{"id":145,"date":"2017-03-10T19:04:35","date_gmt":"2017-03-10T18:04:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/users.unimi.it\/guala\/?page_id=145"},"modified":"2026-05-22T12:21:18","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T10:21:18","slug":"onthecontrary","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/papers\/onthecontrary\/","title":{"rendered":"Onthecontrary"},"content":{"rendered":"

The theory of institutions as \u201crules in equilibrium\u201d was developed jointly with Frank Hindriks<\/a>. Some commentaries\u00a0have appeared in a symposium hosted by the Journal of Institutional Economics:<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Aoki, Masahiko\u00a0(2015) “Why is the equilibrium notion essential for a unified institutional theory? A friendly remark on the article by Hindriks and Guala.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 11: 485-488. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Binmore, Ken (2015) “Institutions, rules and equilibria: a commentary.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 11: 493-496. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Hodgson, Geoffrey (2015) “On defining institutions: rules versus equilibria.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 11: 497-505. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Searle, John (2015) “Status functions and institutional facts: reply to Hindriks and Guala.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 11: 507-514. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Smith, Vernon (2015) “Conduct, rules and the origins of institutions.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 11: 481-483. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Sugden, Robert (2015) “On \u2018common-sense ontology\u2019: a comment on the paper by Frank Hindriks and Francesco Guala.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 11: 489-492. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Frank and I have replied here<\/a>.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The\u00a0following reviews of my book, Understanding Institutions<\/a>, include remarks on and critiques of the rules-in-equilibrium theory:<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Cyril H\u00e9doin in\u00a0Oekonomia<\/em> 6 (2016): 443-50. Link\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

Peter Vanderschraaf in Economics & Philosophy<\/em> (2017). Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Johannes Himmelreich in Journal of Social Ontology<\/em> (2017). Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Geoffrey Hodgson in Journal of Economic Methodology<\/em> (2017). Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Mark Risjord in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews<\/em> (2018) Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Christopher Clarke in BJPS Review of Books<\/em> (2018) Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Joachim Wiewiura in Erkenntnis<\/em> (2020) Link<\/a><\/p>\n

These commentaries have been published as a book symposium<\/a> in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, followed by my replies<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Aydinonat, Emreh and Ylikoski, Petri (2018) “Three conceptions of a theory of institutions”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>48, pp. 550-568.<\/p>\n

Rabinowicz, W. (2018) “Are institutions rules in equilibrium? Comments on Guala\u2019s Understanding Institutions<\/em>“,\u00a0Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>48, pp. 569-584.<\/p>\n

Pacherie, Elisabeth (2018) “Solution thinking and team reasoning: how different are they?”,\u00a0Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>48, pp. 585-593.<\/p>\n

Hauswald, Rico (2018) “Institution types and institution tokens: an unproblematic distinction?”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/em>, Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>48, pp. 594-607.<\/p>\n

Makela, Pekka, Hakli, Raul, and Amadae, S. M. (2018) “Understanding institutions without collective acceptance?”,\u00a0Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>48, pp. 608-629.<\/p>\n

The rules-in-equilibrium account has been used to build institutional theories of fiction and art:<\/em><\/p>\n

Abell, Catharine (2020) Fiction: A Philosophical Analysis<\/em>. Oxford University Press. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Sen, Kiyohiro (2022) “An institutional theory of art categories”,\u00a0Debates in Aesthetics<\/em> 18: 31-43. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

…and the debate goes on:<\/em><\/p>\n

Rust, Joshua (2017) “On the relation between institutional statuses and technical artefacts: a proposed taxonomy of social kinds”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies<\/em> 25: 704-722. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

H\u00e9doin, Cyril (2019) “Institutions, rule-following and conditional reasoning”, Journal of Institutional Economics<\/em> 15: 1-25. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Hodgson, G. (2019) “Taxonomic definitions in social science, with firms, markets and institutions as case studies”, Journal of Institutional Economics<\/em> 15: 207-233. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, Ian (2019) “Institutions as a philosophical problem: a critical rationalist perspective on Guala’s ‘Understanding Institutions’ and his critics”,\u00a0Philosophy of the Social Sciences\u00a0<\/i>49, pp. 42-63. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Brannmark, Johann (2019) “Institutions, ideology, and nonideal social ontology”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/em> 49: 137-159. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Rust, Joshua (2019) “Institutional identity”, Journal of Social Ontology<\/em> 5: 13-34. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Kaluzinski, Bartosz (2019) “Genuinely constitutive rules”, Organon F<\/em> 26:597-611. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

H\u00e9doin, Cyril (2020) “History, analytic narratives, and the rules-in-equilibrium view of institutions”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences <\/em>50: 391-417. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Vooys, Sarah and Dick, David G. (2021) “Money and mental contents”, Synthese <\/em>198: 3443\u20133458. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

H\u00e9doin, Cyril (2020) “History, analytic narratives, and the rules-in-equilibrium view of institutions”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences <\/em>50:391-417. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Strohmaier, David (2020) “Social-computation-supporting kinds”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

H\u00e9doin, Cyril (2021) “The Beliefs-Rules-Equilibrium account of\u00a0institutions: A Contribution to a naturalistic\u00a0social ontology”, Journal of Social Ontology <\/em>7: 73-96. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Ouzilou, Olivier (2021) “Entit\u00e9s institutionnelles et attitudes mentales”, Dialogue<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Roversi, Corrado (2021) “In defence of constitutive rules”, Synthese <\/em>199: <\/em>14349\u201314370. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Zachnik, Vojtech (2022) “Institutional violations, costs and attitudes”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Shevchenko, Valerii (2023) “Coordination as Naturalistic Social Ontology: Constraints and Explanation”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

James, Aaron (2023) \u201cMoney, recognition, and the outer limits of obliviousness\u201d. Synthese\u00a0<\/i>Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Werner, K. (2023) \u201cWho Asks Questions and Who Benefits from Answers: Understanding Institutions in Terms of Social Epistemic Dependencies\u201d. Erkenntnis <\/i>Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Aydinonat, N. Emrah & Ylikoski, Petri (2023) “Explaining Institutional Change”, in H. Kincaid & J. van Bouwel (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Political Science<\/em>, Oxford University Press. Link<\/p>\n

Br\u00e4nnmark, Johan (2023). “Three sources of social indeterminacy”, Philosophical Studies<\/i>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Stotts, M.H. (2024). “Moving from the mental to the behavioral in the metaphysics of social institutions”. Synthese<\/i> 203<\/b>, 123. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Rust, Joshua (2023). “Institutional genidentity”. Journal of the American Philosophical Association<\/i>, 1-20. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Larue, Louis (2025) “Against Guala and Hindriks’ functionalist theory of institutions”, Journal of Social Ontology<\/em> Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Hingl, Curtis & Shera, Marcus (2025) “Ideas, institutions and incompleteness”, Journal of Institutional Economics<\/em> 21, e8, 1-17. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Biskup, Bartosz (2026) Laws of Caring: The Right to Marry Defended<\/em>. Edward Elgar. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Several people have written comments on \u201cReciprocity: Weak or Strong<\/a>?<\/span>\u201d <\/span><\/em><\/strong>– among them Chris Boehm, Sam Bowles, Richard Boyd, Peter Richerson, Simon Gachter, David Rand, Herb Gintis, Ernst Fehr,\u00a0Jo Henrich, Elinor Ostrom, Don Ross, and Bob Sugden. <\/span><\/em>They are all here<\/a>, followed by my reply. <\/span><\/em>T<\/span><\/em>he original paper is now widely cited – see for example:<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

van Lange, Rockenbach and Yamagishi (eds. 2014) Reward and Punishment in Social Dilemmas<\/em>. Oxford University Press. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

There is now more evidence on punishment ‘in the wild’, and it seems to vindicate\u00a0 the claims I made in the BBS article. I particularly recommend Daniel Balliet’s and Niko Nikiforakis’ work:<\/em><\/p>\n

Balafoutas, L., Nikiforakis, N., & Rockenbach, B. (2014). “Direct and indirect punishment among strangers in the field”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/i>, 111<\/i>, 15924-15927. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Engelmann, D., & Nikiforakis, N. (2015). “In the long-run we are all dead: On the benefits of peer punishment in rich environments”. Social Choice and Welfare<\/i>, 45<\/i>, 561-577. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Molho, C., Tybur, J.M., Van Lange, P.A.M. & Balliet, D. (2020) “Direct and indirect punishment of norm violations in daily life”. Nature Communications<\/em> 11 (1), 1-9. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Balliet, D., Molho, C., Columbus, S. & Cruz, T.D.D. (2021) “Prosocial and Punishment Behaviors in Everyday Life”. Current Opinion in Psychology<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Cruz, T. D. D. et al (2021) “Gossip and reputation in everyday life”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B<\/em> 376: 20200301. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Li, Y. & Mifune, N. (2023) “Punishment in the public goods game is evaluated negatively irrespective of non-cooperators’ motivation”. Frontiers in Psychology <\/em>14: 1198797. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

With \u201cPreferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental<\/a>\u201d I have tried to contribute to the revived debate on the foundations of choice theory.<\/strong> Here are some related papers:<\/em><\/p>\n

Clarke, C. (2020) “Functionalism and the role of psychology in economics”. Journal of Economic Methodology<\/em>, 27: 292-310.<\/p>\n

Fumagalli, R. (2020) “How thin rational choice theory explains choices”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A<\/em>, 83: 63-74.<\/p>\n

Thoma, J. (2021) “In defence of revealed preference theory”. Economics & Philosophy<\/em>, 37: 163-187.<\/p>\n

Beck, L., & Grayot, J. D. (2021) “New functionalism and the social and behavioral sciences”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science<\/em>, 11(4), 103.<\/p>\n

Gr\u00fcne-Yanoff, T. (2022) “What preferences for behavioral welfare economics?” Journal of Economic Methodology<\/em>, 29: 153-165.<\/p>\n

Beck, L. (2022) “Why We Need to Talk About Preferences: Economic Experiments and the Where-Question”. Erkenntnis<\/em>, online first.<\/p>\n

Hausman, D. M. (2023) “Subjective total comparative evaluations”. Economics & Philosophy<\/em>, online first.<\/p>\n

Vredenburgh, Kate. (2023). Causal Explanation and Revealed Preferences. Philosophy of Science<\/i>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

In an old experiment<\/a> we tried to observe the emergence of social norms from repeated play of coordination games (social conventions). Interesting follow-up work includes<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Przepiorka, W., Szekely, A., Andrighetto, G., Diekmann, A., & Tummolini, L. (2022). “How norms emerge from conventions (and change)”,\u00a0Socius<\/i>\u00a08<\/i>, 23780231221124556. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Chennells, M., Wo\u017aniak, M., Butterfill, S., & Michael, J. (2022). “Coordinated decision-making boosts altruistic motivation\u2014but not trust”,\u00a0Plos One<\/i>\u00a017<\/i>, e0272453. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

My attempt\u00a0to revive the problem of external validity, in\u00a0The Methodology of Experimental Economics<\/a><\/span>, has generated some perplexity:<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Jones, Martin (2008) “On the autonomy of experiments in economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology<\/i> 15: 391-407. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Jimenez-Buedo, Maria, and Luis Miller (2010) “Why a trade-off? The relationship between the external and internal validity of experiments.” Theoria <\/i>25: 301-321.\u00a0Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Steel, Daniel (2010) “A new approach to argument by analogy: extrapolation and chain graphs.”\u00a0Philosophy of Science<\/i> 77: 1058-1069. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Jim\u00e9nez-Buedo, Maria (2011) “Conceptual tools for assessing experiments: some well-entrenched confusions regarding the internal\/external validity distinction.” Journal of Economic Methodology<\/i> 18: 271-282. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Heukelom, Floris (2011) “How validity travelled to economic experimenting.” Journal of Economic Methodology<\/i> 18: 13-28. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Jones, Martin (2011) “External validity and libraries of phenomena: a critique of Guala’s methodology of experimental economics<\/a>.” Economics and Philosophy<\/i> 27: 247-271 (my reply is here<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

Jackson, Cecile (2012) “Internal and external validity in experimental games: a social reality check.”\u00a0The European Journal of Development Research<\/i>, 24<\/i>(1), 71-88. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Gadenne, Volker (2013) “External validity and the new inductivism in experimental economics.” Rationality, Markets and Morals<\/i> 4, no. 63 . Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Marcellesi, Alexandre (2015) “External validity: is there still a problem?” Philosophy of Science<\/i> 82: 1308-1317. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Reiss, Julian (2019) “Against external validity.” Synthese <\/em>196: 3103-3121. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

van Eersel, Gerdien, Koppenol-Gonzalez,\u00a0Gabriela V. and Reiss,\u00a0Julian (2019) “Extrapolation of experimental results through analogical reasoning from latent classes.”\u00a0Philosophy of Science <\/em>86: 219-235. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Khosrowi, Donal (2021) “When Experiments Need Models”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

See also these\u00a0book reviews:<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

by Anna Alexandrova, Dan Hausman, Shaun Hargreaves-Heap, and Frank Hindriks, in\u00a0Journal of Economic Methodology<\/i> 15 (2008), 197-231 (this review symposium is followed by\u00a0my reply<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

by Don Ross, in\u00a0British Journal for the Philosophy of Science<\/i> 59 (2008), pp. 247-252. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

by Shepley Orr, in\u00a0Economics and Philosophy<\/i> 23 (2007), pp. 401-407. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

by Joachim Weimann, in\u00a0Journal of Economic Literature<\/i>\u00a044 (2006), pp. 726-728. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

by Ivan Moscati, in\u00a0History of Economic Ideas<\/i>, 14 (2006), pp. 123-130. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

by Fabian Muniesa, European Economic Sociology Newsletter<\/i>, 7 (2), February 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n

by David Teira, in\u00a0Theoria<\/i>, 21\u00a0(2006), pp. 342-343 (in Spanish). Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

by Flavio Felice, in\u00a0<\/span>Review of Metaphysics<\/i>, 59 (2006), pp. 888-889.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cModels, Simulations, and Experiments<\/span><\/a>\u201d defends the idea that experiments can be demarcated from simulations on the basis of their \u201cmateriality\u201d. The \u201cmateriality thesis\u201d has sparked a debate that is still going on. For example:<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parker, Wendy (2009) “Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments, and materiality.” Synthese<\/i> 169: 483-496. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Winsberg, Eric (2009) “A tale of two methods.” Synthese<\/i> 169: 575-592. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Parke, Emily (2014) “Experiments, simulations, and epistemic privilege.” Philosophy of Science<\/i> 81: 516-536. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Roush, Sherrilyn (2018) “The epistemic superiority of experiment to simulation.” Synthese<\/em>\u00a0195: 4883-4906. Link<\/a><\/p>\n

Beisbart, Claus (2018) “Are computer simulations experiments? And if not, how are they related to each other?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science <\/i>8: 171-204. Link<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Knuuttila, Tarja & Loettgers, Andrea (2021) “Biological control variously materialized: Modeling, Experimentation and Explanation in Multiple Media”, Perspectives on Science<\/em> 29: 468-492. Link<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Mattig, P. (2021) “Trustworthy simulations and their epistemic hierarchy”, Synthese<\/em>, online first. Link<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

\u201cBuilding Economic Machines<\/span><\/a>\u201d is an early contribution to the literature on \u201ceconomic performativity\u201d. My account of the design of the FCC auctions has been criticised by Edward Nik-Khah in various papers:<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nik-Khah, Edward (2006) “What the FCC Auctions can tell us about the performativity thesis.” Economic Sociology\u2013European Electronic Newsletter<\/i> 7: 15-21. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Mirowski, Philip, and Edward Nik-Khah (2007) “Performativity, and a problem in Science Studies, augmented with consideration of the FCC Auctions.” in D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa and L. Siu (eds.)\u00a0Do economists make markets?<\/i> Princeton University Press, pp.\u00a0190-225.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nik-Khah, Edward (2008) “A tale of two auctions.” Journal of Institutional Economics<\/i> 4: 73-97. Link<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Here is my reply: “Getting the FCC auctions straight<\/a>“.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The theory of institutions as \u201crules in equilibrium\u201d was developed jointly with Frank Hindriks. Some commentaries\u00a0have appeared in a symposium hosted by the Journal of Institutional Economics: Aoki, Masahiko\u00a0(2015) “Why is the equilibrium notion essential for a unified institutional theory? A friendly remark on the article by Hindriks and Guala.” Journal of Institutional Economics 11: … Continue reading “Onthecontrary”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":16,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-145","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145"}],"version-history":[{"count":83,"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/145\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":632,"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/145\/revisions\/632"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.unimi.it\/guala\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}