What is a school / school of history (historical)?

What is a school / school of history (historical)?

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Background

The nineteenth century was a golden period for the birth of new ideas and intellectual movements where humans began to realize their ability to change conditions in all fields of life. That awareness has brought a change of perspective in seeing human existence. At this time humans are seen as a dynamic form that continues to develop in the course of history. In the field of law, the nineteenth century can be said as a milestone in the birth of various schools or schools of law whose influence can be felt today. The flow or school of law that was born at this time can simply be classified into three schools, namely: the school of positivism, the school of utilitarianism and the school of history or history.

In the span of history, the development of the flow of legal thought is very dependent on the flow of legal thought before, as the backrest of criticism in order to build the next theoretical framework. Besides that the birth of a single stream is closely related to the environmental conditions in which a stream first appeared. In other words, the birth of a school or school of law can be said as a fundamental answer to the present conditions of its time. As an example, criticism of positivism and historical flow towards the flow of natural law or realist criticism of positivism can be stated. This is also the case with criticism directed by postmodernism on the establishment of modernism. (unknown, 2013)

1. Problem Formulation
2. What is a school / school of history (historical)?
3. What is an institutional school / school?
4. Who are the institutional flow figures?
5. What are the Principles of the Historical School of Admission?
6. What is the thinking of Institutional Economy?

1. Purpose of the discussion
2. To find out the meaning of the school / school of history (historical).
3. To find out the meaning of schools / institutional schools.
4. To find out the figures of institutional flow.
5. To find out the main points of the teachings of historical schools.
6. To find out the flow of Institutional Economy.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

1. The core teachings of the historical school

The birth of the school of history was pioneered by Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861) through his writings entitled Von Beruf unserer Zeit fur Gesetzgebung und Rechtwissenschaft (About Work in Our Times in the Field of Law and Legal Studies), influenced by two factors namely the first teaching Montesqueu in his book “L ‘esprit des Lois” and the influence of nationalism which began to emerge at the beginning of the 19th century. Besides, the emergence of this flow is also a direct reaction from Thibaut’s opinion which requires the codification of German civil law based on French law (Code Napoleon). These two influences can be described as follows:

According to Friedmann, this flow also provided certain actions against the two major forces in power in his day. Both of these according to Friedmann are:

1) Rationalism from the 18th century with belief in natural law, the power of reason and first principles all combined to lay a legal theory by deduction and without regard to historical facts, national characteristics, and social conditions;

2) The belief and spirit of the French revolution with its rebellion against tradition, belief in reason and the power of the human will over the conditions of its time

The core teachings of the School of History founded by Savigny is found in his book ‘von Beruf Ungerer Zeit fur Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (Concerning the Duties of Our Times for Shaping Laws and Legal Studies). Among other things said:

‘Das Recht wird nicht gemacht. est ist und wird mit dem volke (The law is not made. It grows and develops with the community)

Savigny’s teaching is motivated by a view that says that in this world there are many nations and each nation has a Volkgeist / people’s soul. This difference also certainly has an impact on legal differences adjusted to the place and time. The law is very dependent or comes from the soul of the people and the contents of the law are determined by the association of human life from time to time.

The law according to Savigny’s opinion developed from a simple society whose reflection was seen in the behavior of all individuals to a modern and complex society in which people’s legal awareness was visible in what was said by their jurists. (unknown, 2013)

2. Understanding institutional economics

In general, a school of thought in economics which contains the view that the economic behavior of a person or party is strongly influenced by a particular institution. The institution itself in this case has a broad enough meaning and can be briefly defined as “rules of the game” in a group of people, both formal and informal in nature, which are deliberately structured to limit or regulate relations between people within the community group.

Formal institutions can be in the form of rules, regulations, laws and so forth; while informal institutions can be in the form of conventions, trends, culture, etc. Thus the institution here is not the same as the organization. The Institutional School initially emerged as a refutation of the neo-classical view or school of economics which states that a person’s economic behavior is solely based on the desire of each individual to maximize profit (maximizing profit behavior). The term “institutional economics” (institutional economics) was first introduced by Walton Hamilton in 1919. However, early figures who were conventionally considered to be founders of institutional schools in economics included Thorstein Veblen, Wesley Mitchell, and John R. Commons (Rutherford, 2001 ). The views of the early figures of the institutional school emphasized several issues including: technological change, psychological aspects and legal aspects are aspects that must be included in economic analysis. At first this view was quite developed because it was considered to represent the real world (because it has empirical evidence). But in its course, the development of this school stagnated even tends to be abandoned because there is no further discussion from the supporters of this school which in the end was able to form and provide a strong theoretical foundation. developing econometric tools in its analysis as well as the development of the Welfare Economics school which is carried by JM Keynes, made institutional schools increasingly behind because with these analytical tools the neo-classical class was considered capable of providing empirical explanations.

However, since the 1970s, the school of institutional economics has experienced a revival. But the institutional school of economics that arose later was not entirely the same as the school of institutional economics brought by Veblen et al. This causes the institutional school that emerged lately is often referred to as a new institutional school (New Institutional Economics) while the views of Veblen et al henceforth are often referred to as old institutional schools (Old institutional economics). This new institutional economics school generally discusses economic behavior using analytical tools developed with the support of four theories which can also be used as analytical tools. The four theories include: (1) transaction cost theory, (2) property rights theory, (3) public choice theory, and (4) game theory (game theory) ). Another fundamental difference between the old and new institutional schools is that the new institutional school uses two basic assumptions namely that humans behave rationally (rational individual behavior) and the existence of a clear individual preference function (individual preferences function); where both of these assumptions are also basic assumptions that are very important for the neo-classical school. Therefore, new institutional schools are often not positioned as a refutation of the neo-classical school of economics (as the old institutional school) but as a form of development (extension) of the neo-classical school. The figures who developed institutional schools were Wesley Clair Mitchel, Gunnar Karl Myrdal, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Douglas North. (rizafirman, 2016) 1. Institutional Flow figures

1) THORSTEIN BUNDE VEBLEN (1857-1929)

Veblen is the son of a poor farmer who immigrated from Norway to America. In this poor peasant family, including Veblen, there were nine brothers. It seems that this background of life which is completely lacking is the starting point for why in his life he is often bitter, skeptical, and some even judge him as a fascist. The titles given to Veblen are numerous. In addition to the above titles, he is also often dubbed as a maverick, which is roughly interpreted as people who like “other than others”. Another title given to Veblen is iconoclast, which is someone who likes to attack and wants to drop ideas ideas or ideas of traditional people or institutions that are generally accepted (iconoclast = one who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions). “Radical” titles are also suitable for Veblen, because he often or even continually disputes the core truth of the structure of society. With the titles as mentioned above Veblen is often compared to Karl Mark, a socialist / marxist figure who also has extraordinary intellectual abilities and is equally often against the flow and revolutionary. Even the educational background between the two has similarities, namely having a background extensive education in the fields of sociology, politics, philosophy, history and anthropology besides economics. Veblen’s early education was in philosophy, which he took at Johns Hopkins University and Yale University. Then he deepened economics at Cornel University. Although he was a brilliant, but strangely his position as a lecturer was never higher than the assistant professor, both when he taught at Chacago, Stanford and Missouri. Because the name is very well known when students register in droves to take the courses they teach. But what students encounter is an eccentric who is always grumbling. The books written have made Veblen very famous. Some of the books he wrote include: The Theory of Leisure Class (1899), The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904), The Instict of Workmanship and the state of the Industrial Art (published in 1914, and 1920 were republished with the titles: The Vested Interests and the Comman Man); The Enggeneer and The Price system (1921); Absentee Ownership in Recent Time; The Cese of America (1923). In addition to the books mentioned above there are still many other books he wrote concerning social, political issues, even also about defense and security, education and so on. Veblen as the main character of this genre has quite a large following. Among these are: Wesley Mitchel, Gunnar Myrdal, Joseph Schumpeter, and Douglas North.

2) Wesley Clair Mitchel.

Wesley clair mitchel is a student, friend and admirer of Veblen. He was instrumental in developing quantitative methods and explaining economic events. One of his works that has become a classic is: Business Cycles and Their Causes. After PD2, Mitchel organized a research agency “National Bureau of Economic Research”. From this research it is possible to develop more research studies on national income, economic fluctuations or business cycles, changes in productivity, price analysis.

3) Gunnar Karl Myrdal

Gunnar Karl Myrdal has written many books, including: An American Dilemma, Value in Social Theory, Challenge to Affluence, and Asian Drama: An Inquiry into The Poverty of Nations. One of Myrdal’s messages to economists is to participate in making value judgments. If that is not done the theoretical structures of economics will become unrealistic. Myrdal believes that Institutional thinking is very necessary in carrying out development in developing countries.

Myrdal won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974 with F.A Hayek for his services in contributing economic thinking, especially to developing developing countries.

1) Joseph A. Schumpeter

Joseph A. Schumpeter was included in the institutional stream because he said that the main source of prosperity was not located in the economy itself, but outside it, namely in the environment and community institutions. The source of prosperity lies in the entrepreneurial spirit of the economic actors who are architects development.

2) Douglas North.

Appreciation for institutional flow peaked in 1993 when Douglas North received the Nobel Prize in economics.

So far, most economic experts consider the market mechanism as the sole driving force of the economy, and ignore the role of institutions. This is considered North wrong, because the role of institutions is no less important in economic development. market mechanism. In the face of radical changes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, North said that the reforms carried out would not produce tangible results only by improving macroeconomic policies alone but also needed the support of a set of institutions capable of providing the right incentives to every economic actor. Examples of institutions that can provide such incentives are patent and copyright law, contract law and ownership by land ownership. What is meant by North with the institution is slightly different from Veblen as the founder of institutional flow. For Veblen, institutions are defined as norms, values, traditions and culture. However, for North institutions, the following laws and regulations are coercive of these rules and norms of behavior that shape interactions between humans over and over again. North sees institutions especially in consequence of the institution of the choices made by community members.

1. Principal Doctrines of Historical Madzab

The subjects of the historical school of thought described by Savigny and some of his followers can be summarized as follows:

1) Law found not made. Legal growth is basically an unconscious and organic process, and therefore legislation is less important than custom.

2) Because law develops from legal relations that are easily understood in primitive societies to more complex laws in modern civilization, general awareness can no longer accentuate itself directly, but is presented by legal experts who formulate legal principles technically. . But the jurist is still an organ of public awareness bound to the task of giving shape to what he finds as raw material (this general awareness seems to be referred to as legal awareness by Scholten). Legislation follows at the final level; because legal experts as legislators are relatively more important than legislators.

3) Laws cannot be universally applied or applied. Each community develops its own habits because it has a unique language of customs and constitution. Savigny stressed that language and law are parallel and cannot be applied to other communities and other regions. Volkgeist can be seen in his law therefore it is very important to follow the evolution of volkgeist through legal research throughout history.

In its development, this school of history was modified by its Maine followers to put forward its theory that law develops from the status to contract, in line with the development of society from simple to complex and modern society. In modern society the relationship between members of the community is carried out on the basis of a system of rights and obligations set forth in the form of a contract which is made consciously and voluntarily by the parties concerned.

As such, Maine actually did not accept the Volkgeist Savigny concept which she considered a mystical concept. Maine actually developed a thesis that said that the journey of society to be progressive there was seen the development of a situation that is determined by the status of the contract user

Next Maine said about a static and progressive society. A static society is a society that is able to develop its own law through 3 ways, namely: fiction, equity, and legislation. This last view is what some legal writers used to distinguish Maine from Savigny. It seems that Maine does not rule out the role of legislation and codification in the development of law in advanced societies.

1. The pattern of thought of the flow of Institutional Economy

In the 20’s in the United States another stream of economic thought emerged called “institutional” economic flows. Institutional economics or institutional economics is essentially a branch of economics that emphasizes the importance of institutional aspects in determining how economic and social systems work.

There is little in common between the Institutional school and the School of History, both of which reject the Classical method. However, the basic philosophy and political conclusions of the two schools are different. Institutionalism rejects the idea of ​​experimentation as espoused by the flow of History. Likewise, the focus of institutional flow on economic issues in people’s lives is different.

The aspects of economic methodology embodied in Institutional economics are often incorporated into orthodox economics. Orthodox economics means economic thoughts that use and continue Classical economic views, such as free competition, perfect competition, consumer satisfaction.

The most influential and dominant person in the existence of Institutionalism is Thorstein Bunde Veblen. He criticized Classical and Neo-classical economic theories which ignored non-economic aspects such as institutions and the environment. (Kurniawan, 2020)

CHAPTER III

CLOSING

Conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kurniawan, A. (2020, January 29). Understanding Institutional Economics – Figure, History, Thinking, Flow, Comparison. Retrieved june 16, 2020, from gurupendukasi.co.id: https://www.gurupendukasi.co.id/peng understanding-ekonomi-institusional/#ftoc-heading-10

Rizafirman. (2016, April 23). HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THINKING INSTITUTIONAL FLOW. Retrieved June 16, 2020, from rizafirman.wordpress.com: https://rizafirman.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/sejarah-pemikir-ekonomi-aliran-institusional/

unknown. (2013, December 2). sunlight. Retrieved June 16, 2020, from cahayamentari24.blogspot.com: http://cahayamentari24.blogspot.com/2013/12/aliran-sejarah-mazhab-historis.html