Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T14:17:20.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structure, institution, agency, habit, and reflexive deliberation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

STEVE FLEETWOOD
STEVE FLEETWOOD*
Affiliation:
School of Human Resource Management, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
*
Correspondence to: School of Human Resource Management, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol B16 1QY. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The conceptual apparatus referred to generally as agency-structure or agency-institution is central to a great deal of social science, especially Institutional Economics. Despite its centrality, this apparatus has never been able to fully explain how institutions and social structures influence agents' intentions and actions. Economist, Geoff Hodgson and Sociologist, Margaret Archer have been at the forefront of endeavours to provide such an explanation. Section 1 of this paper elaborates upon Hodgson's ideas on institutional rules, habits, habituation, and the notion of reconstitutive downward causation. Section 2 elaborates upon Archer's ideas on structures, reflexive deliberation and the notion of an internal domain of mental primacy, and ends with a critical look at Archer's (brief) comments on rules and habits. The conclusion shows how a more nuanced understanding of structures, institutions, agency, habits, and deliberation, can inform research into a specific area, namely the analysis of labour markets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 183 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Archer, M. 2000, Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, M. 2003, Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R. 1989, The Possibility of Naturalism, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Case, K. and Fair, R. 2004, Principles of Economics, 7th edition, London: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fleetwood, S. 2006, ‘Re-thinking Labour Markets: A Critical Realist-Socioeconomic Perspective’, Capital and Class, 89: 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2002a, ‘Institutional Blindness in Modern Economics’, in Rogers Hollingsworth, J. et al. , Advancing Socio-Economics: An Institutionalist Perspective, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2002b, ‘Reconstitutive Downward Causation: Social Structure and the Development of Individual Agency’, in Fullbrook, Edward (ed.), Intersubjectivity in Economics: Agents and Structures, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2003, ‘The Hidden Persuaders: Institutions and Individuals in Economic Theory’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2004, The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2006a, ‘What are Institutions’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2006b, Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx: Essays on Institutional and Evolutionary Themes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, W. 2007, ‘On the Social Structure of Markets’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 312: 235–253.Google Scholar
Parto, S. 2005, ‘Economic Activity and Institutions: Taking Stock’, Journal of Economic Issues, 39 (1): 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portes, A. 2006, ‘Institutions and Development: A Conceptual Re-Analysis’, Population and Development Review, 32 (2): 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar