this article to know what an institution is and not about society, however involved they may be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.165.106 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 March 2006
- Oppose merger. The two terms are distinct in meaning, and both need to be articles. Sunray 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As the "merge" tag has been on this article since the end of December and the only folks who have spoken have been opposed to the merge, I am removing the tag. Sunray 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure how to post on this properly, but the second to last paragraph on the article refers to how "sociology" views the reason for emergence of institutions, when i think a more accurate description would be that it is the view of functionalism (one of numerous sociological approaches). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.188.70 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] policy wonks
from the article: "Public choice theory, another branch of economics with a close relationship to political science, considers how government policy choices are made, and seeks to determine what the policy outcomes are likely to be, given a particular political decision-making process and context."
Why mention this in an article on social institutions? I'll delete it soon, or rework it into something about governments trying to influence or change institutions through policy decisions, or add it as a see also link --Meika (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] North Reference
Changed year of North's paper in the references from 1990 to 1991. Justification: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309%28199124%295%3A1%3C97%3AI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamxd (talk • contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Are institutions deliberate and formal, or unintended and emergent?
A question worthy of treatment. In any case, SOMETHING CAN'T BE BOTH DELIBERATE AND EMERGENT (first paragraph of "Aspects of Institutions"). Deliberate things are rules, laws, organizations. Emergent things, eg blind-self-interest-leading-to-organized-capitalism, are NOT deliberate NOR intentional. But i'm probably stumbling onto a debate here between conservatives and liberals. Religious people want to think everything in society, like marriage or morality, was planned on purpose (probably because they'd like to plan it on purpose). Other people don't, and think it's either instinct or spontaneous emergence. Anyway, institutions are either emergent, or they're deliberate. Mention the controversy and delete the self-contradiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.195.47 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
