Technology is a complex adaptive system that is both shaped by, and shapes, institutional arrangements. This critical insight, developed in depth by W. Brian Arthur – the father of complexity economics – is relevant to researchers interested in institutions. Arthur provides a method for capturing the underlying dynamics. He offers conceptual tools centred on the concept of increasing returns to make sense of some crucial challenges. He also suggests technical tools, including agent-based modelling, to tackle ill-defined economic, legal, and institutional problems. This article explores his body of work and derives some institutional insights from it.

Despite agreement on many points, including our shared insistence that ‘corporation’ and ‘firm’ are different concepts, Jean-Philippe Robé still maintains that they are mutually exclusive: no corporation is a firm, and no firm is a corporation. In contrast, we follow standard nomenclature when we point out that all (business) corporations are firms, but some firms are not corporations. We show here that this is a standard practice among lawyers writing in leading law journals and note that Robé seems to have abandoned the task of defining the firm.

For two decades, economic agents have been investing in the personal data-driven industry on the assumption that courts, the keepers of the legal systems, would have backed their claims, turning their technological control of personal data into legally protected property rights. Courts' backing has proved only temporary as they are now revising early solutions by constraining collection, use, and trade of personal data to protect the hierarchically superior rights. The theory of ‘legal bubbles’ rationalizes the economics underlying the legal shockwaves affecting the personal data-driven economy. ‘Legal bubbles’ tend to arise when economic agents invest in the economic exploitation of a new resource in a context of uncertainty and ignorance about the legal implications of innovative activities. These legal foundations may eventually turn out to be unstable as a result of courts' ex-post attempt to re-adapt them to the previously ignored implications of unconstrained commodification, with disruptive economic consequences.

In his recent book on Property, Power and Politics, Jean-Philippe Robé makes a strong case for the need to understand the legal foundations of modern capitalism. He also insists that it is important to distinguish between firms and corporations. We agree. But Robé criticizes our definition of firms in terms of legally recognized capacities on the grounds that it does not take the distinction seriously enough. He argues that firms are not legally recognized as such, as the law only knows corporations. This argument, which is capable of different interpretations, leads to the bizarre result that corporations are not firms. Using etymological and other evidence, we show that firms are treated as legally constituted business entities in both common parlance and legal discourse. The way the law defines firms and corporations, while the product of a discourse which is in many ways distinct from everyday language, has such profound implications for the way firms operate in practice that no institutional theory of the firm worthy of the name can afford to ignore it.

This article builds on a legal institutionalist approach to assess market-based regulatory change in British television production over the last three decades. It explores how formal rules governing television production constitute market relations, and whether these rules are likely to be evaded by television producers and commissioners in a context where contracting depends heavily on social norms of cooperation, reciprocity and flexibility. Using qualitative data, this article suggests that changes in law and terms of trade intended to promote a market in television production have not had a straightforward or linear effect: compulsory independent production quotas and licensing models of terms of trade have redrawn organizational boundaries in unexpected ways, disturbed the public service remit and engendered new financial flows. Formal rules were nonetheless central to the trajectory of the television production industry, as they were a constitutive element of changes in the power structure of the sector towards producers’ interests.