Understanding Institutions: Different Paradigms, Different Conclusions Outros Idiomas

ID:
44959
Autores:
Resumo:
There is widespread agreement across the social sciences that institutions matter. Although there is widespread agreement that institutions shape the behavior of actors, there are disagreements over the extent to which they actually influence individuals and the degree to which people can shape them. This article argues that these disagreements derive from the fact that scholars are studying different institutions at different levels. Many misunderstandings within the social sciences result from the failure to understand that scholars are often studying different phenomena. This problem would appear to be particularly stark in the discipline of Business Administration because it draws on a variety of areas of study in the social sciences.
Citação ABNT:
FRIEL, D.Understanding Institutions: Different Paradigms, Different Conclusions. RAUSP Management Journal, v. 52, n. 2, p. 212-213, 2017.
Citação APA:
Friel, D.(2017). Understanding Institutions: Different Paradigms, Different Conclusions. RAUSP Management Journal, 52(2), 212-213.
DOI:
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.001
Link Permanente:
http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/44959/understanding-institutions--different-paradigms--different-conclusions/i/pt-br
Tipo de documento:
Artigo
Idioma:
Inglês
Referências:
Hall, P.; Taylor, R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, v. 44, 936-957.

Khanna, T.; Palepu, K. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, v. 75, 41-48.

Kostova, T.; Roth, K.; Dacin, T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994-1006.

Mair, J.; Martib, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419-435.

North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paul, D. (1994). Why are institutions the carriers of history?Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5/2, 1-24.

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 9(3), 251-267.

Powell, W.; DiMaggio, P. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powell, & P. DiMaggio. (Eds.). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. p. 1-40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schmidt, V. (2010). Give peace a chance: Reconciling four (not three)“New Institutionalisms”. In D. Beland, & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. 3 ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thelen, K.; Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative perspective. p. 1-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, O. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613.

Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, v. 19, 105-125.