> [WS:] That is one possible interpretation, but the theory itself does
> not necessarily postulate this. Its main mechanism is transaction
> cost, so if transaction cost to benefit balance is radically altered,
> a radical change is not only possible but also likely.
>
> Another observation - a formulation of "path dependence" can be found
> in Karl Marx's "18th brumaire" Of course, he did not develop
> probability models, like Arthur did, but the concept is there. Here is
> the relevant quote:
> "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please;
> they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under
> circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
> The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the
> brains of the living.
So "path dependence" theorists, like others associated with "institutionalism," borrow from Marx. Much "social science" after Marx is an appropriation of his insights - in the most outrageous cases, presented as a refutation rather than elaboration of his theory, based on misrepresentation of what he actually wrote, by academics not wanting to be mistaken for Marxists. And it would seem "neo-institutionalists" have abandoned the English language favoured by their predecessors. At he risk of sounding like a philistine, isn't "a radical change is not only possible but likely if the transaction cost to benefit balance is radically altered" just gobbledygook for the observation that "some situations demand radical solutions"?
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... "Path dependence" strikes me as a fashionable academic restatement of conservative (and social democratic) theory: that revolutionary change which abruptly uproots deeply entrenched cultural and social arrangements is apt to be destructive, and that progress is necessarily slow and incremental. That's certainly true in some circumstances - the "dead hand of the past" always has to be taken into account - but it's not a universal law, which is what seems to be implied. The nature and tempo of change appropriate to a specific set of circumstances only becomes apparent in retrospect, when it becomes clear whether it was precisely correct or too catastrophically radical ("adventurist") or catastrophically timid ("opportunist").