Institutional matrix.
- 06/21/08 -
A. D. North spoke about the existence of a certain matrix of formal rules, informal restrictions and characteristics of coercion and did not mean institutional structures. Thus, North was talking about the parameters of social institutions - about the state, about changes and, most importantly, about the inertia of social institutions, and inertia was considered as caused by dependence on an already existing structure, but regardless of the “depth of occurrence” of its source material. The reason for changing the rules and parameters, according to North, “lies in the fact that economies of restriction of activities, complementarity and network externalities conditioned by a given institutional matrix of formal rules, informal restrictions and coercive characteristics will “adjust” benefits and costs towards choice alternatives that are compatible with the existing institutional structure.”
B. S. Kirdina calls the institutional matrix of society the primary model of interconnected economic, political and ideological basic institutions *, on the basis of which historically developing forms of specific social relations are constantly reproduced.
In other words, institutional matrices represent the main (dominant) historically stable forms of connection between basic economic, political and ideological institutions, and the process of social modernization represents the conscious integration of alternative institutions into the institutional structure of society.
The dominant matrix is comprehensive, while the additional (complementary) matrix fills some niches in the institutional space.
Experts distinguish two types institutional matrices.
The X-matrix is characterized by a redistributive economy**, a unitary political system and a communitarian ideology***; this type of matrix is characteristic of Russia and China. The Y-matrix is characterized by a market economy, federal political structure and subsidiary ideology; Y-matrices are typical for most countries in Europe and the USA.
The communal environment contributes to the formation of the institutional X-matrix: when there is a need to centralize and unite the efforts of people in unified production processes, appropriate political structures, as well as communitarian values, in which social consciousness historically consolidates the meaning of such a social structure. The non-communal environment gives rise to Y-matrix institutions - isolated commodity producers interacting through the market, federal political structures and individual subsidiary values adequate to such a structure.
B. In the theory of institutional matrices, the object of consideration is the basic institutions that form the deep foundations social interactions people about living together within a single society.
The theory of institutional matrices is sociological theory structural direction sociology, the paradigm of which considers society not so much as a process of interaction between people, but as an independently existing structure, living according to its own laws. A special feature of the theory of institutional matrices is the consideration systemic nature society, not internal connections and states of elements and the whole (since only three social spheres are identified). Another feature of the theory of institutional matrices is that it mainly considers the basic social institutions, not social relations.
The theory of institutional matrices considers basic institutions as initial social structures, the interaction of which ensures the existence and development of societies. Self-reproduction of institutional formations in the process of their changes and growth occurs on the basis of the interaction of the matrix of basic institutions and the matrix of complementary institutions. It is believed that in human history the interaction of basic and complementary forms with the selection of those combinations that correspond to the original matrices and at the same time evolutionarily modernize social forms corresponds to the fact that sooner or later the necessary institutional balance is found, the ratio of basic and complementary matrices adequate to the time and place****. Determining the specifics and content of the dominant institutional matrix in society and the mechanism of interaction between basic and complementary institutions allows for rational and organic implementation of institutional construction and minimizing social costs in the case of modernization development of the country.
Literature on items B and C: Kirdina S.G. Modern Russian reforms: search for patterns // Society and Economics. 2002. No. 3-4.; Kirdina S.G. Property in the X-matrix. // Domestic notes. 2004. No. 6 (20).
Addition.
The theory of institutional matrices is close to Marx’s understanding of society and the corresponding understanding of its objectivity, structure and development*****, since it is based on the material and production understanding of the development of society. However, due to the lack of consideration of production relations (and even the positions of Weber’s subjectivist paradigm), the theory of institutional matrices is increasingly leaning towards bourgeois theories, rather than objective-historical (dialectical) paradigms for understanding the development of society.
D. Sometimes institutional matrices are understood as large technical and social systems that have developed in a form characteristic of a given civilization, which largely predetermine the way of life and social activities people (for example, for Russia - a heat supply system). This definition does not apply to the most common sociological definition given, but can be used in in the narrow sense in the theory of institutional matrices, since it is the material and technological environment that ultimately determines the type of dominant institutional matrix and the development of society.
* Institutions are stable, constantly reproducing social (legal, economic, etc.) relations that structure social life, constantly manifesting themselves as rules of life in society, which people follow, willingly or unwillingly.
An institutional structure is a set of interrelated institutions.
** here: centralized combination of conditions for production and consumption of the main created products, their accumulation and distribution of resources and products between participants in the economic process.
*** the dominance of collective, common values over individual ones, the priority of “We” over “I”.
**** In modern political economy there are other paradigmatic provisions and views regarding the essence and development of society.
***** As S. Kirdina writes, if we proceed from Marx’s understanding of society not as a collection of individuals, but as “the sum of connections and relationships in which these individuals are related to each other”
In light of the question posed, let us consider relatively new concept institutional matrices 4. The theoretical hypothesis of institutional matrices implements a structural-system approach to the analysis of society.
The institutional matrix is a stable, historically established system of basic social institutions that determined the emergence of the first states and predetermined the development of all subsequent institutional structures, which, in turn, serve to reproduce the primary model, the essence of which is preserved 5 .
The theory of institutional matrices was developed within the framework of sociology and uses sociological concepts. However, this concept is applicable to the analysis of processes occurring in all spheres of society, including legal and economic.
1.Veblen T. Theory of the leisure class. - M.: Progress, 1984. - P. 202.
2. Milner B. 3. Preface to the work of D. North “Institutions, institutional changes and the functioning of the economy.” - M: Foundation for Economic Books “Beginnings”, 1997. - P. 6.
3. The concept of “norm” is broader than the concept of “rule”, since it also includes custom and tradition.
5.Kirdina S.G. Institutional matrices and development of Russia. - M TEIS, 2000. - P. 23.
Institutions are understood as a system of certain and inevitable connections between members of society, conditioned external conditions survival of society. IN in this case we're talking about not about those social institutions that regulate human reproduction (these include the institution of family, health and others), but about social institutions that regulate the reproduction of states and main spheres public life 1 .
Institutions form a kind of skeleton of society, ensuring its historical stability and reproduction of social integrity 3 .
The institutional matrix is shown schematically in Fig. 3.1 as triune social form, combining political, economic and legal sphere occupying an equal position in society.
The basis of the matrix is taken from S. Kirdina’s book “Institutional Matrices and Development of Russia”, but with some changes, in particular the political and ideological spheres are combined, since ideology in society depends largely on the interests of ruling politicians and is one of the results of their activities. The social sphere is highlighted separately in the matrix and is assigned a large role in the formation of the institutional system. (Kirdina S.G. Institutional matrices and development of Russia. - M.: TEIS, 2000.- P. 25).
There are two types of matrices: Western (market, democratic) and Eastern (command, dictatorship or despotism), which are characterized by a certain set of basic and additional institutions (for more details, see Chapter 10).
INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE LIFE OF SOCIETY
Institutions play important role in the life of society. If we imagine for a moment that all institutions disappeared, then chaos would ensue, which, in turn, would not last forever, since people’s desire to streamline their lives would lead to the creation of new institutions.
More deep analysis the nature of institutions allows us to answer a number of questions that are global in nature, namely: Why do markets “work” or “not work”? Why were certain activities effective or ineffective? economic policy? What changes in the economy were spontaneous or caused by the adoption of a particular government decision? etc.
Essence and concept "institute".
What are institutions? Let us give several definitions of institutions that describe their essence and functioning mechanism.
1. “Institutions are familiar image thoughts, guided by which people live."
2. “Institutions are public goods, which are used everywhere and every day by many individuals and which are mainly characterized by their non-exclusivity. Institutions make the exchange process easier. They are an integral part of the decision-making process that makes individual decisions positive.”
3. "Institute - social organization which, through tradition, custom or legal restriction, leads to the creation of long-term and sustainable patterns of behavior."
Institutions cannot be seen, physically felt or measured. These are peculiar structures, invisible mechanisms created by human consciousness. Institutions reflect the way of thinking characteristic of a certain community of people.
The discovery of “institutions as the “rules of the game” in society, or, to put it more formally, man-made restrictive (institutional - author’s note) frameworks that organize relationships between people and set the structure of incentives human interaction- be it in politics, social sphere or economics,” radically changes the ideas generally accepted in neoclassical theory.
4. “Institutions are the result of processes that took place
in the past, they are adapted to the circumstances of the past and, therefore, are not in full agreement with the requirements of the present time."
5. “Institutions are man-made restrictions,
and the coercive factors that structure their interactions. Together they form the incentive structure of societies and economies.”
The above definitions give the main characteristics of institutions, reflect their main functions, as well as the laws of development; emphasize the importance of institutions in the evolution of society. Summarizing all of the above, let us focus on following definition:
6.Institute- is a system of formal rules and informal norms that determine the relationships between members of society.
In light of the question posed, let us consider the relatively new concept of institutional matrices. The theoretical hypothesis of institutional matrices implements a structural-system approach to the analysis of society.
The institutional matrix is a stable, historically established system of basic social institutions that determined the emergence of the first states and predetermined the development of all subsequent institutional structures, which, in turn, serve to reproduce the primary model, the essence of which is preserved.
Institutions are understood as a system of certain and inevitable connections between members of society, conditioned by the external conditions of the survival of society. In this case, we are not talking about those social institutions that regulate human reproduction (these include the institution of family, health, and others), but about social institutions that regulate the reproduction of states and the main spheres of public life.
Institutions form a kind of skeleton of society, ensuring its historical stability and reproduction of social integrity.
The institutional matrix is shown schematically in Fig. 3.1 as a triune social form that unites the political, economic and legal spheres, occupying an equal position in society.
There are two types of matrices - Western (market, democratic) and Eastern (command, dictatorship or despotism), which are characterized by a certain set of basic and additional institutions.
Formal and informal rules.
D. North identifies three main components as part of the institute:
Formal rules (constitutions, laws, judicial precedents, administrative acts);
Informal norms (traditions, customs, social conventions);
Coercive mechanisms (punishment system - author's note) that ensure compliance with the rules (courts, police, prisons, etc.).
Definition of "formal" and "informal" rules
Based on the definition of “institution” (6), institutions can be expressed in formal, “written” rules, taking the form various documents(constitutions, laws, etc.) consciously created by man. However, they may be a product human consciousness, manifested in generally accepted conventions, codes of conduct, that is, in informal, “unwritten” norms that permeate all spheres of society, observed in the form of traditions, customs, habits or other forms.
If the system of formal rules is the result of the legislative activity of people (the state), then the question arises: how is the system of informal norms formed?
In accordance with the concept of T. Veblen, changes in institutions occur according to the law natural selection. The life of a person in society, just like the life of other species, is a struggle for existence and, therefore, selection and adaptation. In his opinion, the evolution of the social order was a process of natural selection of social institutions. Continuing development of institutions - human society and human nature, as well as the progress achieved in this regard can be general outline reduce it to the natural selection of the most adapted way of thinking and the process of forced adaptation of individuals to new conditions, gradually changing with the development of society. Thus, in T. Veblen’s interpretation, socio-economic development (“evolution social structure") appears as the implementation of the process of “natural selection” of various institutions.
The position of T. Veblen is close to F. Hayek, according to whom, the selection of rules and moral norms established in society can also be compared with biological selection. According to Hayek, the existence, along with formal rules, of informal norms (in the form of traditions and customs) is due to the fact that “in the selection process that formed customs and morals, a number of factual circumstances could be taken into account - more than what individuals could perceive; as a consequence, the tradition is in certain respects superior or "wiser" human mind" The more diversity a society allows, the more intense and fruitful the selection of socially appropriate institutions occurs.
From the above reasoning it follows that if formal rules can be artificially invented and forcibly imposed, then informal norms “are determined by some past events, formed as component the process of unconscious self-organization of a certain structure or model (institutional matrix - author’s note).” In other words, informal institutions are conventions, self-sustaining, self-enforced rules, without the intervention of a third party (the state). A caveat must be made that the theory of natural selection is not entirely applicable to gradual institutional changes, although the term "evolution" is used because the "best" institution does not always survive. On the other hand, there is a constant transition of institutions from one state to another - some institutions, being established normatively, from informal become formal, others, having lost their former significance as formal institutions and being excluded from legal system, may become informal - does not always occur under the influence endogenous factors, which will be discussed below.
In light of the question posed, let us consider the relatively new concept of institutional matrices. The theoretical hypothesis of institutional matrices implements a structural-system approach to the analysis of society.
The institutional matrix is a stable, historically established system of basic social institutions that determined the emergence of the first states and predetermined the development of all subsequent institutional structures, which, in turn, serve to reproduce the primary model, the essence of which is preserved.
Institutions are understood as a system of certain and inevitable connections between members of society, conditioned by the external conditions of the survival of society. In this case, we are not talking about those social institutions that regulate human reproduction (these include the institution of family, health, and others), but about social institutions that regulate the reproduction of states and the main spheres of public life.
Institutions form a kind of skeleton of society, ensuring its historical stability and reproduction of social integrity.
The institutional matrix is shown schematically in Fig. 3.1 as a triune social form that unites the political, economic and legal spheres, occupying an equal position in society.
There are two types of matrices - Western (market, democratic) and Eastern (command, dictatorship or despotism), which are characterized by a certain set of basic and additional institutions.
Formal and informal rules.
D. North identifies three main components as part of the institute:
Formal rules (constitutions, laws, judicial precedents, administrative acts);
Informal norms (traditions, customs, social conventions);
Coercive mechanisms (punishment system - author's note) that ensure compliance with the rules (courts, police, prisons, etc.).
Definition of "formal" and "informal" rules
Based on the definition of “institution” (6), institutions can be expressed in formal, “written” rules, taking the form of various documents (constitutions, laws, etc.) consciously created by man. At the same time, they can be a product of human consciousness, manifested in generally accepted conventions, codes of conduct, that is, in informal, “unwritten” norms that permeate all spheres of society, observed in the form of traditions, customs, habits or other forms.
If the system of formal rules is the result of the legislative activity of people (the state), then the question arises: how is the system of informal norms formed?
In accordance with the concept of T. Veblen, changes in institutions occur according to the law of natural selection. The life of a person in society, just like the life of other species, is a struggle for existence and, therefore, selection and adaptation. In his opinion, the evolution of the social order was a process of natural selection of social institutions. The ongoing development of institutions - human society and human nature, as well as the progress achieved in this regard, can be broadly reduced to the natural selection of the most adapted way of thinking and the process of forced adaptation of individuals to new conditions, gradually changing with the development of society. Thus, in T. Veblen’s interpretation, socio-economic development (“the evolution of the social structure”) appears as the implementation of the process of “natural selection” of various institutions.
The position of T. Veblen is close to F. Hayek, according to whom, the selection of rules and moral norms established in society can also be compared with biological selection. According to Hayek, the existence, along with formal rules, of informal norms (in the form of traditions and customs) is due to the fact that “in the selection process that formed customs and morals, a number of factual circumstances could be taken into account - more than what individuals could perceive; as a consequence, tradition is in certain respects superior or “wiser” than human reason.” The more diversity a society allows, the more intense and fruitful the selection of socially appropriate institutions occurs.
From the above reasoning it follows that if formal rules can be artificially invented and forcibly imposed, then informal norms “are determined by some past events, formed as an integral part of the process of unconscious self-organization of a certain structure or model (institutional matrix - author’s note).” In other words, informal institutions are conventions, self-sustaining, self-enforced rules, without the intervention of a third party (the state). A caveat must be made that the theory of natural selection is not entirely applicable to gradual institutional change, although the term "evolution" is used because the "best" institution does not always survive. On the other hand, the constant transition of institutions from one state to another - some institutions, being established normatively, become formal from informal, others, having lost their former significance as formal institutions and being excluded from the legal system, can become informal - does not always occur under the influence of endogenous factors that will be discussed below.
IN recent years foreign and Russian scientists use the concept of “institutional matrix”, used for comparative analysis various societies. The institutional matrix in sociology is a stable, historically established system of basic institutions that regulate the interconnected functioning of the main social spheres - economic, political and ideological, which are in constant correspondence.
The institutional matrix is a concept that defines the initial system, the primary model of basic social institutions that developed during the formation of the first states of the East, and then the West. The basic principles of the institutional matrix are reproduced and developed by subsequent social structures. The institutional matrix is invariant with respect to the actions of people, although it manifests itself in various, constantly evolving human activity institutional forms determined by cultural and historical context. The appearance of the term “institutional matrix” in social sciences reflects general trend humanitarian knowledge of the 21st century, when, along with the expansion and differentiation of the composition of the analyzed phenomena, the transition from the study of those phenomena that lie on the surface to the study of the underlying entities, matrices, and “social genomes” intensified.
The concept of “matrix” has long been widely used in social philosophy. However, the phrase “institutional matrix” was introduced in scientific circulation relatively recently. Among the first to widely use it were economists working within the framework of the neo-institutional approach - K. Polanyi and D. North (winner Nobel Prize 1998). They expressed
Huntington S. Clash of Civilizations / trans. from English - M.: ACT, 2003.
assumptions that the system of institutions of each specific society forms a kind of “institutional matrix” that determines the possible trajectories further social development. K. Polanyi believed that the institutional matrix directs economic relations between people and determines the place of the economy in society; it defines the social sources of rights and responsibilities that authorize the movement of goods and individuals upon entering economic process, inside it and at the exit. According to D. North’s definition, the institutional matrix of a society is its inherent basic structure of property rights and political system. At the same time, he noted that economic and political institutions in the institutional matrix are interdependent, political rules form economic rules, and vice versa. K. Polanyi and D. North assumed that each society has a specific institutional matrix unique to it. Since the end of the 20th century. institutional matrices become the object special study scientists involved comparative analysis various societies, cultures (including political) and civilizations.
S. Eisenstadt:"Gradually focus sociological analysis moves into the institutional sphere itself, into the very structure of human society. The development of the concept of the institutional matrix continues the tradition of the structuralist approach, which “tends to explain the nature of any given institutional order and especially its dynamics, starting from the principles of deep or hidden structure.” 1
In the theory of institutional matrices, the main attention is paid to the study of stable reproducing social relations and structures that ensure the integrity of society and its development as social system, set the directions and limitations of its evolution. Society here is understood as a reality that develops according to its own laws. As E. Durkheim noted, societies are “realities whose nature is imposed on us and which can change, like everything else.” natural phenomena, only in accordance with the laws governed by them... We thus find ourselves faced with a stable, unshakable order of things... ".
The development of the concept of an institutional matrix means that primary attention is paid to the study of sustainable, existing as a framework for social behavior primary-forming public structures, the formation of which is determined by the material and other conditions of the emergence and development of states. With the approach used, institutional structures have priority - ontological and methodological - over political subjects. The research in this case is aimed at studying these historically established structures, or basic institutions, that determine social relations and interactions social groups as a factor external to them.
The basic institutions of society are civilizationally stable, invariant with respect to actions social subjects, but constantly reproduced in practice social and other relationships that ensure social integrity. Basic institutions form the framework, the structure of society, and set the most general and typical characteristics social situations, determine the direction of collective and individual human actions.
It is important to note that in the theory of institutional matrices we are talking primarily about societal institutions that regulate the reproduction of society as a social system. These institutions are manifested and implemented at the formal level - in the form of a constitution, legislation, legal regulation etc., and in the informal sphere - as norms of behavior, customs, traditions, historically stable value systems, etc. This means that the concept of a basic institution is not reduced to its components, but is holistic. Basic institutions that retain their quality must be separated from the diverse institutional forms in which they manifest themselves in different countries and to different historical periods. The most important function basic institutions is the regulation of the main subsystems of society - economic, political and cultural (sociocultural, including ideological). The fundamental task and function of culture in the societal structure of society is, according to T. Parsons’ definition, “the preservation and reproduction of a pattern.” Society is thus considered in the unity of its main subsystems.
Kirdina S.G.:“The theory of institutional matrices as an “ideal” construction is based on an analysis of the genesis of various societies, and especially the East and West. As a result, a hypothesis was formulated that the diverse institutional complexes regulating the life of ancient and modern states, are based on one of two institutional matrices, which is dominant. One of them is the X-matrix, sometimes called the eastern matrix, since it is characteristic of the genesis of most states in this part of the world. The other one, the Y-matrix, is often called Western.”
The X-matrix is characterized by the following content of basic institutions. IN economic sphere- institutions of redistributive economy. The essence of distributive economies is the obligatory strict mediation by the center of movement and services, as well as the rights to their production and use. These include institutions common property, official work, coordination, etc. In political sphere- institutes administrative division, hierarchical vertical of power headed by the center of appointments, general meetings and unanimity, appeals through the chain of command. In the ideological sphere - the institutions of state-communitarian ideology, the main content of which is the dominance of collective, common values, the priority of “we” over “I”. These include the institutions of collectivism, egalitarianism and order, communal environment. The X-matrix is typical for most countries in Asia, Russia, etc.
The Y-matrix is characterized by the following content of basic institutions. In the economic sphere - institutions of a market economy ( private property, wage labor, competition, exchange, i.e. purchases and sales, profits, etc.). In the political sphere - institutions of democratic political structure(self-government and subsidiarity, federalism, elections, multi-party system and democratic majority, independent court, etc.). In the ideological sphere - institutions of pluralistic ideology, in which the dominant meaning is fixed individual values, the priority of “I” over “we”, the priority of the individual, his rights and freedoms, and a diversified environment. This matrix characterizes the social structure of most Western countries.
Highlighting two ideal types matrices, being outwardly close to the well-known cultural dichotomy “East - West”, has its own specifics. It consists in the fact that the macrosociological concept of the institutional matrix identifies basic social institutions in the structure of societies that exist independently of cultural context, outside of those civilizationally determined forms in which they are implemented in specific societies on different stages of its development. The corresponding states preserve and reproduce as the main, basic institutions of either the X- or Y-matrix, which ensures the integrity, survival and development of the corresponding type of society. Institutions from another matrix play a supporting role. Such institutions are called complementary. Their development largely depends on the focused efforts of relevant political and social agents. As for basic institutions, the logic of their genesis in society is realized as if spontaneously, but within the framework of once given forms and principles.
The “ideal” theory of institutional matrices can, in principle, be used to cross-cultural analysis development of societies of the West, Russia, East. At the same time, of course, one should not strictly oppose these societies; it is imperative to take into account both the civilizational features of their development and the expanding interaction and mutual influence different nations and countries in the context of globalization. In other words, it is advisable to creatively complement the institutional approach, which underlies the theory of institutional magrits, with a sociocultural one.
Consideration of various concepts of cultures and civilizations is not an end in itself. In relation to the conditions of Russia, they can have important theoretical and methodological significance, especially if its sociocultural, civilizational and political dynamics of development are taken into account. In this regard, the problem of analyzing the features of the modern political and cultural genesis of Russia as a transitional society, incl. from the point of view of prospects and opportunities for creating a culture of sustainable social development.
- Eisenstadt S. Revolution and transformation of societies. Comparative study of civilizations / trans. from English - M.: Aspect-Press, 1999. -S. 19.
- Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose / trans. from fr. - M., 1995.-S. 269.
- Kirdina S.G. Institutional matrices and development of Russia. - M., 2000. -S. 10-14.
- Lapin N.I. The paths of Russia: sociocultural transformations. - M., 2000. - P. 18-32.
