Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello


  • Erwin Dekker
  • Pavel KuchařEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_640


Whenever agents choose A instead of B, B instead of C, and C instead of A, a logical contradiction arises. This contradiction – also known as a value anomaly – characterizes genuine choices. Some organizations and firms, but also legal systems, markets, or even the human brain can be regarded as complex systems that manage the value anomaly by operating with multiple mutually incompatible ordering principles. Such a management – as opposed to a mere elimination – of these mutually incompatible values allows these systems to better cope with uncertainty, and to benefit from the recognition of complexity. One of the central implications of these heterarchical systems is that there is no single scale on which unequals can be compared and, consequently, that commensuration is an active process which involves friction and opportunities for entrepreneurship. We argue that in a world that naturally seems to be characterized by these value anomalies, heterarchical organizations and, in particular, heterarchy as a complex system of valuation might well be a good response.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Baumann R, Dingwerth K (2015) Global governance vs empire: why world order moves towards heterarchy and hierarchy. J Int Relat Dev 18(1):104–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On justification: economies of worth. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruni LE, Giorgi F (2015) Towards a heterarchical approach to biology and cognition. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 119(3):481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crumley CL (1995) Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Archeol Pap Am Anthropol Assoc 6(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dekker E, Kuchař P (2016) Exemplary goods: the product as economic variable. Schmollers Jahr 136(3):237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekker E, Kuchař P (2017) Emergent orders of worth: must we agree on more than a price? Cosmos + Taxis 4(1):23–35Google Scholar
  7. Espeland WN, Stevens ML (1998) Commensuration as a social process. Annu Rev Sociol 24:313–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Girard M, Stark D (2003) Heterarchies of value in Manhattan-based new media firms. Theory Cult Soc 20(3):77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halberstam D (2008) Constitutional heterarchy: the centrality of conflict in the European Union and the United States. University of Michigan Public Law working paper, no. 111. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147769
  10. Hedlund G (1986) The hypermodern MNC – a heterarchy? Hum Resour Manag 25(1):9–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hedlund G (1993) Assumptions of hierarchy and heterarchy, with applications to the Management of the Multinational Corporation. In: Ghoshal S, Eleanor Westney D (eds) Organization theory and the multinational corporation. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 211–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedlund G, Dag R, Bartlett CA, Doz Y, Hedlund G (1990) Action in heterarchies: new approaches to managing the MNC. Manag Glob Firm:15–46Google Scholar
  13. Hutter M, Teubner G (1993) The parasitic role of hybrids. J Inst Theor Econ (JITE)/Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 149(4):706–715Google Scholar
  14. Joerges C, Sand I-J, Teubner G (eds) (2004) Transnational governance and constitutionalism. International studies in the theory of private law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopytoff I (1988) The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In: The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective, 1st Paperback Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 64–95Google Scholar
  16. McCulloch WS (1945) A Heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets. Bull Math Biophys 7(2):89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mill JS (1863) Utilitarianism. Parker, Son & Bourn, West Strand, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Nussbaum MC (1984) Plato on commensurability and desire. Proc Aristot Soc Suppl vol 58:55–80Google Scholar
  19. Nussbaum MC (1986) The fragility of goodness: luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostrom E (1965) Public entrepreneurship: a case study in ground Water Basin management. University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  21. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostrom E, Parks RB (1973) Suburban police departments: too many and too small? In: Masotti LH, Hadden JK (eds) The urbanization of the suburbs. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 367–402Google Scholar
  23. Posner RA (1973) Economic analysis of law. Aspen Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Shackle GLS (1979) Imagination and the nature of choice. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Stark D (2009) The sense of dissonance: accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stark D (2017) For what it’s worth. Research in the sociology of organizations 52 (justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations: contributions from French pragmatist sociology)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus School of History, Culture and CommunicationErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Finance, University of GuanajuatoDCEA-Sede MarfilGuanajuatoMexico
  3. 3.Facultad de Economía-División de Estudios de PosgradoUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCiudad de MéxicoMéxico