Talk:Institution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Institution, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The economics discussion about institutions looks inaccurate (or at least, old-fashioned) to me. FWICT, institutions are mostly viewed as (Nash) equilibria in games, rather than the structure of the game itself. That is, game theory analyses of institutions often attempt to demonstrate why a particular social structure is stable or self-enforcing. Am I being biased here? Is there anything I should read to get a more balanced view of modern economic thinking relating to institutions?

Obviously, if you want to understand the effects of an institution, rather than understand the institution itself, then you could take the institution as exogenous, and construct games in which the only possible actions are ones that follow the rules of the institution.

Any objections to a rewrite of the economics section along these lines?

--Clausen 05:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economics section rewrite

I have done the rewrite of the economics section I proposed earlier. --Clausen 11:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:institutions

The category linked with this article, category:institutions (deleted history), had been developed into a category for organisations, instead of the subject matter of this article. For this reason it was voted to deletion and the content was merged into category:organisations (see also #1, #2, #3). Is it necessary to recreate (or, alternatively, request to undelete) the category according to the definition in this article? — Instantnood 12:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with social organisation

It should not be merged, I access this article to know what an institution is and not about society, however involved they may be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.48.165.106 (talk • contribs). 03:04, 15 March 2006

Oppose merger. The two terms are distinct in meaning, and both need to be articles. Sunray 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As the "merge" tag has been on this article since the end of December and the only folks who have spoken have been opposed to the merge, I am removing the tag. Sunray 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)