Let us define institutions as sets of rules governing interpersonal relations, noting that we are talking about formal political and organizational p… - Þráinn Eggertsson

The concept of state ownership is particularly ambiguous. In a democratic society, state property may have some of the characteristics of common property; for instance, the citizens usually do not have the right to sell their individual titles to public property, whereas under dictatorship, state ownership can approach the system of private property with the economy resembling a huge corporation.

This book grew out of my interest in organizational forms and institutional arrangements and their impact on economic outcomes. Price theory or microeconomics, in its conventional form, treats organizations and institutions the same way as it treats the law of gravity: These factors are implicitly assumed to exist but appear neither as independent nor as dependent variables in the models. Such economy in model making can be eminently reasonable. It enables us to isolate critical relationships and simplifies the use of mathematical tools in the analysis. However, unlike the law of gravity, organizations and institutions are not invariant; they vary with time and location, with political arrangements and structures of property rights, with technologies employed, and with physical qualities of resources, commodities, and services that are exchanged. In fact, production involves not only the physical transformation of inputs into outputs but also the transfer of property rights between the owners of resources, commodities, and labor services. In the transfer of rights, whether within firms or across markets, agents maximize their objective functions subject to the constraints of organizations and institutions.

In 1984, I set out to investigate whether my demand for institutional analysis had created its own supply, whether the thesis of institution-free economics had created its antithesis. My working rule was to limit the study to contributions that did not alter the core of the economic approach, particularly the rational-choice model, and to seek a new synthesis of neoclassical and institutional economics. Neoinstitutional Economics is the term I use.