Publication Date
2025
Description
This chapter revisits the axiological foundations of change within Original Institutional Economics (OIE), focusing on the tradition’s tendency to privilege reformist means prior to the assessment of social problems. Within OIE, the two dominant approaches to change—John R. Commons’ reasonable value framework and the Ayresian synthesis organized around instrumental value and institutional adjustment—have both been defined against the backdrop of the reform/revolution distinction. Although distinct in their theoretical foundations, both approaches treat reformist or incremental change as the appropriate horizon of institutional transformation. This chapter argues that these a priori commitments rest on weak theoretical grounds. The critique of Commons centers on the limited theory of power embedded in his reasonable value framework. Because Commons understands power “pluralistically” existing institutional channels appear capable of resolving social conflict through reasonable consensus. Once power is understood hegemonically, the adequacy of those channels becomes less secure, and the implicit equivalence of reform and peace is challenged. The critique of the Ayresian synthesis proceeds differently, focusing on the overextension of ontological insights regarding complexity, interdependence, and habit formation into an unjustified commitment to incrementalism, along with a teleological account of instrumental progress. Drawing on Radical Institutionalism’s emphasis on hegemonic power and analytical radicalism, the chapter advances a non-dualistic approach to change. Reform and revolution are treated as ideal-typical points on a spectrum of possible means, whose consequences must be assessed relative to the scale and structure of the problem at hand, leaving the choice of means and ends to democratic contestation.
Type
Working Paper(unpublished)
Department
Economics
Language
eng