Normative Analysis of Instituted Processes

  • F. Gregory Hayden


This chapter refines and formalizes the normative concepts of duty and obligation consistent with the ideas of institutional economics. To do so, deontic logic and normative system philosophy is utilized in order to formalize a methodology that enhances normative description, empirical investigation, and decision making. This formalization assumes the normative sets of social, technological, and ecological criteria as expressed in the social fabric matrix, and is grounded in the concepts of prohibition, obligation, and permission as emphasized by Karl Polanyi and John R. Commons. The deontic system necessary for a society to integrate authority and processing institutions to create and fulfill normative criteria through rules, regulations, and requirements is developed in a temporal setting. This explanation does not suggest that real-world normative systems are harmonious or continuous, or that they maintain commonality of normative criteria, avoid excess or inadequate redundancy, and are without gaps and conflict. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. The explanation is structured so studies can be completed to find the gaps, discontinuity, disharmony, and conflicts. Given the fragility of the modern world, analytical tools that assist in this task are of paramount concern.


Ecological System Normative System Normative Description Deontic Logic Normative Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alchourron CE, Bulygin E (1971) Normative systems. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bush PD (1983) An exploration of the structural characteristics of Veblen–Ayres–Foster defined institutional domain. J Econ Issues 17:35–65Google Scholar
  3. Bush PD (1987) The theory of institutional change. J Econ Issues 21:1075–1116.Google Scholar
  4. Bush PD (1991) Reflections on the twenty-fifth anniversary of AFEE: philosophical and methodological issues in institutional economics. J Econ Issues 25:321–346.Google Scholar
  5. Commons JR (1924) The legal foundations of capitalism. University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  6. Forrester JW (1996) Being good and being logical: philosophical groundwork for a new deontic logic. M.E. Sharpe, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Gill R (1996) An integrated social fabric matrix/system dynamics approach to policy analysis. Syst Dyn Rev 12:167–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayden FG (1982) Social fabric matrix: from perspective to analytical tool. J Econ Issues 16:637–661Google Scholar
  9. Hayden FG (1985) A trans-disciplinary integration matrix for economics and policy analysis. Social Sci Inf 24:869–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Neale WC (1987) Institutions. J Econ Issues 21:1177–1206Google Scholar
  11. Neale WC and Pearson HW (1962) Institutions and economics. Unpublished paper 1–12Google Scholar
  12. Polanyi K (1957) The economy as instituted process. In: Polanyi K et al (eds) Trade and market in early empire. Free Press, Glencoe, IL, pp 243–270Google Scholar
  13. Schlagel RH (1995) Unpublished letter to F. Gregory Hayden 1–2Google Scholar
  14. Von Wright GH (1983) Practical reason. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Gregory Hayden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations