Tipos de redes según forma (topología)

Com m ons

T h e o th e r w in g o f the institutio nal sch o o l c o n c e rn e d itse lf less with the replacem ent

13 See references in Dickson 11974) and Rose 11976). B oth Marxists and Greens would reject the idea o f neutral technology: see for exam ple the works o f Habermas, Illich and others.

141

o f orth o d o x ra tio n a lity th an w ith an a ly sin g th e s o cial o u tc o m e an d o ffe rin g policy p ro p o sa ls to s u p p lem en t a n d re fo rm th e re s u lts o f o rth o d o x an aly sis.

C o m m o n s 14 re sp o n d ed to th e p ro s p e c t o f ra d ic a l o v e rh a u l b y d ev e lo p in g a re fo rm is t th eo ry . W e sh all s e e th a t C o m m o n s d id n o t a tte m p t a re a s s e rtio n o f the n e o -c la ssic a l a p p ro ach , b u t ra th e r tried to a lte r th is a n a ly sis to a c co m m o d ate the b o u n d ary e x te n sio n s th a t he b e lie v e d th e discip lin e b ad ly n e e d e d , an d w h ic h fitted in w ith his e a rly 2 0 th ce n tu ry C h ris tia n e th ic s [S tarr 1983 p . l 10].

C o m m o n s’s av o w ed p u rp o se w a s to c u re the in a d e q u a c ie s o f e c o n o m ic s , b o th in th e o ry an d p ractice. H e w a s “ try in g to s a v e ca p ita lism b y m ak in g i t g o o d ” [C om ­ m o n s 1934 p.14 3 cf. D u g g e r 197 9 p .3 6 9 ]. T h is w o u ld b e a c h ie v e d n o t b y a rejection o f o rth o d o x an a ly sis, b u t b y p ro v id in g an in stitu tio n al “ su p p le m e n t” [R utherford 198 3 p.722]. “ T h e p ro b lem n o w ” C o m m o n s b elieved , “ i s n o t to c r e a te a differen t k in d o f ec o n o m ic s — ‘in s titu tio n a l’ e c o n o m ic s — d iv o rc e d fro m p re c e d in g schools, b u t h o w to g iv e to c o lle c tiv e a c tio n , is all its v arie tie s, its d u e p la c e th ro ug ho u t e c o n o m ic th e o ry ” [C o m m o n s 19 34 p.5 ]. In C o m m o n s ’s v ie w , o rth o d o x econ om ics w a s n ecessary b u t in su fficie n t to p ro v id e a n a d e q u ate an a ly sis o f b e h a v io u r [C om ­ m o n s 1936 p .2 4 2 , S ta rr 1983 p . l 18].

C o m m o n s also d id n o t d ic h o to m ise th e o ry an d p ra c tic e . R a th er, h is ap proach w a s in d uctiv e: h e atte m p te d to g e n e ra lis e fro m h is ex p e rie n c e . M u c h o f h is w ritings a r e tak e n u p w ith re fe re n c e s to c a s e s tu d ie s an d p erso n al a n e c d o te s a s e x a m p le s. He a ls o b eliev ed in ac tiv e re fo rm , a n d h is w o rk s h o u ld b e v ie w e d as b o rd e re d b y the pos­ s ib ilitie s o f w h a t h e v ie w e d a s p o s s ib le re fo rm w ith in h is s ta te d e th ic a l guidelines. C o m m o n s ’ re fo rm m e th o d “ tran sc en d e d the ra th e r a rtific ia l no rm ativ e/p o sitiv e d ic h o to m y ” , in ste ad o f w h ic h “ h e w a s a lw a y s p ra ctical, w h ic h m e a n s th a t h e inv esti­ g a te d w hat could b e ra th e r th a n w h a t should b e ” [D u g g e r 1979 p .3 7 0 ]. T h is m eant ta k in g ex istin g p ra ctice a s h is sta rtin g p o in t, b u t h e a ls o b e lie v e d th a t th e ethical in p u ts to h is an a ly sis w e re th a t o f th e s o c ie ty u n d e r s c ru tin y . R efo rm m u s t b e based o n th e valu e s o f s o c ie ty [ibid.].

142

C o m m o n s ’s first m a jo r w ork w a s h is L eg a l Foundations o f C apitalism, c o m ­ pleted in 1923. M o st o f h is m ain c o n c e p ts w e re d e v e lo p e d b y th is tim e. H o w e v er, C o m m o n s ’s w ritin g s ty le is b y co m m o n c o n s e n s u s th e m o s t u n in tellig ib le o f all w e s te rn ec o n o m ists. T h e 1934 w o rk Institutional Economics w a s a re s ta te m e n t o f th is th e o ry [R a m sta d 1986 p .1 0 9 0 ], th e e a rlie r e x p o s itio n o f w h ic h m an y p e o p le h a d c r iti­ c ised ‘ ‘to th e e ffe c t th at th e y co uld n o t u n d e rs ta n d m y th e o rie s n o r w h a t I w a s d riv in g a t” [C o m m o n s 1934 p . l ] . Institutional Economics d id little to s o lv e th is p ro b le m , h o w e v e r, a n d The Economics o f Collective A ctio n w a s a n “ atte m p t to e x p la in in s im ­ p le te rm s th e e sse n tia ls o f a co m p lex s y stem o f th o u g h t” [P arso n s, p re fa c e to C o m ­ m o n s 1 9 5 0 p. v]. T h e re fe re n c e s b elo w are ta k e n in th e m ain fro m Institutional Economics, w h ich w a s h is m ajo r w o rk o f ex p o s itio n .

W e s a w p re v io u sly h o w th e attem p t o f o rth o d o x e c o n o m is ts to a rriv e a t a s o c ia l v alu e fu n c tio n faltered w h e n th ey atte m p te d to a g g re g a te th e in d iv id u a l fu n c tio n s w h ich th e y po sited. I f C o m m o n s is to s u c c e s s fu lly s u p p le m e n t o rth o d o x th e o ry , h e m u s t e ith e r ad d a su p p le m e n t o r find an a lte r n a tiv e to th e o rth o d o x m e th o d s o f d e riv ­ in g a s o c ia l v alue. C o m m o n s ’s re sp o n se w a s to c o n te n d th e b o u n d a rie s o f ec o n o m ic s to e m b ra c e th e p o litic al a n d th e legal. T h e s e b e c a m e n e c e s s a ry c o n s tra in ts u p o n in d i­ v id u al a c tiv ity . C o m m o n s d efined a n In s titu tio n a s “ c o lle c tiv e a c tio n in co n tro l, lib e ra tio n a n d e x p a n sio n o f in d iv id u a l a c tio n ” [1931 p .6 4 4 ]. S o cial v a lu e w a s n o t d e riv e d fr o m in d iv id u a l v a lu e s, b u t ra th e r fo r m e d th e c o n s tra in ts w ith in w h ich in d iv i­ d u a ls m a y a c t T h ese c o n s tra in ts w ere n e c e s s a ry , b u t w e re a lso in tera ctiv e a n d d y n a m ic , a n d th e c h a n g e in in stitu tio n s w a s w h a t c a u s e d th e s o c ia l ev o lu tio n .

T h e in itia l p o in t o f d e p a rtu re from o rth o d o x y o f C o m m o n s w a s th e n e c e s s ity fo r la w in e c o n o m ic re la tio n s. In the o rth o d o x y la w a n d eth ic s

*

were necessarily excluded, because the relations on w hich the units w ere constructed were relations betw een m an and nature, not b etw een man and m a n .... N eith er statute law, n or ethics, nor custom , n o r judicial decision bad anything to d o with either o f th ese relationships; o r rather, all these m ig h t be elim inated by assuming that o w nership w as identical w ith the m aterials owned, in o rder to construct a theory o f pure econom ics based solely oo the physical ex change o f m aterials and services. T he latter w as done. This identity o f ownership and m aterials was accepted as a m atter o f custom , w ithout investigation. It was assum ed that all com m odities were ow ned, but the ow nership was

assum ed to be identical with the physical thing owned, and therefore was overlooked as something to be taken for granted. The theories were worked out as physical materials, om itting anything of pro­ perty rights, because they were 'n a tu ral’ [Commons 1934 p.56-7).

F o r C o m m o n s th e c r u c ia l o m issio n o f o rth o d o x e c o n o m ic s w a s th e con cept o f th e tra n s fe r o f rights. “ A lth o u g h w e speak o f th e p rice o f c o m m o d itie s " . C om m ons b e lie v e d th a t “ w hat w e a c tu a lly value in th e m ark e t is the legal rig h ts to these uses o r se rv ic e s, n am e ly p ro perty rig h ts. P hy sical co n tro l fo llow s leg al co n tro l; legal control is s tra te g ic an d v a lu e d ” [1 9 5 0 p.151]. W h a t w as in volved in e x c h a n g e w as not the e x c h a n g e o f m aterials, b u t th e ex chan ge o f pro p e rty righ ts to e c o n o m ic g oods:

If the subject-matter of political economy is not only individuals and nature’s forces, but is human beings getting their living out o f each other by mutual transfers of property rights, then it is to law and eth ics that we look for the critical turning points o f this hum an activity [1934, p.57].

T h e d istin c tiv e fe atu re o f political ec o n o m y is the e x c h a n g e o f p ro p e rty rights. C o m m o n s m ain tain s th at ownership is the re le v an t q u estion , a n d th is in v o lv es hum an in tera ctio n . It a ls o in v o lv es social ac tio n , in the form o f le g is la tio n a n d jud iciary. O w n e rs h ip im p lie s, in th e m o d e m w orld , law . T h is transfer o f title is d iffe ren t to the a c t o f p h y sical d eliv ery , w h ic h is part o f the lab o u r p ro cess o f tran sp o rta tio n . P ro ­ p e rty rig h ts re q u ires the e x is te n c e o f a state. " T h e individual d o e s n o t tran sfer o w n e r­ s h ip . O n ly th e state ... by o p eratio n o f law a s in terp reted by th e co u rts , transfers o w n ­ e r s h ip by re ad in g in ten tio n s into the m in d s o f partic ip a n ts in a tra n s a c tio n .” [1934 p .6 0 ].

C o m m o n s d is tin g u is h e d betw een in stitu tio n al ec o n o m ic s a n d engineering e c o n o m ic s . T h e fo rm er w a s co n c ern e d w ith the tran sfer o f p ro p e rty rights, and in v o lv e d h u m an to h u m an re la tio n s. E n g in ee rin g ec o n o m ic s w a s th e relation o f