Advertisement

Players of the Game: Rationality, Choice, and Indeterminacy

  • Matthijs Krul
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought book series (PHET)

Abstract

One of the core elements in all of Douglass North’s work is his view of economic agents as ‘players of the game’ and institutions as the ‘rules of the game’. This chapter systematically analyzes how North uses these terms and in what ways he justifies this usage. As Krul argues, underlying this conception is an implicit game theoretical view of human society as a set of strategic interactions. However, for such models of social behavior to work, some fairly exacting technical criteria of rationality must be met. As Krul shows, North’s approach does not meet these, instead revealing fundamental ambiguity about just how rational agents are supposed to be. The result is that the ‘players of the game’ approach becomes indeterminate.

References

  1. Aoki, Masahiko. 2001. Towards a Comparative Institutional Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aumann, Robert J. 1976. Agreeing to Disagree. Annals of Statistics 4 (6): 1236–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 1987. Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality. Econometrica 55: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binmore, Ken. 2007. Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denzau, Arthur T., and Douglass C. North. 1994. Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions. Kyklos 47 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dequech, David. 2006. The New Institutional Economics and the Theory of Behaviour under Uncertainty. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 59: 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Didry, Claude and Caroline Vincensini. 2011. Beyond the Market-Institutions Dichotomy: The Institutionalism of Douglass C. North in Response to Karl Polanyi’s challenge. HALSHS-00601544.Google Scholar
  8. Fenoaltea, Stefano. 1975. The Rise and Fall of a Theoretical Model: The Manorial System. The Journal of Economic History 35 (2): 386–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field, Alexander. 1981. The Problem with Neoclassical Institutional Economics: A Critique with Special Reference to the North/Thomas Model of pre-1500 Europe. Explorations in Economic History 18 (2): 174–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine, Ben. 2000. New and Improved: Economics’ Contribution to Business History, SOAS Working Papers in Economics 93.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, Ben, and Dimitris Milonakis. 2003. From Principle of Pricing to Pricing of Principle: Rationality and Irrationality in the Economic History of Douglass North. Comparative Studies in Society and History 45 (3): 546–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, Milton. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. In Essays in Positive Economics, ed. Milton Friedman, 3–43. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Geneakoplos, John, David Pearce, and Ennio Stacchetti. 1989. Psychological Games and Sequential Rationality. Games and Economic Behavior 1 (1): 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greif, Avner. 1993. Contract Enforceability and Economic Institutions in Early Trade: the Maghribi Traders’ Coalition. The American Economic Review 83 (3): 525–548.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1994. Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies. Journal of Political Economy 102 (5): 912–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 1998. Historical and Comparative Institutional Analysis. The American Economic Review 88 (2): 80–84.Google Scholar
  17. Hargreaves-Heap, Shaun P., and Yanis Varoufakis. 1995. Game Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2004. Game Theory: A Critical Text. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Harsanyi, John C. 1967. Games with Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players. Management Science 14 (3): 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2007. Meanings of Methodological Individualism. Journal of Economic Methodology 14 (2): 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hough, Jerry, and Robin Grier. 2015. The Long Process of Development: Building Markets and States in Pre-Industrial England, Spain, and their Colonies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Krul, Matthijs. 2016. Markets, Institutions and the Polanyian Challenge: A Theoretical Study of the New Institutionalist Economic History of Douglass C. North. PhD diss., Brunel University.Google Scholar
  23. Langlois, Richard M., and László Csontos. 1993. Optimization, Rule-Following, and the Method of Situational Analysis. In Rationality, Institutions, and Economic Methodology, ed. Uskali Mäki, Bo Gustafsson, and Christian Knudsen, 112–132. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Mäki, Uskali. 1992. Friedman and Realism. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10: 171–195.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1998. Is Coase a Realist? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2009. Realistic Realism about Unrealistic Models. In Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics, ed. Harold Kincaid and Don Ross, 68–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Milonakis, Dimitris, and Ben Fine. 2007. Douglass North’s Remaking of Economic History: A Critical Appraisal. Review of Radical Political Economics 39 (1): 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. North, Douglass C. 1977. Markets and Other Allocation Systems in History: the Challenge of Karl Polanyi. Journal of European Economic History 6 (3): 703–716.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 1992. Institutions and Economic Theory. The American Economist 36 (1): 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 1993. What Do We Mean By Rationality? Public Choice 77 (1): 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 1994. The Historical Evolution of Polities. International Review of Law and Economics 14 (4): 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. North, Douglass C., and Robert Paul Thomas. 1971. The Rise and Fall of the Manorial System: A Theoretical Model. The Journal of Economic History 31 (4): 777–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 1973. The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. North, Douglass C., and Barry R. Weingast. 1989. Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England. The Journal of Economic History 49 (4): 803–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. North, Douglass C., John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast. 2009. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peukert, Helge. 2001. Bridging Old and New Institutional Economics: Gustav Schmoller and Douglass C. North, Seen With Old Institutionalists’ Eyes. European Journal of Law and Economics 11 (2): 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schotter, Andrew. 1981. The Economic Theory of Social Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selten, Reinhard. 1975. Re-examination of the Perfectless Concept for Equilibrium in Extensive Games. International Journal of Game Theory 4: 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skyrms, Brian. 1996. Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2003. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Varoufakis, Yanis. 1991. Rational Conflict. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2014. Economic Indeterminacy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Weintraub, E. Roy. 1979. Microfoundations: The Compatibility of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthijs Krul
    • 1
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Social AnthropologyBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations