IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v28y2004i3p319-346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theoretical isolation and explanatory progress: transaction cost economics and the dynamics of dispute

Author

Listed:
  • Uskali Mäki

Abstract

Two related goals are pursued. First, the development of, and debates around Oliver Williamson's version of transaction cost economics are organised in terms of an emerging metatheoretical framework. It proposes looking at economic theorising and its changes in terms of rival theoretical isolations which are often responses to challenging explanatory questions. As a side product, Williamson's strategy of theorising is portrayed. Second, using transaction cost economics as an illustration and as a source of inspiration, the paper amends and refines the earlier framework of theoretical isolation by incorporating notions of explaining and explained items; notions of progress (in questions as well as increased causal penetration and increased degree of unification); and the notion of the dynamics of dispute. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Uskali Mäki, 2004. "Theoretical isolation and explanatory progress: transaction cost economics and the dynamics of dispute," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(3), pages 319-346, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:28:y:2004:i:3:p:319-346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beh015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fredrik Hansen, 2007. "Setting the scene with 'firms' and 'workers'," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 339-352.
    2. Uskali Maki, 2005. "Models are experiments, experiments are models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 303-315.
    3. Whitley, Richard, 2016. "Varieties of scientific knowledge and their contributions to dealing with policy problems: A response to Richard Nelson’s “The sciences are different and the differences matter”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1702-1707.
    4. Martti Vihanto, 2007. "Endogenous preferences, emotions, and the breaking of social capital into economics," Discussion Papers 18, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    5. Gérard Charreaux, 2008. "La recherche en finance d’entreprise:quel positionnement méthodologique ?," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 11(Special), pages 237-290, June.
    6. Lukasz Hardt, 2011. "An inquiry into the explanatory virtues of transaction cost economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 5(1), pages 120-147, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:28:y:2004:i:3:p:319-346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.