It is now commonplace to regard social norms as a subject of growing interest in the economic literature (e.g. game theoretical approaches based on 'other-regarding' individual preferences, the analysis of the impact of rewards or punishment on individuals' behaviour through experimental economics as well as field experiments, the revival of the institutionalist tradition spurred on by the influential work of Douglas North and followed by many others and the growing influence of neuroeconomics). In this paper, we focus on the relationship between incentives and social norms and survey the literature that could constitute the foundations of a motivation-based economic analysis of social norms. Our main findings are that (1) the interaction between incentives and social norms is far from obvious since taking social norms into account involves the introduction of supplementary motives, in addition to self-interest, into the economic analytical framework; (2) the analysis of the interaction between incentives and social norms resists an approach exclusively in terms of crowding-in and -out effects because it is sensitive to whether it concerns behaviours driven by honour or by social stigma; (3) as a result, it is difficult to precisely evaluate the policy implication of the interactions between incentives and social norms.

Abstract. The empirical relevance of motivation crowding out is a controversial issue in economics and psychology. As already pointed out by Frey and Jegen (2001), this is partly due to the historical development of two distinct and parallel strands of literature that stem from different theoretical traditions, have radically different tenets and therefore, are difficult to reconcile. In this survey, we go back to the details of the debates that took place independently among psychologists and economists, and sketch an integrative interdisciplinary approach likely to favor a more fruitful collaboration between economics and psychology. From this perspective, experimental economics (both field and laboratory) is viewed as a major research field shedding new light on the conditions of relevance of motivation crowding out.

International audienceThe purpose of this paper is to show that both Schumpeterian growth theory and Schumpeter’s own thinking can be helpful in order to think about growth policy design and the role of the state. This reflection offers an economic policy roadmap and gives rise to concrete proposals in terms of an adequate mix of demand and supply-side options depending on the country’s distance to the world technology frontier

IntroductionIn this paper, we provide an institutional interpretation of Schumpeter's analysis of money, banking and finance. This interpretation is founded on an overall investigation into Schumpeter's writings addressing those issues from different perspectives.In section 1, we discuss the widespread evolutionist interpretation of Schumpeter and rather assert an institutionalist perspective. In support of our interpretation, we highlight the specific role played by economic sociology in Schumpeter's methodological approach. * We thank the International Center for Economic Research (ICER -Turin) for its financial support. We acknowledge remarks by Pascal Bridel, Harald Hagemann and the two anonymous referees on earlier versions of this paper. The usual caveat applies. 2Economic sociology, indeed, provides the foundations of a theory of institutions and institutional change, which is often undermined by the usual evolutionary interpretation. We believe, however, that taking this dimension seriously into account may have implications for our understanding of economic and institutional change in Schumpeter.Section 2 illustrates this general statement by focusing on Schumpeter's analysis of money, banking and finance, and their respective roles in the process of economic development .Starting from the angle of the three pedagogical stages of Schumpeter's analysis of economic development -the circular flow, the steady-state and the development cases -we show how institutional change is progressively introduced into those respective cases and emphasize the leading role of the banking system in the overall evolution of the financial system. Two functions of the banking system will be specifically pointed out. On the one hand, the banking system, through its function of credit creation, is seen as the 'ephor' of the capitalist system, as an institutional setting pre-existing to it and rendering its expansion possible. On the other hand, the banking system face inner tensions due to transformations taking place within the economic system and must adapt to those changes. In this perspective, the banking system may be conceived as a vector of innovation in the field of banking and corporate finance, which, similarly to the real sector, is ruled by the law of creative destruction. Schumpeter's vision of economic development: an institutionalist perspective.Schumpeter's work has been often taken as reference for most evolutionary economists (see for instance, the emblematic 1982 book of Nelson and Winter). In the following, we will however argue that Schumpeter's hesitation to use the evolution metaphor is not incidental but gives us some indication of what he meant by economic evolution. For us, it is clear that Schumpeter's vision of economic development, even if it may lend itself to some to-day 3 evolutionary explanations of economic change, cannot be understood without taking the complementary and necessary role of institutional changes seriously. Schumpeter and the evolution metaphorIn Schumpeter's writings, we find ...

Abstract:In 1940 Schumpeter wrote a paper entitled: "The Meaning of Rationality in the Social Sciences", which was intended as a contribution to one of the meetings of a seminar including Talcott Parsons, Wassily Leontief, Paul Sweezy and other Harvard scholars, that he initiated. In this paper Schumpeter develops thoroughly his own conception of rationality in economics. First, this paper is interesting in itself because it relates to contemporary methodological debates on rationality in the social sciences. Second Schumpeter's conception of rationality is linked to his methodological background (both individualistic and holistic), which is rooted in his economic sociology and explains the relationships he stresses between individual behavior and collective entities. In this contribution we present the arguments developed by Schumpeter in his 1940 paper and analyze the reason why his notion of rationality can be seen as a key component of his conception of economic and institutional change.