Search published articles
Showing 2 results for Institutional Changes
Hassan Afrakhteh,
Volume 11, Issue 41 (12-2022)
Volume 11, Issue 41 (12-2022)
Abstract
Introduction
The purpose of the article is to understand the relationship between the institutional system and knowledge creation, and this question is answered as to how and under what conditions the institutional system can strengthen innovation and knowledge creation. In this regard, first, knowledge and innovation have been introduced from the perspective of a relational paradigm, then the relationship between institutions and the development of knowledge and innovation, its conditions and factors have been analyzed. Relying on Gidden's structural theory, it is argued that the institution, on the one hand, shapes the processes of economic interaction, and on the other hand, it is formed by the processes of economic interaction. As a result, a paradoxical problem arises, and that, on the one hand, institutions are structures that shape human actions, and on the other hand, to create innovation and knowledge, institutional changes must be made and institutions that encourage innovation and knowledge creation must be created, that is, the actions of actors are formed by institutions. So, how can actors change the same institutions? In other words, how can people change an institution whose rationality and actions are bound to the same institution?
But under what conditions do emergent institutional changes take place? To study the necessary conditions for emerging institutional changes, the role of structure versus agency is discussed. Using the structural theory of Giddens (1984), a concept of institutions is presented that enables the analysis of how institutions simultaneously shape economic interaction processes and are shaped by them. This framework opens new opportunities for integrating micro and macro phenomena in the analysis of economic action and technological changes in the spatial landscape.
Methodology
In this article, related articles have been collected using the key words institution, knowledge creation, and relational paradigm. Then, the collected articles have been analyzed using a narrative review method, and finally, a conclusion has been drawn.
Discussion and Conclusion
Understanding innovation requires interdisciplinary research and the application of different methods at different levels. Institutions are understood from the point of view of social science and it is different from the view that considers institutions as "black boxes". In this view, institutions are not defined as simple regulations, laws or organizations, but are seen as relatively stable and closed social interaction between economic enterprises, based on which laws and regulations are expanded in conditional ways. Although the institutions may represent the inherent purposes of the laws, in practice it is found that they may not conform to the laws to some extent. Therefore, laws are fundamentally different from institutions. Laws are the only possible conditions for the emergence and transformation of socio-economic institutions from a spatial perspective. Because of such fundamental contingency, the effects of laws on economic outcomes can be unintended, unpredictable, and even counterproductive.
There are three arguments about the relationship between institutional change and technological change:
A, institutional hysteresis;
b. Perpetuation of inefficient institutions; and
C. Establishment of inefficient institutions.
Regarding the relationship between institutions and economic results, the basic question is, at what level do institutions contribute to economic development and innovation, and under what conditions may the institutional system cause problems in the process of economic development and innovation. Van Warden's (2001) study on the relationship between legal institutions and the innovation of national economies shows that institutions are an important tool for reducing uncertainty. Hence, when institutional domains reduce uncertainty, citizens are more likely to accept the risk of innovation.
However, it is acknowledged that the empirical state of knowledge about institutions, institutional changes and their interrelationships with economic, social and technological phenomena is still in its early stages.
The article has shown that when actors want to change existing institutions and create new institutions, they must change the existing institutional environment. Since, existing institutions contain benefits for many actors, institutional entrepreneurs have to mobilize resources and develop specific capabilities in order to promote legitimacy and righteousness for change and to convince others to adopt new practices. As a result, an initial institution is formed, which becomes established over time and becomes an accepted institution, which is explained in the article with examples.
The purpose of the article is to understand the relationship between the institutional system and knowledge creation, and this question is answered as to how and under what conditions the institutional system can strengthen innovation and knowledge creation. In this regard, first, knowledge and innovation have been introduced from the perspective of a relational paradigm, then the relationship between institutions and the development of knowledge and innovation, its conditions and factors have been analyzed. Relying on Gidden's structural theory, it is argued that the institution, on the one hand, shapes the processes of economic interaction, and on the other hand, it is formed by the processes of economic interaction. As a result, a paradoxical problem arises, and that, on the one hand, institutions are structures that shape human actions, and on the other hand, to create innovation and knowledge, institutional changes must be made and institutions that encourage innovation and knowledge creation must be created, that is, the actions of actors are formed by institutions. So, how can actors change the same institutions? In other words, how can people change an institution whose rationality and actions are bound to the same institution?
But under what conditions do emergent institutional changes take place? To study the necessary conditions for emerging institutional changes, the role of structure versus agency is discussed. Using the structural theory of Giddens (1984), a concept of institutions is presented that enables the analysis of how institutions simultaneously shape economic interaction processes and are shaped by them. This framework opens new opportunities for integrating micro and macro phenomena in the analysis of economic action and technological changes in the spatial landscape.
Methodology
In this article, related articles have been collected using the key words institution, knowledge creation, and relational paradigm. Then, the collected articles have been analyzed using a narrative review method, and finally, a conclusion has been drawn.
Discussion and Conclusion
Understanding innovation requires interdisciplinary research and the application of different methods at different levels. Institutions are understood from the point of view of social science and it is different from the view that considers institutions as "black boxes". In this view, institutions are not defined as simple regulations, laws or organizations, but are seen as relatively stable and closed social interaction between economic enterprises, based on which laws and regulations are expanded in conditional ways. Although the institutions may represent the inherent purposes of the laws, in practice it is found that they may not conform to the laws to some extent. Therefore, laws are fundamentally different from institutions. Laws are the only possible conditions for the emergence and transformation of socio-economic institutions from a spatial perspective. Because of such fundamental contingency, the effects of laws on economic outcomes can be unintended, unpredictable, and even counterproductive.
There are three arguments about the relationship between institutional change and technological change:
A, institutional hysteresis;
b. Perpetuation of inefficient institutions; and
C. Establishment of inefficient institutions.
Regarding the relationship between institutions and economic results, the basic question is, at what level do institutions contribute to economic development and innovation, and under what conditions may the institutional system cause problems in the process of economic development and innovation. Van Warden's (2001) study on the relationship between legal institutions and the innovation of national economies shows that institutions are an important tool for reducing uncertainty. Hence, when institutional domains reduce uncertainty, citizens are more likely to accept the risk of innovation.
However, it is acknowledged that the empirical state of knowledge about institutions, institutional changes and their interrelationships with economic, social and technological phenomena is still in its early stages.
The article has shown that when actors want to change existing institutions and create new institutions, they must change the existing institutional environment. Since, existing institutions contain benefits for many actors, institutional entrepreneurs have to mobilize resources and develop specific capabilities in order to promote legitimacy and righteousness for change and to convince others to adopt new practices. As a result, an initial institution is formed, which becomes established over time and becomes an accepted institution, which is explained in the article with examples.
Hassan Afrakhteh,
Volume 13, Issue 2 (9-2024)
Volume 13, Issue 2 (9-2024)
Abstract
Objective: Objective: The purpose of this study is to answer the question of how people can change an institution whose rationality and actions are bound to the same institution.
Methods: In this review article, using the keywords, institutional system, human action, institutional changes, innovation, knowledge creation, institutional environment, institutional changes, institutional hysteresis and searching in domestic and foreign academic sources, articles and books related to the subject were collected and studied. Then, the collected data has been analyzed and concluded in the "narrative review" method, in line with the purpose of the research.
Results: Economic action is not atomistic but relational. Individual preferences, norms, values, ethics, tastes, styles, needs, and objectives emerge from and are co-constituted through the social embedding of economic interaction. Economic actors are not isolated beings who carry out atomistic behavioral scripts; rather, they are embedded in a social environment that constitutes meaning through repeated interaction. Such a concept of relational action has three implications:
(a) Conceptuality, related to situated practice and reflexive, transformative action,
(b) Path dependence, which is a matter of institutionalization and imprinting, and
(c) Contingency, associated with serendipity, historical points of inflection, and purposive action toward institutional change.
Conclusions: The conflict between the formation clause and the rationality of the actions of actors from institutions, and institutional changes by actors, can be through Social action, which is fundamentally reactive and contextual in nature, should be resolved. Social action cannot be understood as the implementation of institutional prescriptions
, but is revealed as reflective interaction in specific spatial-temporal contexts. When actors see specific interests and individual benefits associated with potential new institutions, they act to support their development and adoption.
Methods: In this review article, using the keywords, institutional system, human action, institutional changes, innovation, knowledge creation, institutional environment, institutional changes, institutional hysteresis and searching in domestic and foreign academic sources, articles and books related to the subject were collected and studied. Then, the collected data has been analyzed and concluded in the "narrative review" method, in line with the purpose of the research.
Results: Economic action is not atomistic but relational. Individual preferences, norms, values, ethics, tastes, styles, needs, and objectives emerge from and are co-constituted through the social embedding of economic interaction. Economic actors are not isolated beings who carry out atomistic behavioral scripts; rather, they are embedded in a social environment that constitutes meaning through repeated interaction. Such a concept of relational action has three implications:
(a) Conceptuality, related to situated practice and reflexive, transformative action,
(b) Path dependence, which is a matter of institutionalization and imprinting, and
(c) Contingency, associated with serendipity, historical points of inflection, and purposive action toward institutional change.
Conclusions: The conflict between the formation clause and the rationality of the actions of actors from institutions, and institutional changes by actors, can be through Social action, which is fundamentally reactive and contextual in nature, should be resolved. Social action cannot be understood as the implementation of institutional prescriptions
, but is revealed as reflective interaction in specific spatial-temporal contexts. When actors see specific interests and individual benefits associated with potential new institutions, they act to support their development and adoption.
| Page 1 from 1 |
Related Websites
Site Keywords
نشریه, Academic Journal, Scientific Article, کلمه شماره یک, کلمه شماره یک, کلمه شماره یک, کلمه شماره یک, کلمه شماره دو, کلمه شماره یک, کلمه دوVote
Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb