In our earlier work, we argued, contra Searle, that institutional facts can be understood in terms of non-institutional facts about actions and incentives. Butchard and D’Amico claim that we have misinterpreted Searle, that our main argument against him (“the circularity objection”) has no merit and that our positive view cannot account for institutional facts created via joint action. We deny all three charges.
ButchardW.D’AmicoR.2015. “Alone Together: Why ‘Incentivization’ Fails as an Account of Institutional Facts.”Philosophy of the Social Sciences45:315-30.
2.
GualaF.2014. “On the Nature of Social Kinds.” In Perspectives on Social Ontology and Social Cognition, edited by GallotiM.MichaelJ., 57-68. Springer: Dordrecht
3.
HindriksF.GualaF.2015. “Institutions, Rules, and Equilibria: A Unified Theory.”Journal of Institutional Economics11:459-80.
SearleJ. R.1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.
6.
SearleJ. R.2005. “What Is an institution?”Journal of Institutional Economics1:1-22.
7.
SmitJ. P.BuekensF.du PlessisS. (2011). “What Is Money? An Alternative to Searle’s Institutional Facts.”Economics & Philosophy27:1-22
8.
SmitJ. P.BuekensF.du PlessisS. (2014). “Developing the Incentivized Action View of Institutional Reality.”Synthese191:1813-30.
9.
SmithB.2008. “Searle and de Soto: The New Ontology of the Social World.” In The Mystery of Capital and the Construction of Social Reality, edited by SmithB.MarkD.EhrlichI.35-51. Chicago: Open Court.
10.
SmithB.SearleJ.2003. “The Construction of Social Reality: An Exchange.”American Journal of Economics and Sociology62:285-309.
