Any institution - economic, social, cultural - is, according to the definition of Douglas North, rules of the game in society.

Various definitions.

Institutions as collective action.

Institutions are understood as specific players acting within the framework of the rules that are set in society. John Commons: institutions as organizational mechanisms for achieving collective goals = organizations.

Institutions as the rules of the game. (North, Hurwitz)

For the most part, institutions exist separately from specific individuals, representing the rules of the game rather than specific players.

Institutions as equilibrium. (Shotter)

Institutions are (institutional) equilibria realized in some sort of games (in the standard repetitive coordination game).

Conclusions of this approach:

1) the existence of several equilibria is admissible and, accordingly, several alternative institutions can potentially be realized. This set of equilibria may or may not contain Pareto-optimal points and Pareto-dominated agreements.

2) the model allows us to identify at least one reason for the stability of inefficient institutions: due to the fact that the strategies that characterize an institution are equilibrium, a deviation from following even an inefficient institution is not beneficial for an arbitrary agent.

3) even if the Pareto-optimal solution is achieved and an efficient institution is formed, the dynamic process of achieving equilibrium can be so long that it will in itself be a source of inefficiency.

Three main functions of institutions:

1. Framework regulation of the activities of agents by limiting the set of available alternatives, minimizing the number of conflict situations, to provide a mechanism for compensating for damage or achieving mutually beneficial results through coordination of actions.

2. Minimization of transaction costs. Institutions enable people to make credible commitments to keep promises and thereby achieve effective results.

3. Training. Organization of the process of information transfer through formal or informal learning of the rules.

The main features of institutions.

1. Ensuring the predictability of economic relations. That is, ensuring the predictability of the results of a certain set of actions (that is, the social reaction to these actions) and thus brings sustainability to economic activity. Following this or that institution allows you to count on a certain result with measurable costs to achieve it.

2. Inheritance property. Institutions are inherited through their inherent learning process.

3. The presence of a system of incentives. Incentives can be either negative (punishment) or positive (reward). A stereotype of behavior that is not supported by a system of incentives is a routine.

4. Ensuring the freedom and security of agents. The totality of rigid institutions sets the framework within which you are free to act, and you will not be punished by the law. Soft institutions define the framework within which you are free to act, and you will not be punished by public opinion.

5. Reducing transaction costs. By influencing the structure and magnitude of transaction costs, institutions, together with technologies, determine the results of economic activity.

CORRELATION OF INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS.

Examples:

For example, on the last page of the magazines "Expert", "Kommersant-Weekly" there are advertisements for the sale of firms. But they do not mean the sale of a company as such, but of a ready-made institutional form for it, so that those who want to create a company do not waste time on mastering the question of how to do it, but simply buy the existing one. shell for the company. However, it happens that some organization is created for the first time, and then it is not invested in a pre-prepared form of a certain institution. For example, this happened when the first trusts and syndicates arose. The same cartel was not originally an institution. It was simply an association of a number of firms in order to control the sugar market. Gradually, the actions of sugar firms, which united to control the sugar market, became widely known. They were discussed in the press, businessmen discussed them among themselves. It was already known that such a combination allows you to keep outsiders out of the market and get 20-40% more profit. A form was already known that allowed this to be done, and the result was known. And everyone began to form cartel agreements and industry syndicates. Those. an institution arose - a cartel(he got a name).

The first institutionalist, John Commons, generally called institutions collective actions, forming a framework for individual actions. Those. he confused the concepts of "institution" and "organization". Subsequent institutionalists separated collective action from the institution and called it organization (as, for example, does Douglas North).

Organization is the activity of a group of people pursuing a specific goal. Usually within a certain institution non-institutionalized form of activity exists very not for long. It is one-time, one-time. If the group collective form of activity has been delayed for a long time, it has already been learned and inherited. If we come for two, three, five days to look at the ceiling, then this form of activity is inherited. Then there are some rules (let internal for our narrow group), some restrictive framework of our activities, and thus our organization becomes an institution.

Uninstitutionalized can be only joint activity, when people gathered once and parted ways. They have nothing to do with each other beforehand do not agree, but simply come together, embraced by a single impulse. The decision to invest to one company or another or quit the city and go to the countryside to dig potatoes may be an internal decision for everyone, but most often it is inspired by something from the outside. Let's say to inspire non-institutionalized organization, such as a spontaneous demonstration, it is enough to ban the sale of vodka. And we will immediately see the organization of mass action without any institutional form. Target is, and it is realized by everyone.

FORMS OF ORGANIZATION.

In history, three forms of organizing joint activities of people for the sake of a common goal are known:

Corporation;

Association.

The community is always framed by a soft institution; corporation - as a rule, hard (and a thieves' corporation can be framed by a soft institution); association - both soft and hard.

1) COMMUNITY.

A community is a form of organization in which some limited a number of individuals or supra-individuals (perhaps a community built of firms) come together to achieve common purpose. Each member of the community has the same goal and the same level of implementation this goal. The community is usually organized equal participants who are identical in their property And production opportunities and, most importantly, fully coinciding according to its function consumer preferences (or production isoquants).

Community is built on relationships mutual assistance when everyone helps others in the realization of the same goal. But in fact, any situation where a group of equal participants is pursuing some a goal in a hostile environment, with a high level of external uncertainty, very often leads to the creation of a community subject to a number of conditions. What are these conditions?

This direct realization of the interests of each. A member of the community does not delegate the observance of their interests to anyone. He himself makes sure that the other member of the community does not stand out and be the same as him. These relations are reflected in the ideology of leveling - the ideology of primitive communism. The survival of our community is based on the fact that we, its members, equalize, distribute evenly natural or external chance among all, and provide mutual insurance. And, I repeat, each of the members of the community directly imposes on himself the realization of his interests, and control behind this implementation. He doesn't entrust anything to anyone. As soon as it starts reassignment something to someone, the community breaks up. As long as it exists internal control As long as the circle of participants is limited, as long as the participants have sufficiently complete information about the interests and behavior of each other within the community, the community exists. So, the community is inherent, if not complete (such does not exist in nature at all), then relatively complete inside information about behavior its members and minimal information about external events. In other words, both the degree of internal certainty and the degree of external uncertainty are very high in the community.

This is how the primitive and Christian communities were organized. The institution of the community was unusually convenient for feudal or semi-feudal exploitation. A classic example of a community in the XX century. - collective farm, i.e. the community became a kind of foundation for the Soviet system. It survived for so long for a very simple reason: thanks to the inherent mutual responsibility of the community, it was the ideal form of government. The members of the community themselves controlled each other, they did not have to be controlled from outside. For example, from the center, the collective farm was only informed of the amount of crop that it should hand over to the state, and the collective farmers themselves decided how to divide the remaining crop among themselves and survive. Thus, the problem of survival was the problem of the collective farmers themselves, and not the leaders of the region or district.

It is interesting that the family is inherently close to the community, but a completely different mechanism operates in it. The family has other goals - the survival and reproduction of man. As a result, relations between generations become the main relations. The family is a separate and very interesting section of the economy, which studies, in particular, the economy of generations and the types of relationships in the family associated with this.

The community can exist not only in the countryside, but also in the city. In the sphere of consumption, this is, for example, a cooperative village, a condominium organized on a communal basis. By the way, when people with qualitatively different incomes find themselves in such a condominium, internal conflicts arise. Let's say someone received an inheritance and bought an apartment in a rich house, where 1 sq. m costs 2000 $. Soon he is informed that he must annually give $20,000 to the condominium for the maintenance of the guards, for the arrangement of the winter garden and its care, etc., etc. He refuses, because he does not have that kind of money. “Then why did you buy an apartment here?” - the neighbors are amazed and obstruct him, forcing him to sell the apartment. Those. a condominium works effectively if its members are of relatively equal wealth. Then it is a real community, then members of the condominium can insure each other, they feel their equality with other members of the condominium.

With regard to the sphere of production, here an example of a community is workshops. The guild system existed in European medieval cities, but in many respects it has survived to this day. So, and today in some places there is a limit on the number of workers that an entrepreneur can hire, because more of them will undermine the well-being of other entrepreneurs in this industry. This is also a kind of system of collective survival, collective insurance. But in each case, it is based on the fact that people of a certain circle have approximately the same property status and goals, which makes it possible to predict their reaction, their behavior. And as soon as their property status becomes unequal, the community breaks up, it cannot exist. In general, in our time, the community is not a stable institution.

The relations of enterprises in the first years after the Gaidar reform were practically communal. The system of non-payments between enterprises since about 1995 has become a way for enterprises to avoid taxation. But in 1991-94. this system of non-payments was simply a system of mutual support, mutual insurance of directors of enterprises. They supplied each other with the necessary products without payment in the form of a virtually irrevocable loan, hoping that if necessary they would receive the same from other directors in their circle. And this system worked. True, it also led to that strange state of affairs in the Russian economy, when the mutual debts of enterprises are 3-4 times higher than the GNP.

The emergence of essentially communal relations between enterprises became possible because the enterprises did not fear each other. They knew well what each of them was capable of. After all, it is clear, let's say, that a car-building plant cannot “gobble up” the railway - it does not have financial resources for this. But community relations did not arise between large banks and enterprises, because enterprises understood that banks had the opportunity to “gobble up” them. There was more of a bonding relationship between them.

It should be emphasized that the communal form of organization is not connected, as the Marxists assert, only with the primitive communal or feudal system. For example, trade unions (trade unions), which arose already under capitalism, were originally organized according to the shop principle. They fought primarily for the preservation of jobs and prices in the labor market, i.e. pursued communal rather than corporate goals.

2) CORPORATION.

How is a corporation different from a community? First, it's bigger. Secondly, it is built not on mutual assistance (reciprocity), like a community, but on the redistribution of income (redistribution).

An example of a corporation is a city-state. The feudal system was entirely corporate. It was based on the fact that a person delegated his freedom and his rights to a legitimate leader, thereby delegating the realization of his goals, and further developed not as a free and equal member of the community, but as a member of a certain corporation.

A corporation in its internal structure is a firm, if we consider it as a set of contracts not only between owners, but also between owners and employees. And if it is a large firm with a large number of employees, corporate relations arise already within them. They delegate their interests to the firm by hiring in it. They are trying to move up the corporate ladder to the top of the pyramid, which is a corporation. Those. along with the goal of getting paid and increasing wealth, they also have an internal goal - to advance and expand their influence within the corporation in which they are included.

The largest corporation that ever existed in the world was the Soviet system headed by the CPSU. Any citizen of the USSR entered it and tried to somehow advance in it. While still an Octobrist, a man already took an oath of allegiance to her. He completely delegated his goals to this large corporation, i. surrendered his interests, confident that she would not leave him, that even as a junior member of the corporation he could survive.

All the mentioned forms of organization - community, corporation and association - are not in themselves absolutely good or bad. In specific circumstances, any of them can be either a developing or an inhibitory factor. Against the background of a community with no development potential, the corporation, when it arose, represented a powerful mechanism for concentrating excess resources in one place and developing at their expense. But the corporation is always fighting some external enemy. And if it turns into something single, unique (as happens in a totalitarian state), it usually becomes economically inefficient.

Modern Japan provides examples of cost-effective corporations. There is a very high level of corporate behavior. Such behavior has become part of soft institutions (i.e. custom). It is common for a Japanese who has gone to work in some firm to think not about his salary, but about the survival of the firm, and the firm, in turn, takes care of him. Japanese entrepreneurs were able to involve a lot of small workers in solving the strategic problems of the firm, forced them to take care of the firm, and dramatically reduced the rate of shirking compared to, say, American corporations. The Japanese success is based on this.

Members of the corporation (unlike members of the community) do not exercise their interests themselves, they delegate their implementation to someone higher, the corporation as a whole. In a corporation, the individual is not equal to the collective; it is completely or largely absorbed by the collective. Moreover, this absorption takes place both in accordance with the existing customs and traditions of the country, and contrary to these customs and traditions.

Finally, if the community is associated with the visibility of information and its relative completeness within its circle, then the corporation is associated with the loss of all information by its members, with the lack of the possibility of exercising and delegating control. A person is forced to trust the corporation with his interests, but he himself no longer sees them, does not catch them in this large context. Information links in the corporation are implicitly broken. Therefore, the corporate organization is based on very elaborate procedures. All sorts of charters and other documents prescribing how to behave within the corporation become very important. There is no corporation without procedures, just as there is no corporation without hierarchy.

Consider Japanese and American firms, which are organized in much the same way. Both are large corporations (10 or 20 thousand). They have their own corporate principles, culture, some internal laws, according to which a person who joins this corporation agrees to live. How are they different?

Japan is the East, and the USA is the West, and the inhabitants of these countries differ in different levels of individualism. Japanese and American soft institutions show completely different levels of individual loyalty to the corporation one has joined. Moreover, this statement is true for an employee of any level - both the highest, and the middle, and the lowest.

In Japan (and in the East in general), an employee of a corporation will try to develop within this corporation, not focusing on the fact that he will eventually move to another. Moving to another corporation is very difficult. He puts on a person the stigma of a traitor, an apostate, although now this is probably not so harsh. However, for a Japanese man, leaving his firm and divorcing his wife are about the same thing.

And in the US, a person who constantly moves from one corporation to another, sends out his Curriculum Vitae to different companies, looks for new business opportunities, is perceived as completely normal. Yes, when he works in a certain corporation, he is loyal to it. But he is always looking for the best. He defends his I, he is outside the corporation, he is actually closer to the association. By his behavior, this is an associative person who acts in a corporation.

Those. in the East corporate people are inside the corporation and act in it. And in the West, associative people (more free people, people of civil society) get into a corporation and act in it. The degree of loyalty of managers to their corporation in Japan and in the United States is completely different. In the same way, the degree of isolation within the corporation is completely different. In eastern corporations, open conflicts are extremely rare, while for western corporations this is a common thing. In American corporations, for example, conflicts often rage.

Eastern and Western models of corporations have their pluses and minuses. For example, in terms of product quality in mass production, the Japanese outperformed the Americans for a very long time. But in the field of innovation in scientific, technical and design developments, the Western style of behavior, the Western attitude towards I gives more benefits. And at the present stage, American-type corporations are slowly but surely beginning to outperform Eastern corporations.

3) ASSOCIATION.

Historically, an association is the third form of organizing joint activities of people. An association is an association of free people who delegate to this organization not all their interests (unlike a community or a corporation), but only a part of them. Those. the association does not absorb the whole person (or the whole firm) entirely. The person retains control over his actions, although sometimes he does not fully control the actions of the association. It can be included in an unlimited number of associations. It is assumed that a person has a sufficiently high level of education, economic and political culture to choose between associations and decide whether to join any of them or not. The associative type of communication is voluntary. It is easy to leave an association, it is easy to change it to another association. Relatively speaking, an association is an organization that is not binding on a person.

For example, joining a football team is joining an association. In the modern world, even between a political party and a member of this party, an associative type of connection is possible. He can be a member of it, go to meetings, but not at all identify with her all his vital interests.

The question of what kind of connections and organizations will be perceived by a person as corporate, and what kind - as associative, needs a separate discussion. If a person earns all or most of his income by working for a certain firm, he will treat it like a corporation. He is too dependent on her and is often forced to make compromises in order to stay in the corporation. But being a member of the association, he can not compromise, but simply leave the association if he does not like it.

A modern person, entering a housing condominium, enters a certain community organization (after all, it is difficult to leave the condominium, i.e. this decision is irrevocable to a certain extent). When he is hired, he usually still enters the corporation. When he becomes a member of a political party, he considers it as an association (he did not like the physiognomy of the leader of the party meeting, he will not go to them). In the same way, he regards any kind of voluntary societies, societies of interest. And if a modern person works in the market, then he can be connected both by communal and corporate, as well as by associative ties. It depends on the type of market itself.

Only an organized market is communal, where everyone is equal and control is almost complete. Accordingly, a person working in an organized market (for example, on a commodity or stock exchange) is bound by community relations.

An example of a corporate market is the collective farm market. Let's say you, a collective farmer, brought potatoes to Moscow to sell. You see that in the market everyone is selling a kilogram of potatoes for 1 ruble. 20 kop. Then you start selling it for 1 rub. 10 kop. (this is a rational economic action). Then two “persons of Caucasian nationality” come up to you and say: “Daraga, why are you keeping prices low? You offend us completely!” Then they lead you around the corner and "sweep" as they should. And you are forced to submit to some force, to delegate your interests to it, although it is more profitable for you to sell your potatoes for 1 rub. 10 kopecks, not 1 rub. 20 kop. This is an externally controlled corporate market, where you yourself lose your freedom, but you have no control. This happens very often. The participants in this market are part of a corporation headed by a man who carries money not personally to the mayor, but to the prefect for sure.

There is also a market organized as an association, which implies a certain level of optionality, freedom of exit from such a market. A classic example of an associative market is any commodity market, unless you are registered in it, but simply go out and trade on it. As a consumer, you also have an association with any product market, since it is not your main source of income for you. Let's say you came to the market to buy a vacuum cleaner, you didn't like the market, and you leave there, considering it possible for yourself to refuse the planned purchase. You have an associative type of connection with this market, an associative type of relationship.

It should be noted that the associative type of relations is dominant in a market economy. The free market is based on an optional type of connection between people, which implies the freedom to choose a partner and a critical approach to other people's actions. At the same time, when making a choice, individuals strictly pursue their own interests. The discovery that institutional economics is making here is not that association corresponds to a market economy, but that the current market economy itself is full of organizations and cannot exist without corporate or community organizations. And in many respects the behavior of people in the market is not the result of their free self-determination on the basis of this or that assessment of their own interests. The behavior of people is determined precisely by organizations based on a corporate or community type of connection.

Examples and description of the institute:

Institutions are some bounding boxes that people have built so as not to collide with each other, so that simplify way from point A to point B to make it easier conduct negotiations and reach agreements, and so on.

Imagine an institution as a labyrinth. Entering it, we can get to the exit in different ways. If we get into a corridor that ends in a dead end, we will have to climb over the wall to get out of the labyrinth. This is associated with huge labor costs, and we'd better go back and go the other way. This is the meaning of the institution.. In relation to the human will, an institution is something externally imposed by law or custom. But in any case, a person understands that some things cannot be done, or that they must be done in a certain way. Having got into the labyrinth for the second time, he will take into account previous mistakes, will remember where he stumbled on the wall last time and where he doesn’t need to go, but where he can go. He will perceive the labyrinth as an existing framework. Those. there is a process learning, which is possible both within the framework of personal experience and within the framework of the transfer of information from another person. With the hundredth (as well as with the five hundredth) passage of the labyrinth, a person can no longer even look around. He will act automatically, without a rational understanding of how and why he does something. The labyrinth will collapse slightly from long use and will need restoration. Then people will start arguing, in what form it should be restored - in the same one or in a slightly different one? There will be conflict in society. Such is schematic fate of the institute.

Through institutions to man some information is given(for example, about the need to turn, because if he goes straight, he will hit his head against the wall). Institutions themselves are generated by a lack of information, by the desire of people to save money on acquiring and processing it. Imagine a situation in which people have a huge number of behavioral alternatives. They will try once, twice, third and select the best alternatives. And in the future, their children will choose those behavioral alternatives that led their fathers to success.

Example. Let's say there is a swamp through which three travelers want to cross. The third will first follow in the footsteps of the second (i.e., he will also go around the place where the first traveler drowned), then he will reach the place where the second traveler died, go around this place, and, finally, overcome the swamp. The fifth, sixth, tenth travelers will probably go through the same winding path that the third one went through the swamp. And so it will continue until a certain person appears who will pick up a tool (a pole), measure this swamp and find a more direct path. In other words, this will continue until technology advances, which will help people straighten the path (in this case, the technology of acquiring information, because the pole is exactly that). Thus, an institution is born. The path through the swamp is an institution, there is a stereotype of behavior. He inherited by custom. All people know that this is the way to cross the swamp.

The emergence of such institutions is due the desire of people to save effort on the acquisition and processing of information. The more information a person has, the more alternatives he has, and, accordingly, the less likely he is to fail. The actions of a person - a member of society are 90-95% stereotyped. He doesn't think about them.

MAIN FEATURES OF INSTITUTIONS - more

D.Norta (the most beautiful definition): institutions reduce the uncertainty of choice in the economy in the face of a clear lack of information. It is the lack of information that leads to the uncertainty of the choice, to very high costs of labor and other resources, just to make it. And institutions help a person save resources in a situation of choice, showing a certain path that others have already traveled before him. What are the main features of institutions?

1) Institutions fulfill the main task of economic theory - they ensure the predictability of the results of a certain set of actions (that is, the social reaction to these actions) and thus bring stability to economic activity. This or that institution assumes that, having gone to a certain place, with a high degree of probability you will get what you were looking for there, spending certain types of resources, also known to you in advance.

Let's say you spend a certain amount of money going to the store and most likely get a product that satisfies one or another of your needs. This is a market institution. Another example: going to the bank, you clearly know that you will spend some time identifying your income, after which you will receive one or another amount at your disposal. This is a lending institution.

2) Institutions are inherited due to their inherent learning process. Training can be carried out by a specialized organization (as it usually happens). But learning can also take place at the “learning by doing” level, when people in the course of work follow the actions of their more experienced colleagues and do the same as they do.

3) Institutions have a system of incentives, without which they cannot exist. There is simply no institution unless there is a system of positive incentives (rewards for following certain rules) and negative incentives (the punishment people expect for breaking certain rules).

4) Institutions ensure the freedom and security of an individual's actions within certain limits, which is extremely highly valued by economic agents. There is a large institutional framework - framework No. 1, within which you are free to act and the law will not punish you. And there is frame No. 2, within which you are free to act and public opinion will not punish you.

The method of punishment characteristic of soft institutions is ostracism. Note that each community has its own defense mechanism. Such is ostracism, initially - the procedure is very unpleasant. In ancient Athens, ostracism ensured the alignment of the urban community, and it spent a lot of effort on this. The Athenians were terribly afraid that one of their rich, famous, influential fellow citizens would use his power and become king, subjugating the community. So they drove them out of Athens.

Ostracism in modern life is ignoring a person. For example, I repeat, in the 50s. in the USA, a white southerner did not serve a black man in his shop, knowing that if he did this, no illegal actions would be taken against him, but not a single counterparty would conclude deals with him, thus realizing their freedom. Ignoring is the worst thing in economic life. And if the law can still be circumvented, then circumventing such a type of punishment as ostracism, which follows from a soft institution, is practically impossible.

5) Institutions reduce transaction costs (i.e., the costs of searching for information, processing it, evaluating and specifically protecting a particular contract) in the same way that technologies reduce production costs.

If an economic agent operates in a system where there is no state (as it was in the Wild West), or it is weak (as we have now), then he is forced to hire some people who, through violence or the threat of violence, will force the counterparty to fulfill the contract. It is clear that it is expensive. In addition, often in our conditions, he forever falls under the gangster "roof" (the corporation to which he turns for help, as a result absorbs him).

If an economic agent operates in a system where there is a strong state, then it protects its interests. He simply goes to court and, with relatively little legal fees, wins the case. Thus, he saves a very large transaction cost in hiring some alternative coercive force.

It is not easy to define what institutions are. Institutions are very diverse, and the definition should be general enough to cover all their diversity. But the excessively "general", all-encompassing nature of the definition can lead to the loss of its meaning.

We can come to a final conclusion about what institutions are only after we find out the causes of their emergence, follow how they develop, and consider the functions that they perform.

Meanwhile, in the literature you can find several different definitions of institutions:

• 1) institutions are defined as the "rules of the game" that structure the behavior of organizations and individuals in the economy;
• 2) institutions can be represented as cultural norms, faith, mentality;
• 3) institutions can be called organizational structures, for example, financial institutions - banks, credit institutions;
• 4) the concept of "institution" is used in relation to a person or a specific post (for example, the institution of the presidency).

Neo-institutional economics uses a definition that belongs to D. North, who received the Nobel Prize in 1993 for research in the field of new economic history - cliometrics: "Institutions are the" rules of the game "in society, or, more formally, man-made restrictive framework , which organize the relationships between people (political, economic and social. They include informal restrictions (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions and norms of behavior) and formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights), as well as mechanisms that ensure their implementation " .

In this definition, the main emphasis is on the fact that institutions form a restrictive framework for the economic and social behavior of people. North draws an analogy with the rules of the game in team sports (say, in football). These rules consist of formal written rules and unwritten codes of conduct that go deeper than and complement the formal ones, such as prohibiting knowingly injuring an opposing lead player. The rules are sometimes broken, and then the offender is punished, i.e. there is a certain mechanism that forces players to comply with the rules of the game.

In accordance with the above definition, the mere existence of a rule is not enough to speak of the existence of an institution. A rule is an institution only if it actually affects the behavior of those for whom it is intended, or the behavior of those persons who detect a violation of the rule. The best and sufficient evidence of the existence of the institution will be the regular application of sanctions against persons who violate the rules. The complete absence of punishment for clear violators of the rule will be strong evidence that this rule is not an institution.

It is easier to prove the existence of rules established by the state than rules that arise in the process of development of society and are not supported by state coercion. Court proceedings and police reports testify to efforts to enforce compliance with the rules established by the state. Confirming the existence of rules that are not backed by government enforcement is more difficult because enforcement is decentralized. In this case, the presence of punishment for behavior that deviates from the rules in force in society (for example, spreading rumors about an unseemly act, people refusing to cooperate with the violator) may indicate the existence of an institution.

Institutions should be distinguished from organizations. In the scientific literature, quite often there is a confusion of the concepts of "institution" and "organization", which, apparently, is caused by the fact that organizations, like institutions, structure relationships between people. But if institutions – these are the rules of the game That organizations are players. Team goal, playing by these rules, win the game.

"Organization is an economic unit of coordination that has definable boundaries and functions more or less continuously to achieve a specific goal or set of goals shared by the participating members.

The organization is characterized by:

• – set of participants;
• - agreement or disagreement of participants with the goals and means of the organization, which can be expressed openly (conclusion of a contract for employment), or be implicit, implied (dismissal, strikes);
• - formal coordination based on accepted rules and procedures and involving a certain degree of centralization of decision-making.

More briefly organization can be defined as a group of people united by the desire to achieve a certain goal together, "to win the game." Organizations can be political (political parties, city council), economic (firms, cooperatives, trade unions), public (clubs, sports associations) and educational (schools, universities).

Can mean and what type of institution does it represent? Some people think that an institute is nothing more than an institution where people get higher education. But it is not so. Our task is to tell the reader about all types of this institution, to acquaint them with their purpose. After all, regardless of what kind of institution it is (an international institution or some other), each of them performs its function.

Meaning of the word

There are words that can be interpreted in different ways. Before proceeding to the disclosure of this concept, attention should be paid to the very word "institution". we will tell further. The concept itself indicates a certain organization that is engaged in certain activities and offers the population a clearly defined list of services.

It is worth noting that this does not have to be an educational institution. Previously, this concept was most often used to define just such an institution. But now this word has successfully migrated to various spheres of life: economics, law, healthcare, business and many others. Now, to show the level of education and development, people often use this concept to indicate an organization. Let us consider some of the types of institutions that exist in our society.

Types of institutions

So, in what areas does it exist, what benefits does it bring to society? Typically, such an organization works in the following areas:

1. Education. Everything is quite clear here, because these institutions have existed for a long time. And it is in this sense that people most often recall this concept. This includes all institutions in which individuals study and receive a diploma.
2. The science. This is close in concept to the first, but still there is a significant difference. In such institutions, they do not study, but research, that is, it is a kind of scientific organization.
3. Society. Here it is worth moving away from the usual perception of the word, approaching it from the other side. The institution in this sense is used when talking about marriage. The family cell of society is also a kind of organization. Therefore, it can also rightly be called an institution.
4. Law. In this area, we also often use this concept to refer to any structure designed to protect and protect human life and rights.

In principle, this concept can be used to refer to any structure that has its own purpose and serves to perform a specific task or several functions.

Features, pros and cons

So, we figured out the concept of "institution": what this word means, the readers learned. Now we can consider what the presence in one of these structures requires. What is meant? The fact is that each institution carries a certain list of requirements. For example, rules of conduct, duties, laws. Here it is worth dwelling on the explanation of the positive and negative aspects of this phenomenon. On the one hand, any restrictions bring some discomfort to any person. On the other hand, these same rules and requirements make our life safer.

To explain these concepts in more detail, let's look at an example. You have rights, therefore, you are a road user. On the one hand, you are obliged to monitor the condition of the car, follow the rules of the road. But on the other hand, these same rules allow you and your loved ones to safely move around the streets of the city both on foot and in transport.

educational institutions

But still, the institution of education is the most established and familiar designation for this word. There are several different levels in this area. The fact is that any institution in the educational sphere is called an institute - from kindergarten to graduate school. If we distribute such institutions by type, we get the following classification:

• preschool;
• general education;
• special;
• professional organizations.

Preschool includes all institutions that are engaged in raising children up to six years of age. These are kindergartens, circles, early development schools and similar institutions. These organizations are optional. They are visited only by request.

All schools with three stages of training are considered to be general education institutions: primary, basic, secondary. It also includes gymnasiums, lyceums and paid elite schools. Due to the fact that secondary education is compulsory in our country, children must attend one of the institutions presented and upon completion receive a certificate of education.

Special organizations include those institutions that work with orphans, juvenile delinquents, children with disabilities, in general, with those who require special conditions for learning. Vocational institutions deal with older individuals who have completed school. This includes all institutions: from vocational schools and technical schools to universities and graduate schools. Vocational education is not compulsory. But in the conditions of modern society, existence without it seems impossible.

Types of educational institutions

Depending on hobbies and interests, a person himself chooses in which direction to receive professional education. There are different types of institutions, for example, a polytechnic, medical, pedagogical, legal and many others. It is worth carefully analyzing your abilities before choosing one of the directions. Although nothing prevents a person from getting two or more higher educations. But besides them, there is also an institute for advanced training. This is an institution where you can improve your professional level, already occupying a working position, but wanting to increase the rank or category.

Institutes in the world

There are also institutions in the world community that are recognized by all countries and are international. These institutions are:

1. International Monetary Fund.
2. The World Bank.
3. United Nations.
4. Asian Bank and many others.

As can be seen from the article, the concept of "institution" is quite broad and multifaceted. And it is impossible to perceive the given word only in one narrow sense.

Economic theory is a science that studies human behavior in terms of the relationship between ends and limited means, which can have various uses.

Institutional economic theory extends microeconomic analysis to include factors that are not taken into account by classical microeconomic theory. These include factors of incomplete information, underdetermination of property rights, factors of uncertainty (expectations) and, finally, factors of certain collective actions in a situation of collective choice, which differ from actions in a situation of individual choice considered by traditional microeconomics.

Let's start the study of institutions with the etymology of the word institution.

to institute (English) - to establish, establish.

The concept of institution was borrowed by economists from the social sciences, in particular from sociology.

An institution is a set of roles and statuses designed to meet a specific need.

Definitions of institutions can also be found in works of political philosophy and social psychology. For example, the category of institution is one of the central ones in the work of John Rawls "The Theory of Justice".

Institutions are understood as a public system of rules that define the position and position with the corresponding rights and duties, power and immunity, and the like.

These rules specify certain forms of action as permitted and others as forbidden, and they also punish some acts and protect others when violence occurs. As examples, or more general social practices, we can cite games, rituals, courts and parliaments, markets and property systems.

In economic theory, the concept of institution was first included in the analysis by Thorstein Veblen.

Institutions are, in fact, a common way of thinking as regards the particular relations between society and the individual and the particular functions they perform; and the system of life of a society, which is composed of the totality of those active at a certain time or at any moment in the development of any society, can be psychologically characterized in general terms as a prevailing spiritual position or a widespread idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe way of life in society.

Veblen also understood institutions as:

habitual ways of responding to stimuli;

- the structure of the production or economic mechanism;

is the current system of public life.

Another founder of institutionalism, John Commons, defines an institution as follows.

An institution is a collective action to control, liberate and expand individual action.

Another classic of institutionalism, Wesley Mitchell, has the following definition.

Institutions are the dominant, and highly standardized, social habits.

Currently, within the framework of modern institutionalism, the most common interpretation of the institutions of Douglas North.

Institutions are the rules, the mechanisms that enforce them, and the norms of behavior that structure the repetitive interactions between people.

The economic actions of an individual do not take place in an isolated space, but in a certain society. And therefore it is of great importance how society will react to them. Thus, transactions that are acceptable and profitable in one place may not necessarily be viable even under similar conditions in another. An example of this is the restrictions imposed on the economic behavior of a person by various religious cults.

In order to avoid coordinating many external factors that affect success and the very possibility of making one or another decision, schemes or algorithms of behavior are developed within the framework of the economic and social orders that are most effective under given conditions. These schemes and algorithms or matrices of individual behavior are nothing but institutions.

Social institutions in public life perform the following functions or tasks:

provide an opportunity to satisfy individuals, social communities and groups their various needs;

regulate the actions of individuals within the framework of social relations, stimulating desirable and repressing undesirable behavior;

determine and maintain the general social order by the system of their social regulators and carry out the reproduction of impersonal social functions (that is, such functions that are always performed in the same way, regardless of the personal traits and interests of mankind);

· produce integration of aspirations, actions and relationships of individuals and ensure the internal cohesion of the community.

The totality of these social functions is formed into the general social functions of social institutions as certain types of social system. These features are very versatile. Sociologists of different directions tried to somehow classify them, to present them in the form of a certain ordered system. The most complete and interesting classification was presented by the so-called. "institutional school". Representatives of the institutional school in sociology (S. Lipset, D. Landberg and others) identified four main functions of social institutions:

Reproduction of members of society. The main institution that performs this function is the family, but other social institutions, such as the state, are also involved in it.

Socialization - the transfer to individuals of patterns of behavior and methods of activity established in a given society - institutions of the family, education, religion, etc.

· Production and distribution. Provided by the economic and social institutions of management and control - the authorities.

· Management and control functions are carried out through a system of social norms and regulations that implement the appropriate types of behavior: moral and legal norms, customs, administrative decisions, etc. Social institutions control the individual's behavior through a system of sanctions.

In addition to solving its specific tasks, each social institution performs universal functions inherent in all of them. The functions common to all social institutions include the following:

1. The function of fixing and reproducing social relations. Each institution has a set of norms and rules of conduct, fixed, standardizing the behavior of its members and making this behavior predictable. Social control provides the order and framework in which the activities of each member of the institution must proceed. Thus, the institution ensures the stability of the structure of society. The Code of the Institute of the Family assumes that members of society are divided into stable small groups - families. Social control provides a state of stability for each family, limits the possibility of its collapse.

2. Regulatory function. It ensures the regulation of relationships between members of society by developing patterns and patterns of behavior. All human life takes place with the participation of various social institutions, but each social institution regulates activities. Consequently, a person, with the help of social institutions, demonstrates predictability and standard behavior, fulfills role requirements and expectations.

3. Integrative function. This function ensures cohesion, interdependence and mutual responsibility of the members. This happens under the influence of institutionalized norms, values, rules, a system of roles and sanctions. It streamlines the system of interactions, which leads to an increase in the stability and integrity of the elements of the social structure.

4. Broadcasting function. Society cannot develop without the transfer of social experience. Each institution for its normal functioning needs the arrival of new people who have learned its rules. This happens by changing the social boundaries of the institution and changing generations. Consequently, each institution provides a mechanism for socialization to its values, norms, roles.

5. Communication functions. The information produced by the institution should be disseminated both within the institution (for the purpose of managing and monitoring compliance with social norms) and in interaction between institutions. This function has its own specifics - formal connections. This is the main function of the media institute. Scientific institutions actively perceive information. The commutative possibilities of institutions are not the same: some have them to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent.

Functional qualities

Social institutions differ from each other in their functional qualities:

· Political institutions - the state, parties, trade unions and other kinds of public organizations pursuing political goals, aimed at establishing and maintaining a certain form of political power. Their totality constitutes the political system of a given society. Political institutions ensure the reproduction and sustainable preservation of ideological values, stabilize the social class structures that dominate in society.

· Sociocultural and educational institutions aim at the development and subsequent reproduction of cultural and social values, the inclusion of individuals in a particular subculture, as well as the socialization of individuals through the assimilation of sustainable sociocultural standards of behavior and, finally, the protection of certain values ​​and norms.

· Normative-orienting - mechanisms of moral and ethical orientation and regulation of the behavior of individuals. Their goal is to give behavior and motivation a moral argument, an ethical basis. These institutions assert imperative universal human values, special codes and ethics of behavior in the community.

· Normative-sanctioning - public and social regulation of behavior on the basis of norms, rules and regulations, enshrined in legal and administrative acts. The binding nature of the norms is ensured by the coercive power of the state and the system of appropriate sanctions.

· Ceremonial-symbolic and situational-conventional institutions. These institutions are based on the more or less long-term adoption of conventional (by agreement) norms, their official and unofficial consolidation. These norms regulate everyday contacts, various acts of group and intergroup behavior. They determine the order and method of mutual behavior, regulate the methods of transmission and exchange of information, greetings, addresses, etc., the rules of meetings, sessions, and the activities of associations.

. 5. Institutional structure of society. Formal and informal institutions and the relationship between them

Institutions are human-created frameworks of behavior that govern political, economic, and social interaction. Their main role is to reduce uncertainty by establishing a stable structure of interaction between people. Institutions provide mutual understanding between people by forming agreed-upon expectations with a minimum of information exchange. Institutions include enforcement mechanisms (sanctions). Sanctions are: political, economic, moral

Institutions are divided into formal and informal

Relationship between formal and informal:

Informal are the source of formation and change of forms, if the system develops evolutionarily

Informal can be a continuation of formal

Informal can replace formal

Informal-generally accepted conventions, codes of conduct.

They are not recorded in writing and are protected by other (non-state) enforcement mechanisms.

Formal - rules that are created purposefully, are easily fixed in writing and act as a limiter to the set of alternatives.

According to North's classification, the rules are divided into: political, economic, contracting rules.

Political determine the hierarchical structure of society and the most important characteristics of control over political procedures

Economic ones establish possible forms of organization of economic activity, within which individuals compete with each other. Establish property rights, a bundle of rights to use and receive income from property, restrict other individuals' access to resources

Contracting rules - determine the method, procedure and conditions of a specific exchange agreement.

· Formal institutions- these are institutions in which the scope of functions, means and methods of functioning are regulated by the prescriptions of laws or other regulatory legal acts, formally approved orders, regulations, rules, charters, etc. Formal social institutions include the state, court, army, family, school etc. They carry out their management and control functions on the basis of strictly established formal regulations, negative and positive sanctions. Formal institutions play an important role in the stabilization and consolidation of modern society. “If social institutions are powerful ropes of a system of social ties, then formal social institutions are a fairly strong and flexible metal frame that determines the strength of society” Informal institutions- these are institutions in which the functions, means and methods of activity are not established by formal rules (that is, they are not clearly defined and not enshrined in special legislative and other regulations). Despite this, informal institutions, just like formal ones, perform management and control functions in the widest social spectrum, as they are the result of collective creativity, initiative and the will of citizens (associations of interest, various leisure activities, etc.). Social control in such institutions is carried out on the basis of informal sanctions, that is, with the help of norms fixed in public opinion, traditions, and customs. Such sanctions (public opinion, customs, traditions) are often a more effective means of controlling people's behavior than the rule of law or other formal sanctions. Sometimes people prefer punishment by representatives of the authorities or official leadership than the unspoken condemnation of friends, work colleagues, relatives and friends. [

According to one of the founders of the institutional theory, D. North (North, 1997), institutions are a set of rules, correspondence procedures, moral and ethical behavior of individuals in the interests of wealth maximization. Institutions are formal (laws, constitutions) and informal (contracts and voluntarily adopted codes of conduct) restrictions and coercive factors developed by people that structure their interaction. Together they form the incentive structure of societies and economies.

The development of the economy is influenced by the interaction between institutions and organizations, when the former determine the "rules of the game", and the latter are the "players".

VR Scott (Scott, 2001) expands the definition of institutions, making it more voluminous. In his opinion, institutions are multifaceted systems that include systems of symbols (cognitive structures and normative rules) and regulatory processes carried out through and shaping social behavior.

Having studied the nature of institutions in more detail, W.R. Scott writes about three sources of institutions: regulatory, normative and cognitive.

Thus, institutions consist of cognitive, normative and regulatory structures and activities that ensure the stability of social behavior and give it a certain meaning.

Regulatory source of institutions includes rules, laws, sanctions mechanisms, is based on practical expediency. In this case, an institution is everything that is “forbidden” or strictly regulated by formal measures.

Normative source of institutions is based on certain social obligations expressed in moral and ethical standards. Regulation in this case can also be quite strict, but it is not formal.

The Cognitive Source of Institutions assumes that some behaviors are taken for granted, supported by culture, conformity to some idea, the desire to be like everyone else. There is no formal or normative regulation, only cultural regulation takes place.

In other words, institutions include regulatory, normative and cognitive elements.

The manifestation of regulatory elements - a system of formal rules, mechanisms of coercion and punishment, laws.

The manifestation of normative elements - the formation and adherence to values, norms, standards, goals, tasks, roles. Example of normative elements: "unwritten" rules and norms. “The public will condemn”, “What will people say?”, “This is not human”, “Honest merchant's word”, etc.

Manifestation of cognitive elements - the formation and adherence to the constituent rules. These rules define the elements, structure and content of the activity. Cognitive elements are a manifestation of culture.

Institutions are the basis for the relative stability of organizations.

Theorists of institutional theory, as a rule, do not give examples of institutions that show how institutions affect the organization, its formation and functioning. Based on the foregoing, let's try to form examples that would explain this complex social concept.

· Institute of wages. Based on the definition of the institution given by D. North, it should be recognized that wages are developed by people formal(production standards, labor intensity standards, tariff scales, qualification categories, etc.) and informal(labor market data on pay for certain professions, ideas about the fairness of pay, ideas about external and internal remuneration, principles of remuneration, etc.) restrictions, and coercive factors(labor and performance discipline, system of fines, etc.). All this structures interactions people for compensation for their labor efforts.

The institution of property. In the same way, it includes formal(laws for the protection of property, legal regulations for the disposal of property, etc.), informal(ethical principles that protect property, such as “stealing is a sin”, “you can’t take someone else’s”, “everything that is not nailed down, I can take, everything that I can tear off is not nailed down”, etc.) restrictions, and coercive factors(criminal liability for the alienation of property, "lynching", etc.). All of the above structures the interaction people about property.

· Institute of formation of organizations. By the same logic, it includes formal(organizational and legal forms, standard organizational structures, forms of constituent documents, content of regulations on divisions, job descriptions, etc.) and informal(correlation of structural divisions, approximate number of structural divisions, principles of subordination in structural divisions, relations between people regarding the hierarchy, artificial and natural hierarchy, etc.) restrictions, and coercive factors(approval or non-approval of constituent documents, sanctions against violators of internal regulations and hierarchy, etc.). All of the above structures the interaction people about forming organizations.

Important concepts of institutional theory are the concepts of "organizational field" and "population". These concepts characterize the level of analysis of organizational processes.

Under organizational field one should understand those organizations that, in general, form a fairly obvious sphere of institutional life: these are the main suppliers of resources, consumers of products, regulatory organizations, and all of them produce similar products or services. An example of an organizational field is the education system, which consists of both educational institutions and controlling and governing bodies.

population- a narrower concept that reflects a set of organizations that produce the same products and services, are approximately equally vulnerable to environmental influences. In the organizational field example above, the population will be educational institutions.

legitimacy, from an institutional point of view, is a condition that reflects cultural conformity, normative support, and or consistency with rules and laws.

For example, certification or accreditation of an organization by government agencies or professional associations becomes an indicator of the organization's legitimacy. At the same time, the legitimacy of the organization may suffer from the contradictory requirements of the institutions.

Regulatory the approach to the legitimacy of organizations is based on following rules and laws: an organization is considered legitimate if it is created and operates in accordance with legal or quasi-legal requirements. If all the rules for registering an enterprise are met, then such an enterprise is considered legitimate. An informal organization, such as an organized criminal group, is created and functions in accordance with quasi-legal requirements, is not legitimate in a "law-abiding" society, but is quite legitimate in a criminal environment.

Normative approach to the legitimacy of organizations suggests a deeper moral and ethical basis for assessing legitimacy. People are more inclined to obey normative than regulative, formal rules. In this case, incentives to follow the rules may include both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.

cognitive the approach to legitimacy assumes that the organization accepts a common value system or a common vision of the situation. That is, if an organization adopts traditional attitudes and characteristics in order to fit a particular situation, then this means its desire for legitimacy based on cognitive consistency.