Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Economics, Department of Economics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran

Abstract

The history of modern Iran is marked by numerous movements and revolutions, primarily aimed at achieving a proper balance between the state and society. Despite significant efforts, Iranians have not yet reached the ideal equilibrium. This research aimed to provide a brief overview of modern Iranian history and examine the pathways of progress for both the state and society. Utilizing an institutional analysis framework and the concept of institutional congruity, the study developed a new analytical framework to analyze the state–society interaction in Iran. A game theory approach was then used to examine various scenarios of the state–society interaction. The findings revealed that the depreciation, economy of scale, and instability of preferences are crucial factors in the dynamics between the state and society. However, the rate of time preference emerged as the most decisive factor, leading to three possible equilibriums: democracy, despotic Leviathan, and absent Leviathan.
1.Introduction
According to Hegel, Iranians were historically the first people to establish a state, with their continuous history beginning with their empire (Hegel, 2004, p. 191). This continuous history narrates the dialectic between the state and society in Iran. The dynamics of this interaction can result in a stable equilibrium, an unstable equilibrium, or a fundamental disequilibrium. Given the unique nature of Iran, is it possible to achieve a balanced relationship where societal demands are met, and the state could provide ideal governance? How can we conceptualize the successive transformations and instability in the state–society interaction in contemporary Iran? Why did the Constitutional Revolution lead to Reza Khan’s dictatorship? Why did the secularization under Pahlavi II lead to the Islamic Revolution? How can we interpret this history of highs, lows, and turbulence? To address these issues, the present study aimed to explain the contemporary interaction between the state and society in Iran by using the institutional congruity framework and game theory. The goal was to present various possible equilibriums for Iran’s contemporary political economy. In other words, the research sought to elucidate the potential balance of the political economy in Iran based on the state–society interaction.
2.Materials and Methods
In the institutional balance between the state and society, a dynamic interplay is unfolding. Building on the model proposed by Acemoglu and Robinson (2023), this study attempted to derive various possible scenarios of the state–society interaction in Iran. Time is represented discretely, with the length of each period denoted as Δ>0. At time t, the variables from the previous period are as follows:
 
where x represents the capacity of society, and s represents the capacity of state. At each point, society and the state are represented by a player. At any time, players simultaneously choose their investments , which determines their current capacity according to the following equations:
 
 
For both the short-term state and society, various scenarios can be formulated regarding the presence or absence of depreciation and the oscillating nature of their inclinations. Consider the cost function for two players as follows:
 
and
 
3.Results and Discussion
The results suggest that beginning with low capacities for both the state and society can lead to a trajectory where a society starting with a weak state might directly evolve into one moving toward either a despotic Leviathan or an absent Leviathan. This dynamic is illustrated in the following phase diagram:
Figure 1: First Scenario: The Short-Term Society
 
In this scenario, it is evident that without depreciation, there is significant potential for Iranians to advance within a narrow corridor. However, as depreciation increases, this potential diminishes, eventually leading to a state of collapse (0, 0).
 
 
Figure 2: Second Scenario: The Short-Term Society with Unstable Preferences
 
The transformations in modern Iranian history show varying dynamics in both society and the state across different periods, reflecting differences in their types and levels of societal participation and efforts to achieve their respective goals. The high dynamics demonstrate that in a short-term scenario-assuming a depreciation rate of 0.1-if society is active (while the state is not), the predominant state tends towards anarchy. In the opposite scenario, the predominant state shifts towards a despotic Leviathan.
Figure 3: Third Scenario: The Short-Term State
 
The results of this scenario mirror those of the first scenario, highlighting the significant impact of depreciation on future possibilities. In contrast, the possibilities lean more towards a despotic Leviathan, whereas in the first scenario, the tendencies for a short-term society leaned more towards anarchy.
 
 
Figure 4: The Short-Term State with Unstable Preferences
 
In this scenario, similar to the second one, it is apparent that the efforts and engagement of both society and the state must be parallel and substantially proportional to each other. If either entity remains passive, the situation tends towards either pure despotism or anarchy.
When it comes to time preference rates, it is crucial to consider the long-term, forward-looking perspectives of both the state and society. In the first scenario, the state is short-term and active with . Being active implies significant investment in the state capacity accumulation. In the second scenario, the state remains short-term and active with . These two situations were examined under two conditions:  and .
Figure 5: The Role of Time Preference in the Long-Run Equilibria of Iran’s Political Economy
 
The above phase diagram effectively illustrates the significance of time preferences and their causal precedence in determining the state of the Leviathan in Iran. Even with depreciation and the short-term nature of both society and the state, achieving a stable equilibrium state (narrow corridor) is feasible when time preferences are appropriately aligned. Otherwise, depending on the short-term nature of either society or the state, the expected outcome will tend towards despotism or pure anarchy.
4.Conclusion
In Iran, both society and the state must adopt a long-term rationality based on historical self-awareness to progress harmoniously. The primary challenges faced by Iranian society and the state stem from their short-term outlooks, as reflected in their time preferences. Whether society or the state prioritizes short-term goals, it becomes evident that depreciation significantly limits the possibility to enter the narrow corridor of stability. When both the state and society fail to coordinate efforts— whether in the short-term society or short-term state—it often leads to either pure despotism or anarchy. Despite the depreciation, economies of scale, and instability of preferences, it is the rate of time preferences that ultimately determines whether entry into the narrow corridor is feasible. Furthermore, this rate of time preferences dictates whether the equilibrium state leans towards a despotic Leviathan or an absent one, contingent upon the economies of scale achieved by both the state and society.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Acemoglu, D. (2010). Theory, general equilibrium, and political economy in development economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 17–32. doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.3.17 
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. (2022). Non-modernization: Power–culture trajectories and the dynamics of political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 25(1), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103913
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2017). The emergence of weak, despotic and inclusive states. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23657
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2019). The narrow corridor to liberty: The red queen and the struggle of state against society. Penguin, New York.
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2021). Culture, institutions and social equilibria: A framework. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28832
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2023). Weak, despotic, or inclusive? how state type emerges from state versus civil society competition. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 407–420. doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000740 
Amirahmadi, H. (1996). Emerging civil society in Iran. SAIS Review (1989-2003), 16(2), 87–107. doi.org/10.1353/sais.1996.0022
Aoki, M. (2011). Institutions as cognitive media between strategic interactions and individual beliefs. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 79(1–2), 20–34. doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.01.025
Bondarenko, O., Kozarezenko, L., Chunikhina, T. & Solomka, O. (2021). Social interaction of the state and society as a reference point of public marketing. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(6), Article 6. doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i6.5121
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago press.
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Harvard university press.
Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional economics–its place in political economy, New York: Macmillan.
Corbin, H. (1986). Philosophie Iranienne et philosophie comparée. Revue Philosophique de La France Et de l, 176(1). https://philpapers.org/rec/CORPIE-2
Dai, S. (2015). Networks of institutions: institutional emergence, social structure and national systems of policies (Vol. 1). Routledge.
Foran, J. (Ed.). (1994). A century of revolution: social movements in Iran (Vol. 2). U of Minnesota Press.
Fox, J., Sullivan Robinson, R. & Hossain, N. (2023). Pathways towards power shifts: state-society synergy. World Development, 172, 106346. doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106346
Gates, S., Hegre, H., Jones, M. P. & Strand, H. (2006). Institutional inconsistency and political instability: polity duration, 1800–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 893–908. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00222.x
Gaus, G. F. & Kukathas, C. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of Political theory. Sage.
Gheissari, A. & Nasr, S. V. R. (2009). Democracy in Iran: History and the quest for liberty. Oxford University Press.
Goode, O. (2019). A matter of time: How time preferences make or break civilization. Independently published.
Greif, A. & Kingston, C. (2011). Institutions: rules or equilibria? In N. Schofield & G. Caballero (Eds.), Political economy of institutions, democracy and voting (13–43). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19519-8_2
Guerin, F. (2007). Applying game theory mechanisms in open agent systems with complete information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 15(2), 109–146. doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-9005-2
Hamilton, W. H. (1932). Institution. Encyclopedia of the social sciences, 8, 84–89.
Hayden, F. G. (1982). Social fabric matrix: from perspective to analytical tool. Journal of Economic Issues, 16(3), 637–662. doi: 10.1080/00213624.1982.11504025
Hayek, F. A. (2012). The sensory order: an inquiry into the foundations of theoretical psychology. University of Chicago Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. & Sibree, J. (2004). The philosophy of history. Courier Corporation.
Hindriks, F. & Guala, F. (2015). Institutions, rules, and equilibria: a unified theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 459–480. doi:10.1017/S1744137414000496
Hirshleifer, J. (1989). Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: ratio vs. difference models of relative success. Public Choice, 63(2), 101–112. doi.org/10.1007/BF00153394
Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford World's Classic. Oxford Press.
Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Economics and institutions: A manifesto for a modern insitutional economics. University of Pennsylvania Press. doi.org/10.9783/9781512816952
Hodgson, G. M. (1998). The approach of institutional economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 166–192.
Hodgson, G. M. (2015). On defining institutions: Rules versus equilibria. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 497–505. doi:10.1017/S1744137415000028
Hoseiny, S. A., Raanaei, A., Moarefi mohammadi, A. (2022). Analysis of the role of institutional inconsistency and inefficiency of the governance system in the underdevelopment of Iran before the revolution of 1979. Journal of Iranian Economic Issues, 9(2), 3-27. doi:10.30465/ce.2023.34015.1580 [In Persian]
Janadleh, A. (2017). Institutional relations between state and society in pre-modernized Iran (criticizing the theory of historical gap between the state and the nation in Iran and providing an alternative view).
Quarterly Journal of Social sciences, 76(27), 27-74 [In Persain]. doi:10.22054/qjss.2017.7601   
Kasper, W. & Streit, M. E. (1999). Institutional economics. Books.
Katouzian, H. (1981). The political economy of modern Iran, London and New York: Macmillan and New York University Press.
Kirdina, S. (2014). Institutional matrices and the development of Russia, or introduction to X&Y theory. Forthcoming in the Journal for Institutional Studies, 6(4).
Krusell, P., Quadrini, V. & Ríos-Rull, J.V. (1997). Politico-economic equilibrium and economic growth. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21(1), 243–272. doi.org/10.1016/0165-1889(95)00931-0
Lee, E. W. Y. (1999). Governing post-colonial Hong Kong: institutional incongruity, governance crisis, and authoritarianism. Asian Survey, 39(6), 940–959.doi.org/10.2307/3021147
Lindenberg, S. (1998). The cognitive turn in institutional analysis: beyond NIE and NIS? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 154(4), 716–727.
Machiavelli, N. (1961) [1532]. The prince. New York: Penguin
Moameni, F., Mirzaei, H. & Jafari, A. (2022). Evaluating the thoughts of contemporaneous intellectuals concerning the causes of underdevelopment in Iran with an emphasis on property right according to political economy approach. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, https://doi:10.22054/ijer.2022.67001.1084 [In Persian].
Nasr, S. H. (2003). Islam: Religion, history, and civilization.
Nasr, S. H. (2010). In search of the sacred: A conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on his life and thought. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
North, D. C. (2010). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton university press.
Nourbakhsh, Y. & Naderi, H. (2020). Analysis of changes in the types of state-society relations in the formation of social issues and the occurrence of anomic status. Sociological Review27(1), 199-222. doi:10.22059/jsr.2020.78752 [In Persian].
Pargoo, M. (2021). Secularization of Islam in post-revolutionary Iran. Routledge.
Petracca, E. & Gallagher, S. (2020). Economic cognitive institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(6), 747–765. doi.org/10.1017/S1744137420000144
Qiaoan, R. (2020). State–society relations under a new model of control in China: Graduated control 2.0. China Information, 34(1), 24–44. doi.org/10.1177/0920203X19897740
Rahnema, A. (2021). The rise of modern despotism in Iran: The shah, the opposition, and the US, 1953–1968. Simon and Schuster.
Roe, T. (2006). A primer on political economy in static general equilibrium. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280361/
Rosenbaum, E. (2022). Mental models and institutional inertia. Journal of Institutional Economics18(3), 361–378. doi:10.1017/S174413742100059X
Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge university press.
Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics1(1), 1–22. doi:10.1017/S1744137405000020.
Shayegan, D. (2010). Qu’est-ce qu’une révolution religieuse? Albin Michel.
Tabatabai, S. J. (2013). On Iran 1: An introduction to the theory of decline of Iran. Tehran: Mino Kherad. [In Persian]
Ugur, M. (1997). State-society interaction and European integration: A political economy approach to the dynamics and policy-making of the European union. Review of International Studies, 23(4), 469–500. doi.org/10.1017/S0260210597004695
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. sl: Oxford University Press.
Wenzel, N. G. (2010). An institutional solution for a cognitive problem: Hayek’s sensory order as foundation for Hayek’s institutional order. In The Social Science of Hayek’s ‘The Sensory Order.’ Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Wright, J. R. & Leyton-Brown, K. (2020). A formal separation between strategic and nonstrategic behavior. Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 535–536. doi.org/10.1145/3391403.3399525
Zhang, N. & Lee, M. M. (2020). Literacy and state–society interactions in nineteenth-century France. American Journal of Political Science, 64(4), 1001–1016. doi.org/10.1111/ajps.125