Talk:Institution

Untitled

The economics discussion about institutions looks inaccurate (or at least, old-fashioned) to me. FWICT, institutions are mostly viewed as (Nash) equilibria in games, rather than the structure of the game itself. That is, game theory analyses of institutions often attempt to demonstrate why a particular social structure is stable or self-enforcing. Am I being biased here? Is there anything I should read to get a more balanced view of modern economic thinking relating to institutions?

Obviously, if you want to understand the effects of an institution, rather than understand the institution itself, then you could take the institution as exogenous, and construct games in which the only possible actions are ones that follow the rules of the institution.

Any objections to a rewrite of the economics section along these lines?

--Clausen 05:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economics section rewrite

I have done the rewrite of the economics section I proposed earlier. --Clausen 11:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"History of institutions" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect History of institutions and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#History of institutions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Likely AI generated material

Hi - I added the AI generated template here, specifically regarding the IP edits made in early 2023; collectively, they display many strong indicators of LLM use and may not have been thoroughly reviewed. Thus, they need checking for sourcing, hallucinations, source-to-text integrity, tone, speculation, editorializing, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)