Search results

This essay charts an intellectual journey. Geoffrey M. Hodgson became an institutional economist in the 1980s. He explains how he discovered institutional economics and what strains of institutional thought were attractive for him. Another issue raised in this essay is how institutional researchers organize and move forward. Hodgson argues for an interdisciplinary approach, but this is not without its problems.

This study is a comment on Geoffrey Hodgson’s “Discovering Institutionalism: One Person’s Journey.” In this self-description of the evolution of his thought, Hodgson distinctly acknowledges Thorstein Veblen’s influence on his own institutional perspective. This is the issue that I explore in this study. My argument is that Hodgson can be understood as a Veblenian, but he does not fit in the Veblenian notion that became popular in the mid-twentieth century. I argue that Hodgson’s notion of habits is the strongest Veblen’s influence on him, and his reconstitutive downward and upward causations are in line with Veblen’s institutionalism, albeit without the mid-twentieth century Veblenian writings. I also address the approach to the content of habits as a break between Hodgson’s and Veblen’s institutionalism. By offering an unprecedented Veblenianism, I argue that Hodgson’s institutional economics can be understood as a new institutionalist segmentation.

Geoffrey Hodgson would like to change all this with his Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure, and Darwinism in American Institutionalism (2004). Hodgson writes as both an economic theorist and an historian of economic thought, and he argues that in the history of Institutional Economics in America resides a valuable legacy upon which contemporary theorists can build. In truth, Hodgson’s book must be read together with his recent How Economics Forgot History; The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science (2001), where he has argued for the importance of historical reasoning to economists.

We must begin, of course, by understanding the strengths and limitations of our own approach. If we are to make progress, it is necessary to examine carefully the institutionalist position, to view it not just as a battering ram with which to inflict damage on currently prevailing orthodoxies, but to identify the strengths and weaknesses in its current incarnations. In so doing, we must be critical as well as constructive.

This paper aims to test whether a change in the reporting location of income, and other comprehensive income (OCI) components, in a statement of comprehensive income (SoCI) under International Financial Reporting Standards affects their value-relevance and use by financial analysts.

The study tests the associations between CI, OCI, share returns and financial analyst forecast revisions.

Results show that comprehensive income is less value-relevant than net income, regardless of reporting location. Changing the reporting location of OCI components to the SoCI does not provide incremental improvement for financial analysts or stock prices. Finally, the paper finds that analysts use OCI components to revise forecasts.

The paper addresses the question of which OCI components should be reported, and the importance of reporting location. The paper extends the examination of OCI components to financial analysts as expert financial report users.

In his article on “What Is Still Wrong with Austrian economics?,” Peter Boettke considers matters of strategy for the Austrian school and stresses the importance of institutions and institutional analysis. This comment takes up both themes. Two possible strategies for institutional research are considered. Then the place and role of institutions in Austrian analysis are addressed. It is argued that Austrian thinking has been caught in a dilemma between making theory as general as possible, or of taking on board the historically specific character of key institutions in market economies. The different approaches of Ludwig Mises and Carl Menger to this quandary are compared, with attention to the central concepts of property and capital.

The purpose of this research note is to articulate the limitations that project management (PM) currently faces by outlining the PM literature's frequent neglect of political, social and ethical dimensions of PM work in order to raise a number of important themes that can be usefully integrated into mainstream PM literature.

Extensive research note which updates us on where PM research is heading.

PM is a highly complex, political and social process. The paper challenges readers, PM academics and practitioners to view PM more critically and to expand their appreciation of PM work as being more complex in its social context that merely delivering instrumentalist and mechanistic functional management processes.

This paper triggers a debate using critical PM research to engage with all levels of the project hierarchy with the aim of initiating some transformation in how actors perceive themselves, their voice, their broad responsibility and their influence in shaping their own social place.