In the philosophy of mind and cognitive science, there is a pronounced paradigm shift associated with the transition from internalism to externalism. The externalist paradigm views cognitive processes as not isolated in the brain, but as interrelated with external artefacts and structures. The paper focuses on one of the leading externalist approaches – extended cognition. Despite the dominance of internalism in economics, in its main schools, there is an emerging trend towards extended cognition ideas. In my opinion, economists might develop the most advanced version of the extended cognition approach: socially extended cognition based on cognitive institutions. This paper analyses extended cognition ideas in institutional, Austrian, and behavioural economics and identifies numerous overlapping approaches and complementary research areas. I argue that the economics of cognitive institutions is a promising field for all economic schools and propose a preliminary research agenda.

This paper discusses a research agenda for post-Northian institutional economics, which focuses on economic cognitive institutions and minds–institutions interactions. Douglass North introduced the ‘shared mental models’ and ‘shared beliefs’ concepts, which were considered the cutting edge of cognitive science at that time, the so-called first wave of extended mind theory. Subsequently, two more waves arose, but they went unnoticed by institutional economists who mostly continue to use internalist and reductionist approaches to cognition. Post-Northian institutional economics offers a deeper understanding of the relationship between cognition and institutions in the spirit of third-wave extended mind theory. The research agenda emphasizes a focus on socially extended cognition and the conception of cognitive institutions as shared mental processes (Petracca and Gallagher, 2020). I propose an alternative definition of cognitive institutions as interactively and polycentrically co-produced cognitive norms; this approach highlights normativity, co-production, and distributed active agency in extended cognitive processes. I propose two domains in which this third-wave framework can be used: ecological rationality and cognitive–cultural niche construction. This paper encourages a discussion on the prospects of a third-wave enactivist turn in institutional economics.

In response to Paniagua and Rayamajhee's (2021) proposal for a polycentric approach for pandemic governance, Frolov (2022) notes that their paper focuses on preventive measures, and neglects the deeper, cognitive dimension of coproduction. In this essay, we extend the notion of coproduction to analyze the cognitive institutions that underlie social behavior during a pandemic. We analyze the role of coproduction and polycentricity in the emergence and persistence of shared mental models, including counterproductive models such as virus skepticism, conspiracy theory beliefs, and antivaccine narratives.

Pablo Paniagua and Veeshan Rayamajhee (2021) propose an Ostromian polycentric view on coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) preventative measures co-produced by the state and citizens. I argue that we should also use another Ostromian approach – ‘crafting of institutions.’ Focusing on the crafting of cognitive institutions allows us to understand the co-production of virus containment in all its complexity. Combining the ‘crafting cognitive institutions’ and ‘boosting’ approaches will allow for the creation of institutionally and behaviorally informed anti-COVID policy interventions in line with polycentric pandemic governance.