Moving on: Institutionalism in Economic Geography
Moving on: Institutionalism in Economic Geography
复制标题
继续前进：经济地理学中的制度主义
DOI：
10.1068/a34108
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Amin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Amin
我的观点（这一主题部分的丰富论文证实了这一观点）是，将制度主义思想简化为一系列可检验的假设或规范性断言（例如，制度存在或地方协会网络是区域经济成功的必要或充分条件）是没有什么好处的。相反，它的真实的考验在于，它是否通过对经济生活的构成和秩序的抽象能力，增进了我们对太空经济运作的认识。那么，问题是，我们要用理论来做什么？这是我想解决的第一个问题，通过回到我们可能从城市和区域经济发展的制度主义理论中获得的东西。然后，对制度转向的任何判断也取决于我们认为什么是制度主义思想，以及我们希望在多大程度上划定它的边界。这里的文件对解决这个问题大有帮助。例如，鲍勃·普里普对各种制度主义和制度主义层次的区分--制度的主题研究、制度作为社会组织基本单位的本体论以及植根于制度研究的认识论--就是一个有益的澄清。他试图识别各种不同的制度主义方法论，这些方法论介于方法论个人主义和更结构化的方法（例如，结构化理论或他自己的战略关系方法）之间，这些方法论试图把握社会行动的情境化和制度化本质。同样，戈登麦克劳德、马丁琼斯、尼克亨利和斯蒂芬平奇的论文正确地提醒我们，最近对软制度主义的兴趣（例如，制度和进化经济学或经济社会学中强调习惯性惯例和惯例的思想），不应掩盖其他地方的见解。（例如，监管理论），它确定了积累和监管的宏观和微观制度，从公司的做法到国家政策，货币和金融规则，和一般的治理制度（另见Martin，2000; Peck，2000）。最后，这些文件有助于加强对作为社会经济组织容器的机构的兴趣，以及作为社会经济实践制度化过程的机构之间的区别。尽管他们尖锐地批评了某些制度主义主张（包括我自己的主张），或者偏爱制度主义的某些变体，但这些论文的总体基调是支持多元和开放的制度主义。我欢迎这种论调，原因有三。首先，正如萨里普所暗示的那样，与马克思主义或新古典经济学不同，制度主义不是一种对经济规律有强烈主张的规范理论，而是一种关于什么是经济、它在不同背景下如何组织以及如何检验的趋同立场的纽带。第二，现在关闭经济地理学中的制度主义大门还为时过早。这些思想只有十年的历史（如果我们不包括转向，则更年轻：经济地理学中的制度主义
we expect from it. My viewöconfirmed by the rich papers in this theme sectionöis that there is little to be gained from reducing institutionalist thought to a series of testable hypotheses or normative assertions (for example, that institutional presence or local associational networks are necessary or sufficient for regional economic success). Instead, its real test lies in whether it advances our knowledge of the workings of the space economy, through its powers of abstraction of what constitutes and orders economic life. The question, then, is what do we want to use theory for? This is the first issue I wish to address, by returning to what we might gain from an institutionalist theorisation of urban and regional economic development. Then, any verdict on the institutional turn also depends on what we count as institutionalist thought, and on how tightly we want to mark its boundary. The papers here go a long way towards addressing this question. For example, Bob Jessop's distinction between varieties of institutionalism and levels of institutionalismöthe thematic study of institutions, the ontology of institutions as the basic unit of social organisation, and the epistemology rooted in the study of institutionsöis a helpful clarification. So is his attempt to identify the varied institutionalist methodologies situated between methodological individualism and more structured approaches (for example, structuration theory or his own strategic ^ relational approach) that attempt to grasp the contextualised and instituted nature of social action. Similarly, the papers by Gordon MacLeod, Martin Jones, and Nick Henry and Stephen Pinch are right to remind us that the recent interest in soft institutionalism (for example, ideas in institutional and evolutionary economics or economic sociology emphasising habituated routines and conventions), should not overshadow insights elsewhere (for example, regulation theory) which identify the macro and micro institutions of accumulation and regulation, from the practices of firms to state policies, monetary and financial rules, and governance regimes in general (see also Martin, 2000; Peck, 2000). Finally, the papers help to sharpen the distinction between an interest in institutions as containers of socioeconomic organisation, and institutions as processes of institutionalisation of socioeconomic practices. Notwithstanding their sharp criticisms of certain institutionalist claims (including my own) or their preference for particular variants of institutionalism, the general tone of the papers here is supportive of a plural and open institutionalism. I welcome this tone for three reasons. First, as Jessop intimates, unlike Marxism or neoclassical economics, institutionalism is not a canonical theory with strong claims about the laws of the economy, but a nexus of convergent positions on what counts as the economic, how it is organised in different contexts, and how it might be examined. Second, it is too early to close the door on institutionalism in economic geography. The ideas are only ten years old (younger, if we do not include the turn Moving on: institutionalism in economic geography