What was wrong with the old institutional economics (and what is still wrong with the new)?

Abstract

This paper is a comparison and critique of the old and the new institutional economics, with principal focus on the former. The paper argues that the old institutional economics (OIE) lacks methodological consistency and overall persuasiveness because of the preconceptions it took from the philosophy of pragmatism and its late nineteenth-century attitude towards science. The paper starts from the methodological problem posted by Thorstein Veblen; argues that the OIE was never able to solve that problem; and then poses a resolution of Veblen's dilemma in terms of a 'benchmark' programme useful in appraising both the OIE and the NIE. The paper also argues that the most appealing areas of OIE rhetoric–institutions and evolution–do not distinguish that programme from the NIE. What distinguishes the OIE are the less appealing doctrines of holism and instrumental valuing. The paper closes with a brief critique of the neoclassical core of the NIE.