Institutions and Development: A Conceptual Reanalysis

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Embedding Local Places in Global Spaces: Geographical Indications as a Territorial Development Strategy (2010, background): “…essential that policy makers do not fall into the trap of what Evans (2004) has called “institutional monocropping,” in which the set of rules developed over several centu- ries in developed countries is grafted onto different societies and expected to have the same results (see also Portes 2006).”
On Norms and Agency: Conversations about Gender Equality with Women and Men in 20 Countries (2013, background): “If they refer to informal, implicit rules that govern what a person can and cannot do in the pursuit of daily life, they are more elusive (Hechter and Opp 2001; Portes 2006; Fehr and Gachter 2000).”
Structure, institution, agency, habit, and reflexive deliberation (2008, background): “Portes (2006) has recently made similar comments, but extends this critique to some non-mainstream economists also.”
Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading (2018, background): “A diverse range of critiques questioned the mainstream institutional views that the critics perceived were based on “thin” models of institutions (Mehta et al. 1999, Portes 2006).”