Institutional
Heritage as a Resource and a Frame for New Set-ups of State Power
Mikhail Ilyin
National Research University
“Higher
School of Economics”
Abstract. The paper
discusses the ways to conceptualize this paradoxical duality of institutional heritage
– its momentary functionality hic et nunc and historical
accumulation of its potential. To this end, the paper suggests to replace predominant
vector-like and single-step patterns of momentary causality with multiple and
multi-linear patterns of both causal accumulation and accomplishment. Institutional
heritage is a causal drive that acts here and now. However, its moment is not an
actual singular force but accumulation of factual and counterfactual conjunctures
of political causal factors. Assemblages of such factors reshape and implant into
an innate memory of a persisting political tradition with each of its
reproductions. The testing grounds are instances of disequilibria of
establishes patterns of state power and influence. New patterns of power and
influence as well as new networks of states seem to emerge. They serve and most
probably will serve as nuclei for ensuing convergence of world order as long as
‘outdated’ or ‘dysfunctional’ configurations of state power and influence
reshape into novel structures and practices of governance good enough for the
context our current crisis. Patrimonial heritage with its potential for overall
integration as well as imperial heritage with its conventions of indirect rule
may provide blueprints for possible solutions. In any case, it is discernible
that old set-ups should transform into much broader configurations linked by
reflexive loops democratic accountability.
Key words. Institutional
heritage, evolutionary prototypes, replication, patterns of order, power
Conventional wisdom
of mainstream political science focuses on instant causes of political activities.
At best, it takes into account immediate sequences of actions and events. It is
valid even for much more advanced and sophisticated historical institutionalism,
which implies that institutional heritage primarily accounts for the demarcated
outlines of path dependence. As long as its rigid edges erode (alongside with
institutional heritage) critical junctures emerge. They open windows of
opportunities to install new institutional set-ups that are both innovative and
downright original. By default, such new inventions are superior to old tricks
and redundant garbage of the past.
The assertive wisdom
of rectilinear political progression with its vector logic and widespread contempt
for ‘outdated’ institutional formats ignores historical heritage or reduces it
to a simple momentary factor with minimal internal structure or logic of its own.
Alternative assumptions imply that political evolution accumulates a wide array
of structural and agential options beyond and above the actual sequence of
factual outcomes of political dynamics. There is a clear need to replace
predominant vector-like and single-step patterns of momentary causality with
multiple and multi-linear patterns of both causal accumulation and
accomplishment. It is evidently true that institutional heritage is a causal
drive that acts here and now. However, its moment is not an actual singular
force at a top a vector but accumulation of factual and counterfactual
conjunctures of political causal factors. Assemblages of such factors reshape
and implant into an innate memory of a persisting political tradition with each
of its reproductions.
Reevaluation of basic
assumptions
In a critical
reevaluation of our assumptions and patterns of vision, I employ causal
structures that can explain both current political formats and the role of
historical heritage in settling them up. One would only agree with Peter Hall, “What
do we see when we look at the political world across space and time? In large
measure, that depends on what we are looking for and the lens through which we
look. This is as true of political science today as it was of seventeenth
century scientists looking for phlogiston through rudimentary microscopes. Our
methods and assumptions about what we should see, notably about causal
structures in the world, condition what we find” (Hall 2016, p. 31).
What is outlook the
outlook Peter Hall advocates and the lenses that he suggest to apply? His
answer is clear and sharp, “To take such an approach means embracing models of
the polity that acknowledge the impact on political action of the social,
economic and political structures in which actors are embedded at a particular
time or place and considering how events not only affect the immediate outcome
of interest but also restructure the institutional or ideological setting in
ways that condition outcomes in later periods of time” (Hall 2016, p. 32 ?).
At a first glance, a
regular line of triumphant factual outcomes may look natural, evident, undisputed
and obdurate in commonplace reading of laypeople as well as in the mainstream
political scholarship. In fact, those path-like series are hardly ever happy,
consistent or optimal. Moreover, they are typically ambiguous, contingent and
largely unhappy. They are capricious combinations of institutions and practices
that adjust to mutable settings and altering contexts. Varying conditions
actually render then ether functional or dysfunctional as the cases may be. In
the end, flaws and blemishes of inconsistent factual sequels of political
arrangements enhance both structural need and agential desire for an overall alteration
and change. Critical junctures are not abrupt contingencies but rather entailed
and accumulated effects of the leap from trial and error selection to a radical
and massive morphological recombination.
The proposed alternative
vision of political dynamics departs from a set of basic assumptions that go
beyond politics or human sociality straight to biological foundation of our
existence. Such a radical passage entails a gross reduction, but it allows getting
down to basics. Humankind emerged in a metamorphosis of certain population of primates
of homo genus into a species of homo sapience. This metamorphosis
was not only a biological mutation but also an addition of unprecedented social
abilities. Would be humans reproduced themselves as symbiotic creatures with
new abilities of cognition and communication. Those abilities allowed our
ancestors to undertake a parallel reproduction but not of a species but of
humankind. Symbolic multiplication of behavioral patterns provided pragmatic
abilities to create alternative options and conditions that were not
biologically determined.
Humans reinvented
biological ability to program genetic reproduction as a social ability to
program institutional reproduction. The same way as DNA works as a matrix for
RNA to become a deliverer of programs for human cells and/or organs as well as an
entire body, human semiotic matrixes provide cognitive and communicative
programs for social interaction and framing social order.
From basic assumptions
through evolutionary prototypes to theoretical models of institutional
evolution
Emergence
of human entities (societies, communities, social bodies – a very telling
metaphor) rests on the same, or slightly more distinct and lucid principles of
biological ontogeny. Further simplification can add coherence to the principles
and reveal the minimal algorithms of morphogenesis. It was Alan Turing who aptly projected a mechanism of
morphogenesis decades before modern genetics finally re-discovered the
formation of similar patterns in far more subtle form of genetic reproduction (Turing
1952). He uncovered diffusion of two different chemical signals, one activating
and one deactivating growth. Their interaction sets up patterns of form
building or morphogenesis.
Patterns of genetic reproduction further improve and perplex elementary morphogenetic
principles. As a result, genetic infrastructure builds on DNA as a universal
matrix that serves RNA polymerase and other so-called transcription factors to
work out algorithmic instruction for biogenetic reproduction of proteins,
sells, tissues, sells and even organs.
Genome
prototype along with its actual embodiments are extremely sophisticated agency
of genetic reproduction and replication. However, there are still more advanced
consciousness prototype that are still unexplored. We still miss adequate
models of autopoetic consciousness, memory, social cognitive replication and
pattern-formation.
All we can
say now is that alternative prototypes of various complexity nest (interlock
each other) in the Russian nesting doll manner. The interlocking nest includes reaction–diffusion algorithms, genes, memory
as its most conspicuous variations.
Advancement from
evolutionary prototypes to theoretical models of institution building embarks with
Turing interaction of two alternative commands – one activating
and another deactivating growth. It proceeds through progressive ranks of ever further
composite pattern-formation or social replication. Same patterns reproduce themselves
with subtle changes and increments in a range of complex forms of human
behavior and customized practices. Well-established practices boil down to
rules (c.f. Turing commands as their evolutionary prototype). Social scientists
call those rules and regulatory patterns institutions (North 1990; Hodgson
2006) and research them extensively. However, we still do not know how
institutions regulate social order and behavior – at least much less then
biologists know how genes regulate organic life.
Elementary patterns
are dual. They derive from Turing pair of activating
and deactivating commands but display inclusion and exclusion, cleavage and
compaction, divergence and convergence, homoarchy and heterarchy, advance and
retreat, challenge and response. The list of dual patterns is open. With all
its variation, each pair coherently reveals the same pattern of the antinomy logic
(Kant 1781) of double movement (Polanyi 1944) or Turing morphogenetic
prototype.
Dual patterns account
for individual instances of replication. Such instances are not isolated. They range
into sequences of replication. In turn, those sequences reshape into cumulated stages
of cleavage and compaction, divergence and convergence, homoarchy
and heterarchy, advance and retreat, crisis and breakthrough. Protracted
cycles of development emerge as outcomes of the multilinear sequencing.
Within sequences of
replication, new social orders and institutions emerge as re-inventions of old ones
of the previous cycles. The paper discusses the ways to conceptualize this
paradoxical duality of institutional heritage. Kantian antinomy as an
analytical principle along with prototypes of convergence and divergence,
inclusion and exclusion, homoarchy and heterarchy, etc. help to clarify
respective concepts and analytical instruments. It is reasonable to replace
vector-like and single-step causality with multiple and multi-linear patterns
of causation. Numerous and alternative tracks of trial and error selection
reach critical junctures of disequilibria, untangle and bestow volatilities for
a radical and massive morphological recombination that result in restoration of
punctuated equilibrium.
Morphological
reshaping or metamorphosis of political orders entail a wide range of
instances. They are patterns of additional and thus non-biological counterfeit
imitation of biological reproduction by primates leading
to emergence of primary human arrangements or human condition leading to
anthropo- and sociogenesis.
Primary institutional stage of anthropo-
and sociogenesis reveals in a very simple and evolutionary early Proto-Indo-European
conceptualization of basic human conditions. Its cognitive scheme is
reconstructed as *priyo. Its later derivatives are freedom, peace and
friendship. It is opposed to active destructive agency of war (*wreg)
and the inactive influence of need (*neu-d). This schematic opposition
of human / inhuman works as the conceptual base of the order / disorder
opposition. It is the initial point of both conceptual and institutional
history of power and freedom.
Historical validation
of theoretical models.
Anthropologists
and archeologist who studied early stages of social evolution are able to
detect, document and elucidate basic patterns of homoarchy and heterarchy. American
anthropologist Carole Crumley defines heterarchy as "the relation of
elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the
potential for being ranked in a number of different ways" (Crumley 1995).
Her Russian colleague Dmitri Bondarenko argues that heterarchy is not strictly
the opposite of hierarchy, but
is rather the opposite of homoarchy. He defines it as "the relation of elements
to one another when they possess the potential for being ranked in one way
only" (Bondarenko 2007).
The universal principle of inclusion and exclusion
could produce a number of evolutionary and historical prototypes depending on
the scope and media of inclusion, its agency and manner as well as the
character of the results achieved or pertaining order. The scope and media are
interrelated. The greater is the scope of inclusion the more advanced
communication medium provides it ranging from oral speech to global electronic
networks of communication.
The agency and manner of inclusion
characterize who decides whom to include and what procedures are used, e.g.
coercion or consent.
The character of the established order may
be centripetal or centrifugal, heterogeneous or homogeneous, equalitarian or
stratified.
So far we have discussed primary
prototypes, i.e. inclusion into an individual group and the relevant order
therein. Such instances are rear. They are the cases of isolated, secluded or
out-of-the-way groups that can emerge and exist exclusively on their own.
Inclusion there is fairly straightforward and emerging order simple. It can be
properly referred to singular proto-citizenship.
Far more common are intricate spin-off groups
that coexist, intersect and even integrate with each other. Their prototypes
are those of multiple inclusion. Some variants of inclusion are possible only
with individuals and groups that undergone primary earlier inclusion. Thus,
building polis community imply primary inclusion of tribes, common-ancestry
lineages (φ(ρ)ατρίαί) and extended families (γένη). Secondary
inclusion into already existing polis or rather artificial creation
psedo-natural groups like deme or trittyes
(τριττύες). Equally, nation-state inclusion imply
that you integrate people who are already members of estates, social orders,
corporations, municipalities etc.
Gradual development
of homogeneous and egalitarian primitive bands to heterogeneous and stratified
asymmetrical chiefdoms produced new options. With chiefdoms getting upper hand
over other chiefdoms and tribes, with an emergence of tribal federations with
or without poleis the ruler or rulers could not be maintained over populace on
a regular basis. Respective structural and morphological development were
triggered by the need to maintain order when direct oral communication, and to
that effect getting input to work out common goals, to give orders and check
their implementation became highly problematic or even impossible. The
authority was de facto structurally detached from the general populace often
dispersed over sizeable territories. New ways of dealing with the challenging
new circumstances had to be developed.
Morphological
solution of the problem was quite self-effacing and straightforward. It was
creation of a link or medium between the authority and entire populace.
Specifically patrimonial solution for the problem of polity overextension
reshaped tripartite division as essential unity of the prevailing authority (quasi-patriarch,
housemaster) and the entire populace (quasi-kinship, kinfolk, domestics,
householders) provided the linkage between them (quasi-household, its
instrumental aspects and symbolic representations as common legacy). The last
component worked as a crucial integrative device.
Prototype of patrimonial brotherhood had
not replaced the primordial one but supplemented and integrated it. It was a
first instance of multiple inclusion and compound order. All the further
institutional innovations and setups followed the precedent.
Each of the structural units of patrimonial
brotherhood - authority, medium and populace - actually utilized primordial
approach to inclusion. Further integration of patrimonial prototypes with more
advanced and complex arrangements produced far more assorted and divergent
patterns of organization. Patrimonial component in such cases served an
important function to compensate the structural and managerial gaps that
cropped up with political transformations and growth.
A number of historical types with distinct
patrimonial input were described by Max Weber under the rubric of
patrimonialism. They include traditional patrimonialism (Patrimonialismus),
sultanism (Sultanismus), estate domination (ständische Herrschaft)
as well as more recent Caesarismus (Cäsarismus), rule of officials (Beamtenherrschaft)
and plebiscitary domination (plebiszitäre Herrschaft).
There is abundant
literature on neo-patrimonialism. Views on the ability of patrimonial orders or rather patrimonial component of complex
orders to serve as vehicle of modernization and even democratization are quite
controversial. Majority of authors stress dysfunctionality of patrimonialism.
On the other hand there are authors who recognize its functionality,
particularly in the context of reforms. Christian von Soest, for example,
insists that some patrimonial regimes are fairly accountable to public opinion
and promote efficiency reforms (Soest 2007). Furthermore, in his article “Can
Neopatrimonialism Dissolve into Democracy?” Mamoudou Gazibo fairly convincingly
showed that neopatrimonialism could fuse with democracy within hybrid regimes
of “new democracies” in the post-Communist space or “third wave democracies” in
Latin America (Gazibo 2012).
Re-invention of polis citizenship is a
vivid example of the use of institutional heritage. Social memory of primary solidarity was instrumental to
counter tribal degradation. It allowed on a far greater scale of social
integratioin to produce polis citizenship. Solon’s Seisachtheia clearly demonstrates the logic
of institutional re-invention. Patterns of tribal
freedom, solidarity and power evolved into patterns of civic freedom, civility
and political (polis) power.
Waves of inclusion
and exclusion allowed working out rules of access and its restriction.
Elaborate forms of regulation of access emerged. Limited and open access orders
are conceptual tools for the later stages of their evolution (North,
Wallis & Weingast 2009).
Citizenship in its narrow sense of
membership in a nation state is quite new - both as a phenomenon and a notion.
"It was only in 1792 that it (the word citizen - M.I.) was first
used to a member of a state" (Magnette 2005, 5). The term citizenship designating nation state membership is
still more recent. "A few decades later appeared the citizenry
derivative (1819), which means the civic body, and citizenhood (1871),
synonymous with what we call today citizenship. It is only in the second half
of the second half of the twentieth century, and even more so since the 70s,
that the word is in constant use and that it has taken on a clearly political
meaning. The same evolution is found in other European languages" (ibid).
Nation states are also recent phenomena.
The term implies the combination of a nation and a state. Such blends have been
very uneasy products of the two parallel processes of nation-building and state
formation. The interrelation and relative autonomy of those two processes was
clearly identified in political science only in the 1960s but they actually
started much earlier, at last as far back as the European Renaissance. The
consolidation of sizable linguo-cultural communities within Respublica
Christiana was re-conceptualized in terms of a common ‘origin’ or nation. Just
as the polis transformation was imagined as the artificial re-creation of
kinship on the scale of the city, the modern overhaul was thought of as a
similar development on much greater territorial scale.
This new scale of nations did not
automatically coincide with new political frameworks of sovereign domination.
Early Modern times give examples of states within nations and nations within
states. It was only in the 19th century, in particular, with unification of
Germany and Italy that the nation state configuration gained prominence.
The word state appeared early in the
16th century (Skinner 1989; 2010). It referred then not so much to a distinct
morphological unit of politics but rather to assorted territorial units of very
diverse nature that strived to build up partnerships for mutual survival. To
that effect, they recognized the legal equality and ultimate authority of each
other along with fixed boarders. Such an experiment initially took place in
Italy after the Peace of Lodi in 1456 and helped to interrupt a long sequence
of wars for the next four decades. Many parties to the Peace of Westphalia would
not pass even very modern criteria for statehood. It was only after the Vienna
Congress that the structural affinities developed by participants of a
successive international systems made them look like states. So, it is not by
chance that citizenry entered English political vocabulary just after
the Congress of Vienna, citizenhood after modifications to the Vienna
system in 1871, and citizenship was firmly established only in the 20th
century.
All through the nascent period of nation
states persons belonging to these first territorial units were called and
treated as subjects. Imperial, patrimonial and other old-fashioned constituents
of modern political forms and corresponding concepts dominated long into the
next century. They are still apparent and effectual even with much advanced democracies. With
autocracies, anocracies and many new democracies that emerged only in recent
decades, patrimonial and imperial patterns often continue to prevail. They are
still apparent and effectual even within advanced democracies. In actual fact,
nation states have always been, and still are, assorted patchworks of
overlapping configurations of inclusion as heterogeneous countries like
Switzerland and Belgium clearly prove. But a closer look at
"homogeneous" countries like Denmark or Portugal also confirms a
multiplicity of inclusions and specific "citizenships" (corporate, neighborhood etc.).
With all the intricacy of multiple
citizenships and patterns of inclusion, it is the legal bond with territorially
defined domains of power that plays the key role. The territorial borders of
states work essentially to establish crucial distinguishing factors. This
simplifies and rationalizes inclusion, but at the same time complicates it. In
fact, the distinction between internal and external is ambiguous since each
individual state has its own perspective and point of departure. States may
have shared segments of their borders, but they often operate quite differently
from their opposing sides.
Nation state
citizen corps can be defined as networks of formal depersonalized contractual
partnerships. Such citizenship networks are autonomous to varying degrees but
they make up authoritative functional hierarchies with a seat of common
sovereign authority at the top acting on behalf of the whole national body. In
its turn, the interdependent territorial frameworks for overlapping citizenship
networks were conceptualized as sovereign states.
The modern
concept of citizenship is based on the principle of autonomy. It is the key to
the citizens role and place in modern society. The emergence of an autonomous
possessive individual—epitomized, for example, by Robinson Crusoe—was only a
beginning. It was coupled with new re-conceptualization of rights and duties.
Citizens could be considered equal subjects of the sovereign state entitled to
a set of granted rights by virtue of inclusion, or autonomous participants that
can gain civil (political) rights by virtue of qualified participation in the
state-size networks of trust. During the Putney debates, the first option was
advocated by a "democratic" colonel, Tom Rainsborough, and the second
one by "autocratic" general, Henry Ireton. Analytically, one can
consider whether rights qualify the nature of inclusion or if inclusion
provides rights. Equally, long estranged rights and duties could be interpreted
as the one conditioning the other or vice versa.
Reinventions were
instrumental in reshaping dysfunctional customs and practices of Early Modern
(proto-modern) governance (uneasy compacts of ‘powers that be’ or stalemate
rivalry of factions) into functional establishments of Modernity be they
constitutions with separation of powers or parliamentary and electoral
conventions with regular party completion
In its concluding
part the paper discusses two crises or rather a dual crisis. Its first phase
expanded in early 90s. It involved the demise of super-power world order and
collapse of the USSR. While the US hegemony make-up seem to supersede the
crisis for a period, its greater momentum of divergence (visualized
superfluously by symptoms of state failure and interstate disarray) still
overtakes. It resonates with a supplementary crisis that overruns the
short-lived US hegemony and provokes contest for alternative hegemony arenas
and loci, grades and stations. The local ‘revolutions” and ‘springs’ of all
kinds and brands along with secession attempts are probably graphic expressions
of this dual crisis.
Possible outcomes of
the dual crisis are dim. Analysis focuses on abstruse potential of outwardly
dysfunctional (for established mindsets) formats that may evolve into
functional ones (for critical mindsets). The testing grounds are instances of
disequilibria of establishes patterns of state power and influence. Varieties
of ongoing morphological makeovers remain fuzzy for the moment. Instances of
convergence still give way to overriding divergence of power and influence
networks within the global community of states.
Nevertheless, new
patterns of power and influence as well as new networks of states seem to
emerge. They may serve and most probably will serve as nuclei for ensuing
convergence of world order as long as ‘outdated’ or ‘dysfunctional’
configurations of state power and influence reshape into novel structures and
practices of governance good enough for the context our current crisis.
Patrimonial heritage with its potential for overall integration as well as
imperial heritage with its conventions of indirect rule may provide blueprints
for possible solutions. In any case, it is discernible that old set-ups should
transform into much broader configurations linked by reflexive loops
(evolutionary trend for a few centuries) and subsequent patterns of multiple
and mutual accountability often prematurely and one-sidedly termed democratic
accountability.
References
Abbott,
Andrew. "Transcending general linear reality." Sociological
theory (1988): 169-186.
Abbott,
Andrew. "Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas." Annual
review of sociology 21.1 (1995): 93-113.
Abbott,
Andrew. Time matters: On theory and method. University of Chicago Press,
2001.
Aus,
Jonathan P. "Conjunctural causation in comparative case-oriented
research." Quality & Quantity 43.2 (2009): 173.
Baskin, Ken,
and Dmitri M. Bondarenko. "The role of complexity studies in the emerging
“processual” worldview." Emergence: Complexity and Organization.
2018 Mar 31 [last modified: 2018 Apr 22]. Edition 1. doi:
10.emerg/10.17357.c45145a20b3f2d103812be2e83d91f52
Beach,
Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. Process-tracing methods: Foundations and
guidelines. University of Michigan Press, 2013.
Beach,
Derek, and Ingo Rohlfing. "Integrating cross-case analyses and process
tracing in set-theoretic research: Strategies and parameters of
debate." Sociological Methods & Research 47.1 (2018):
3-36.
Bondarenko,
D. M. "What Is There in a Word? Heterarchy, Homoarchy and the Difference
in Understanding Complexity in the Social Sciences and Complexity Studies.
Explorations in Complexity Thinking/Ed. by KA Richardson and P. Cilliers, pp.
35-48. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing." (2007).
Bondarenko,
Dmitri M. "Homoarchy as a Principle of Sociopolitical Organization. An
Introduction." Anthropos (2007): 187-199.
Borgna,
Camilla, and E. Struffolino. "Configurations or trajectories? No need to
choose. Applying sequence analysis and QCA to gender inequality in the labor
market trajectories." IPSA 2016 Congress, Poznań, Poland, 2016.
Crumley,
Carole L. "Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies." Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6.1 (1995): 1-5.
Crumley,
Carole L. "Remember how to organize: Heterarchy across
disciplines." Nonlinear models for archaeology and anthropology(2005):
35-50.
Cariani,
Peter. "Time is of the essence." Proceedings of A Body of Knowledge - Embodied
Cognition and the Arts conference. CTSA UC Irvine. 8-10 Dec. 2016, 889-903. Publication Date: 2018-01-08. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/84w6d37j .
Cariani,
Peter. "Temporal memory traces as anticipatory mechanisms." Anticipation
and Medicine. Springer, Cham, 2017. 105-136.
Hall, Peter
A. "Politics as a process structured in space and time." The
Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism (2016): 31-50.
Hodgson,
Geoffrey M. "What Are Institutions?" Journal of Economic
Issues 40.1 (2006): 1-25.
Hodgson,
Geoffrey M., and Thorbjørn Knudsen. "Why we need a generalized Darwinism,
and why generalized Darwinism is not enough." Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 61 (2006): 1-19.
Hodgson,
Geoffrey M. "Karl Polanyi on economy and society: a critical analysis of
core concepts." Review of Social Economy 75.1 (2017):
1-25.
Hornborg,
Alf, and Carole L. Crumley. The World System and the Earth System:
global socioenvironmental change and sustainability since the Neolithic.
Routledge, 2016.
Gazibo, Mamoudou, 2012. “Can neopatrimonialism dissolve into democracy?” — Daniel Bach and
Mamoudou Gazibo, eds., Neopatrimonialism in Africa and Beyond. London and New York:
Routledge, 79-89.
Kant, Immanuel. Kritik
der reinen Vernunft. Hamburg: Meiner. 1781.
McCulloch,
Warren S. "A heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous
nets." The bulletin of mathematical biophysics7.2 (1945):
89-93.
McCulloch,
W. St. "Toward some circuitry of ethical robots or an observational
science of the genesis of social evaluation in the mind-like behavior of
artifacts." Acta Biotheoretica 11.3-4 (1956): 147-156.
Misangyi,
Vilmos F., et al. "Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a
neo-configurational perspective." Journal of Management 43.1
(2017): 255-282.
North, D. C. Institutions,
Institutional Change and Economic Performance. N.Y.: Cambridge University
Press. 1990
Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. Foreword by Robert M. MacIver.
New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944
Poon, Simon
K., Su Henry, and Niku Gorji. "A Network-Based Deterministic Model for
Causal Complexity." Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. 2018.
Skinner Q. 1989. The State. — Ball T., Farr J. Hanson R. L. Political
Innovation and Conceptual Change. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 90-131.
Turing, Alan
Mathison. "The chemical basis of morphogenesis." Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237.641
(1952): 37-72.
North,
Douglass C., John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast. Violence and
social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history.
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Soest von, Ch. 2007. “How Does Neopatrimonialism Affect the African State?
The Case of Tax Collection in Zambia.” Journal of Modern African Studies 45:
4: 621-45.
