IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v28y2004i3p413-429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anti-Williamson: a Marxian critique of New Institutional Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Ankarloo

Abstract

New institutional economics explains capitalist institutions by means of neoclassical tools. This method consists of introducing non-market institutions as solutions to market failures. The explicit or implicit assumption is that 'in the beginning there were markets'. In this paper, we criticise this conception inherited from neoclassical economics by focusing on Williamson's theory. First, we discuss Williamson's speculative method, which idealises the market and presents it as natural and universal. We then suggest that Williamson's categories, his method and conception are themselves products of bourgeois ideology. In this sense, we conclude, Williamson himself is ultimately an 'institution of capitalism'. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Ankarloo, 2004. "Anti-Williamson: a Marxian critique of New Institutional Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(3), pages 413-429, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:28:y:2004:i:3:p:413-429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beh019
    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. Lefteris TSOULFIDIS, 2017. "Economic theory in historical perspective," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 102-124, May.
    2. Sebastião Neto Ribeiro Guedes & Rodrigo Constantino Jeronimo, 2023. "A Concept of Two Authors: Commons and Williamson on Transactions," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 35(1), pages 61-82, January.
    3. Jérôme Maucourant, 2012. "Nouvelle économie institutionnelle ou socioéconomie des institutions ?," Post-Print halshs-00804622, HAL.
    4. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    5. Frolov, Daniil, 2019. "From transaction costs to transaction value: Overcoming the Coase-Williamson paradigm," MPRA Paper 95959, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2011. "Appropriation, violent enforcement, and transaction costs: a critical survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 227-253, April.
    7. Fonseca Francisco Javier, 2015. "Deficiencies of the Rule of Law and the Legal Culture, and Its relationship to Underdevelopment," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 231-248, October.
    8. Thomas Holtfort, 2019. "From standard to evolutionary finance: a literature survey," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 207-232, June.
    9. Giulio Palermo, 2005. "Misconceptions of Power: From Alchian and Demsetz to Bowles and Gintis," Working Papers ubs0510, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.
    10. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, January.

    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:413-429. 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.