a b s t r a c tDeakin, Simon , Gindis, David , Hodgson, Geoffrey M. , Huang, Kainan , and Pistor, Katharina -Legal institutionalism: Capitalism and the constitutive role of law Social scientists have paid insufficient attention to the role of law in constituting the economic institutions of capitalism. Part of this neglect emanates for inadequate conceptions of the nature of law itself. Spontaneous conceptions of law and property rights that downplay the role of the state are criticized here, because they typically assume relatively small numbers of agents and underplay the complexity and uncertainty in developed capitalist systems. In developed capitalist economies, law is sustained through interaction between private agents, courts and the legislative apparatus. Law is also a key institution for overcoming contracting uncertainties. It is furthermore a part of the power structure of society, and a major means by which power is exercised. This argument is illustrated by considering institutions such as property and the firm. Complex systems of law have played a crucial role in capitalist development and are also vital for developing economies. Journal of Comparative Economics 45 (2017) 188-200. At this early stage of its development, legal institutionalism 1 involves claims concerning the nature of social reality, at least in modern, developed socio-economic systems. It does not yet provide a full theoretical approach, but it does provide some tentative and limited indications concerning theory and policy.There are two primary ontological claims. The first concerns the nature of law. It is argued that law (at least in the fullest and most developed sense) necessarily involves both the state (broadly construed to refer to a realm of public ordering) and private or customary arrangements. Reduction of law to just one of these two aspects is mistaken. As well as drawing from custom, law involves an institutionalized judiciary and a legislative apparatus.

Evolutionary game theory and evolutionary economics seem to inhabit different academic spheres and have little collaboration with one another. Neither side cites much research by the other. Does this de facto academic separation impede fruitful possibilities for mutual inspiration and joint development? This paper addresses this question by considering (1) the different origins and research orientations of the two genres, (2) to what extent evolutionary economists could make use of evolutionary game theory, and (3) what evolutionary game theorists might learn from other, less formal, modes of theorising. The paper concludes that while significant possibilities for collaboration exist, the foremost test is whether they can help enhance our understanding of structures and causal processes in the real world.

No abstract

No abstract

The Working Paper Series is intended for rapid dissemination of research results, workin-progress, and innovative teaching methods, at the pre-publication stage. Comments are welcomed and should be addressed to the individual author(s). It should be noted that papers in this series are often provisional and comments and/or citations should take account of this.