Advertisement

Institutional Size

  • Blair FixEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Energy book series (BRIEFSENERGY)

Abstract

This chapter tests the implicit neoclassical assumption that large institutions are not important for growth. The linkage between institutional size and growth is tested by comparing changes in both corporate and governmental employment concentration with the growth of energy consumption (which is used as a metric of biophysical scale). Contrary to the neoclassical assumption, on both the national and international level, the employment concentration of large institutions is found to be correlated with growth. To explain these results, the following hypothesis is proposed: The expansion of hierarchy (as embodied in large, hierarchical institutions) plays an essential role in facilitating the growth of energy consumption. Anthropological evidence supporting this hypothesis is discussed, as well as the implications of this hypothesis for economic theory.

Keywords

Large Firm Ultimatum Game Government Size Social Complexity Large Institution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ayres R, Warr B (2005) Accounting for growth: the role of physical work. Struct Change Econ Dyn 16(2):181–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120Google Scholar
  3. Baumol WJ (1967) Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. Am Econ Rev 57(3):415–426Google Scholar
  4. BEA (1973) Long term economic growth, 1860–1970. US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan G, Buchanan JM (1980) The power to tax: analytic foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Carboni OA, Medda G (2011) Government spending and growth in a neoclassical model. Math Financial Econ 4(4):269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carneiro RL (1967) On the relationship between size of population and complexity of social organization. Southwest J Anthropol 23(3):234–243Google Scholar
  8. Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen WM,Levin RC(1989) Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee R, Willig R (eds) Handbook of industrial organization, vol 2. Elsevier, New York, pp 1059–1107Google Scholar
  10. De Jong JPJ (2000) Measuring innovative intensity. EIM Business Policy Research Report 9912/AGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunbar RI (1992) Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. J Human Evol 22(6):469–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunbar RI (1993) Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behav Brain Sci 16(4):681–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher F (1987) Adjustment processes and stability. In: Milgate M, Newman P (eds) The new Palgrave: a dictionary of economics, (vol 26–29). Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Geroski PA (1999) The growth of firms in theory and in practice. Center for Economic Policy Research 2092Google Scholar
  16. Gowdy J, Krall L (2013) The ultrasocial origin of the anthropocene. Ecol Econ 95:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammouya M (1999) Statistics on public sector employment: methodology, structures and trends. Working paper, International Labour Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath R (2001) In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am Econ Rev 91(2):73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodgson GM (2012) On the limits of rational choice theory. Econ Thought 1(1)94–108. (History, Philosphy, and Methodology)Google Scholar
  20. Holcombe RG (2005) Government growth in the twenty-first century. Public Choice 124(1-2):95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keen S (2001) Debunking economics: the naked emperor of the social sciences. Zed Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Kor YY, Mahoney JT (2004) Edith Penrose’s (1959) contributions to the resource-based view of strategic management. J Manage Stud 41(1):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund OCH, Tamnes CK, Moestue C, Buss DM, Vollrath M (2007) Tactics of hierarchy negotiation. J Res Pers 41(1):25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lydall H (1971) A theory of distribution and growth with economies of scale. Econ J 81(321):91–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Means GC (1957) Collective capitalism and economic theory. Science 126(3268):287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meltzer AH, Richard SF (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. J Polit Econ 89(5):914–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murrell P (1991) Can neoclassical economics underpin the reform of centrally planned economies? J Econ Perspect 5(4):59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naroll R (1956) A preliminary index of social development. Am Anthropol 58(4):687–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niskanen WA (1974) Bureaucracy and representative government. Transaction Publishers, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  30. Nitzan J, Bichler S (2000) Capital accumulation: breaking the dualism of 'economics` and 'politics`. In: Palan R (ed) Global political economy: contemporary theories. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Nitzan J, Bichler S (2009) Capital as power: a study of order and creorder. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Peacock AT, Wiseman J (1961) The growth of government expenditures in the United Kingdom. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Peltzman S (1980) The growth of government. J Law Econ 23(2):209–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Penrose E (1955) Limits to the growth and size of firms. Am Econ Rev 45(2):531–543Google Scholar
  35. Perreault C, Mathew S (2012) Dating the origin of language using phonemic diversity. PloS one 7(4):e35,289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peteraf MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strateg Manage J 14(3):179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Popper K (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Priem RL, Butler JE (2001) Tautology in the resource-based view and the implications of externally determined resource value: further comments. Acad Manage Rev 26(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robinson J (1934) Euler’s theorem and the problem of distribution. Econ J 44(175):398–414Google Scholar
  40. Salter JA (1921) Allied shipping control. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Schumpeter JA (1942) Socialism, capitalism and democracy. Harper and Brothers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Syrneonidis G (1996) Innovation, firm size and market structures: schumpeterian hyptheses and some new themes. OECD Economic Department Working Papers(161)Google Scholar
  43. Tullock G (1983) Further tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Public Choice 41(3):419–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turchin P, Gavrilets S (2009) Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. Social Evol Hist 8(2):167–198Google Scholar
  45. Wagner A (1911) II. Staat in nationalökonomischer hinsicht. (The state in economic perspective). In Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. Verlag Gustav Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker P (2007) The firm in neoclassical theory. http://antidismal.blogspot.ca. Accessed 21 July 2014
  47. Wicksteed PH (1894) An essay on the co-ordination of the laws of distribution (1932 Edition). London School of Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) - SpringerBriefs 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations