IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ent/wpaper/wp36.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inclusive and Exclusive Social Preferences: A Deweyan Framework to Explain Governance Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Silvia Sacchetti

    () (Stirling Management School, Institute for Socio Management)

Abstract

We suggest that Dewey's theory of value formation has implications for the contraposition between individual and social preferences in economics. We re-consider that distinction and introduce, instead, the notions of inclusive and exclusive social preferences. We then apply this distinction to governance forms and suggest an explanatory framework of governance heterogeneity which contrasts exclusive and inclusive governance structures. In the final discussion we illustrate a possible use of the framework for assessing cooperatives and social enterprises as well as traditional corporations. More generally, we argue that the assessment of governance heterogeneity would benefit from a consideration of the type of social preferences underlying formal as well as substantive involvement of publics.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvia Sacchetti, 2012. "Inclusive and Exclusive Social Preferences: A Deweyan Framework to Explain Governance Heterogeneity," Econometica Working Papers wp36, Econometica.
  • Handle: RePEc:ent:wpaper:wp36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econometica.it/wp/wp36.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
    2. Gianluca Grimalda & Lorenzo Sacconi, 2005. "The Constitution of the Not-For-Profit Organisation: Reciprocal Conformity to Morality," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 249-276, September.
    3. Avinash Dixit, 2009. "Governance Institutions and Economic Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 5-24, March.
    4. Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2010. "Conformity, reciprocity and the sense of justice. How social contract-based preferences and beliefs explain norm compliance: the experimental evidence," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 171-201, June.
    5. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    6. Tilman Slembeck, 1997. "The Formation of Economic Policy: A Cognitive-Evolutionary Approach to Policy-Making," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 225-254, August.
    7. Frey, Bruno S, 1997. "A Constitution for Knaves Crowds Out Civic Virtues," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1043-1053, July.
    8. Everett, Michael J & Minkler, Alanson P, 1993. "Evolution and Organisational Choice in Nineteenth-Century Britain," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 51-62, March.
    9. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Ulrich Witt, 2003. "Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 77-94, April.
    11. Samuel Bowles, 1998. "Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 75-111, March.
    12. Chang, Ha-Joon, 1997. "The Economics and Politics of Regulation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(6), pages 703-728, November.
    13. Mill, John Stuart, 1859. "On Liberty," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number mill1859.
    14. Cowling, Keith & Sugden, Roger, 1998. "Strategic Trade Policy Reconsidered: National Rivalry vs Free Trade vs International Cooperation," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 339-357.
    15. Kenneth L. Avio, 2002. "Three problems of social organisation: institutional law and economics meets Habermasian law and democracy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 501-520, July.
    16. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(02), pages 149-159, November.
    17. Douglass C. North, 2005. "Introduction to Understanding the Process of Economic Change," Introductory Chapters,in: Understanding the Process of Economic Change Princeton University Press.
    18. Jacques Defourny & Marthe Nyssens, 2010. "Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences," Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 32-53, March.
    19. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    20. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polanía Reyes, 2009. "Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: A preference-Based Lucas Critique of Public Policy," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2009-11, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    21. Keith Cowling & Philip R. Tomlinson, 2011. "Post the 'Washington Consensus': economic governance and industrial strategies for the twenty-first century," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(5), pages 831-852.
    22. J. Robert Branston & Keith Cowling & Roger Sugden, 2006. "Corporate Governance and the Public Interest," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 189-212.
    23. Silvia Sacchetti & Roger Sugden, 2009. "The Organization of Production and its Publics: Mental Proximity, Market and Hierarchies," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(3), pages 289-311.
    24. Buchanan, James M. & Vanberg, Viktor J., 1991. "The Market as a Creative Process," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(02), pages 167-186, October.
    25. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polanía Reyes, 2009. "Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: A Preference-based Lucas Critique of Public Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 2734, CESifo Group Munich.
    26. Cowling, Keith & Sugden, Roger, 1998. "The Essence of the Modern Corporation: Markets, Strategic Decision-Making and the Theory of the Firm," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 66(1), pages 59-86, January.
    27. Avner Ben-Ner & Matthew Ellman, 2013. "The contributions of behavioural economics to understanding and advancing the sustainability of worker cooperatives," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 2(1), pages 75-100, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tortia, Ermanno C., 2017. "The firm as a common. The case of the accumulation and use of capital resources in co-operative enterprises," MPRA Paper 76735, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Silvia Sacchetti & Ermanno Tortia, 2016. "A needs theory of governance," Econometica Working Papers wp59, Econometica.
    3. Sacchetti, Silvia & Tortia, Ermanno, 2012. "The internal and external governance of cooperatives: the effective membership and consistency of value," AICCON Working Papers 111-2012, Associazione Italiana per la Cultura della Cooperazione e del Non Profit.
    4. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1023-:d:138853 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Vladislav Valentinov, 2017. "The Rawlsian Critique of Utilitarianism: A Luhmannian Interpretation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 25-35, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    private-public dichotomy; social preferences; pragmatism; governance heterogeneity; stakeholders;

    JEL classification:

    • B00 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - General - - - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • L3 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise

    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:ent:wpaper:wp36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matteo Rizzolli). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ecoetit.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.