We argue here that this apparently paradoxical situation can be understood once one takes into account the amount of institutional change (or institutional trait-making) that would need to accompany the introduction of labour-intensive techniques on a large scale.
Is it possible to formally or semi-formally analyse qualitative institutional cultural traits?
Policy entrepreneurs are effective when they have certain behavioural traits, institutional constraints, political capital and network position.
Their success in the policy-making process has been associated with the convergence of four factors: behavioural traits; institutional factors; network position and political capital.
Adapted from Christopoulos (2006), a policy entrepreneurs' effectiveness can be explained by the convergence of four domains: behavioural traits, institutional constraints, network position and political capital.
Policy implications can be on two dimensions; (a) investments in education to improve cultural traits and (b) lessening transaction costs and institutional reorganisation to improve economic institutions, related to opportunity entrepreneurship.
Effective behavioural traits are often necessary to amass political capital, strengthen network position and leverage or circumvent institutions; indeed the impact of positive behavioural traits is multiplied in a supportive institutional environment.
Cultural evolution is a long-term endogenous process which is revealed in society's cultural traits and it is embodied in institutional characteristics (property rights protection, rule of law, etc).
To suggest, in other words, that success — material, social, sexual, emotional — depends on (our!) gender traits and not on the legal and institutional frameworks we live in?
I assume that various institutional, developmental, and genetic factors interact to produce religious traits.
Previous CSR literature pays much attention to the institutional and organizational level, and they merely link individual executive traits with CSR performance.
