Acceso usuarios
This paper deals with the phenomenon of institutional change and has been conceived as an attempt to answer the following question: Can we retain theimage of institutional change contained in a theory when we replace a methodological foundation on which the theory was built by a different and alternative one? For an answer to be developed, special attention is paid to the contributions made by institutional economists (IE) and those made by transaction cost—new institutional economists (NIE). The question clearly shows that it is a paper on applied methodology rather than a survey on institutional change contributions. Because of that, its main purpose is not to increase our knowledge about the characteristics of real changes in legal rules and social norms, their causes, their processes, or their effects, though several examples are given of those institutionalist and new institutionalist contributions that analyze those changes. Our purpose is to investigate the way in which these two groups of economists approach the object of analysis already mentioned. Our conclusion will be that institutionalist and new institutionalist contributions are built on two different and mutually exclusive approaches because their respective methods of analysis (holism versus methodological individualism) are different and, above all, because they build their respective analyses on some concepts that are mutually exclusive (concepts showing power or nonvoluntary influences versus concepts showing voluntary transactions). Their analyses contain different and mutually exclusiveimages of the changes taking place in legal rules-formal institutions and social norms-informal institutions. Some comments about the limitations of the holist method of analysis are made in the paper.
