英语论文网

ABSTRACT
This paper endorses recent pleas for an ‘institutional turn’ within economic geography. In particular, it reveals and connects the coherence and distinctiveness of dissenting institutional Economics as a way of thinking for economic geography. Economic geographers have recognized this tradition but its continuity and compass is not fully appreciated. To provide such an appreciation, this paper argues that the paradigmatic distinctiveness of dissenting institutionalism rests especially on its recognition that real world economies are embedded, have histories or evolve, and are different. The discussion is based around these three cornerstone principles of embeddedness, evolution and difference. For the future, greater attention to the region as an institution, albeit a complex one, along with greater attention to the synthesis of multi-dimensional processes that are normally analyzes as separate conceptual categories, is encouraged.

Key words: Dissenting institutionalism embeddedness evolution difference regions

Recently, Martin (1994, 2000) and Barnes (1999) have advocated an ‘institutional turn’ towards economic geography. This article reinforces this plea by emphasizing the coherence and continuity of’ dissenting’ institutionalism within Economics as a way of thinking for economic geography. To borrow Klein’s (1994, p. 26) phrase in his celebration of this tradition, I emphasize ‘what’s right’ with dissenting institutionalism for economic geography, rather than ‘what’s wrong’ with the ‘neoclassical orthodoxy’ it seeks to displace. What are righties that dissenting institutionalism provides embedded, evolutionary explanations of why places are different. This paper addresses this claim.
Institutional economics, pioneered in the Usably Veblen, Mitchell and Commons at the turn of the nineteenth century, originated as a radical, non-Marxist alternative to neoclassical orthodoxy.Boulding (1971a) applied the appellation of ‘dissenting’ to this movement sometime later. By giving analytical priority to processes of political economy, social relations and technological change in understanding economic behavior, dissenting institutionalism was motivated primarily to define an alternative paradigm to neoclassical economic sand its economist way of thinking. If sympathetic, as Veblen was, the pioneering dissenters also distinguished themselves from Marxism. Dissenting institutionalism constituted an eclectic, often intuitive mix of ideas and approaches that did not offer the formal (‘elegant’) logic of neoclassical (or Marxian) theory, but this characterization is its methodological point. Dissenting institutionalisms rooted in the rejection of general (unified) models of capitalism, whether based on universal forms of economic rationality, equilibrium tendencies or laws of motion (Hodgson, 2001). Admittedly, within economics dissenting institutionalism had lost its intellectual appeal by the 1950s, overwhelmed by the mathematical elegance and law-generating potential of neoclassicalism and emerging Keynesians (Bounding, 1971a, p. 96). Dissenting institutional economics nevertheless survived through the work of outstanding individuals, such as Schumpeter (1943), Ayres (1944), Myrdal (1944, 1957) and Galbraith (1952, 1967). Moreover, with remarkable prescience, Bounding (1971a, pp. 90–91) anticipated its本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。