Pyramids, Fruit bowls and Rape Gangs: The role of institutional pressures in miscarriages and abortions of justice.

What is an Institution?

“Institutions are social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. [They] are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and regulative elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life. Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers, including symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, and facts. Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, from the world system to localized interpersonal relationships. Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject to change processes, both incremental and discontinuous” (Scott, 1995: 33; 2001:48).

“If a man accuses another man and charges him with homicide, but cannot bring proof against him, his accuser shall be killed. (1)[78]” (Hammurabi’s stele laws 1-5).

One of my favourite historical imaginings is being on the archaeological team that extracted Hammurabi’s famous “stele” in 1901, broken in pieces in the sand, dating from around c1750BC. Written in stone were the prices of things that could never be maintained and, written in stone, it lay broken for hundreds of years, an illustration of Darwin’s alleged assertion that the best way to survive is to adapt. You don’t do that writing things in stone. Not even the Romans managed that.

Nevertheless, it came from an ancient culture that had, on the surface, some sort of organisational structure. It was a hierarchy, a three-part, top-down model that has survived to this day and of which the Egyptians were the greatest example. At the top, a Pharaoh (translated as “big house”, i.e. palace), a tribal chieftain, war-lord or God-King, then a council which usually meant generals, and then the masses. Unfortunately, the early Mesopotamian kings such as Babylon and Ur, built in clay, but the Pharaohs built in stone: the king became an institution. An institution, as it happens, to be reflected in the pyramids themselves: the top-down hierarchy.

Subsequently, this previously informal structure then became an institution. Of course, the Pharoah looked on his people as ants and the great temples and pyramids as garden furniture, but power (read decrees) flowed from him to the council, down to the people. His word was absolute, rebellion was punishable by painful deaths. Thus, conformity was placed on all individuals, although they didn’t necessarily see themselves that way. As we can see from Assyrian sculptures, the men dressed alike even to their hair and beards. Slaves, of which there were many, didn’t matter. Conformity, in all hierarchies, is the dominant norm. No questioning allowed. That was the very structure Socrates questioned.

Following that, the first market to be institutionalised, as far as we know, was the agora in Athens c500BC, but a market isn’t an institution as such, it doesn’t operate like one (there are diverse options to buy and sell), but by being built in stone it becomes one in theory. Nevertheless, Athens and Greece had, by now (c500BC), kings and administrations, an early form of democracy but a taste for “tyrants” and authoritarians, again, the very institutions that Socrates questioned and paid the price for.

The “built” hierarchy, however, is the definition of an institution. Early hierarchies such as in the Amerindians and elsewhere would rate as customary practices, but events can blow them away. Built institutions are more permanent. As history proceeded so these institutions multiplied, not least through the Catholic Church, the State and the Monarchy.

At which point, I can turn to England in 1066. When William arrived and conquered, all the wooden churches were demolished to build stone ones, coupled with the building of hundreds of castles by the 170 barons (according to Domesday,1086) he created on arrival and after. All these structures were hierarchies that needed to be run by an administration. That administration would become the bureaucracy: those that work in offices.

This remained the case until 1485 and the Battle of Bosworth when the accountant Henry VII came to power and a rational system of administration started to emerge (Henry VII can be seen to be economically rational in his writings). By this time many other institutions had developed, not least the Guilds and the powerful baronetcies that have long since prospered. The administration of these institutions then had to be administered by reliable people and thus came into the world as “bureaucracy”.

Bureaucracy

Apparently, the word bureaucracy did not come into use until the early 19th century. Prior to that we had clerks or scribes both in the Church and in government and elsewhere. Weber created a theory of bureaucracy in his book Economy and Society (1921; many political economists have covered this area) and before long we saw the bowler-hatted gentlemen marching to work in London via the 8.29 from Weybridge, by that time, in all probability living in one of the new suburbs.

Ergo, 4000 years later we still see the strong link between conformity, bureaucracy and the hierarchical institutions in which they work. We have the civil service. These people, now both men and women, unelected, make most of the decisions regarding policy, as we saw recently with the Sentencing Quango. We have Whitehall and all the local councils and hundreds more quangos. These are usually from the university graduate group and their education differs greatly from the capitalist group. Bureaucrats, virtually by definition, go to universities, but the capitalist group go to technical colleges (originally Mechanics Institutes and T.H. Huxley). The two systems couldn’t be more different and is probably why John Major, ex UK Prime Minister, tried to ban the technical colleges (they are now being reinstated) because the technical college mind-set differs greatly from the Liberal “uni”.

This is why: Universities emerged out of Christianity in the West, from around 1100, first in Bologna, Italy, then in England, famously, at Oxford and Cambridge, known as “Oxbridge”. They were religious institutions. The clear demand from the universities was that the clerics (clerks from Greek klerikos, land-holder, at a time when land was the equivalent of capital; “lot-holder”) conformed to Christian canons, i.e. they should hold to the decisions of the synods in Christian doctrine. Of course, by the 1500s and the Reformation, many didn’t conform and met with painful deaths “pour encourager les autres”. That is: conformity was the central tenet to the doctrines. Bowler-hatted men stand as the “ideal-typical model” (Weber, ibid) of post war bureaucratic conformity, although rainbow lanyards may have changed the style, but not the underlying question. Are you one of us?

So, Whitehall and town halls represent the public bureaucracy, but there is another: corporate bureaucracy.

Corporations

It has to be said there have always been corporations in England, usually described as “corporate bodies” or “bodies corporate” relating to all kind of religious and governmental institutions. Modern corporations or “publicly limited companies” or PLCs, as I learned in management school, are different and are defined by the Joint-Stock Act, first passed in Prussia in 1843 and then in London in 1844 and 1856. Adam Smith (1776) doubted corporations such as this could exist. Even great men can be wrong sometimes.

For the purposes of building canals and railways it was impossible for one person or a handful of partners to have enough money to pay for such massive undertaking. If, say. 1,000 people invested in a railway line it was quite possible that the managing director could run off with the money and it was impossible to sue him (usually) because each plaintiff had to get a separate solicitor. The Joint-Stock Act changed this by allowing ALL the claimants to use one solicitor, now known as a “class action”. This reduced the cost and logistics of suing, and it has to be said, despite the unfortunate origins of the idea, it seems to work. Greenpeace and many other charities should be grateful.

Consequently, there was a sure and steady increase of these economic institutions, with thousands of investing members, who were enabled to build huge structures (railways, canals, skyscrapers) with a controlled risk. Insurance companies especially benefitted and thus we saw the first sky-scraper (for “Home Insurance”) in Chicago in 1883, curiously enough, the year of Marx’s death. He knew nothing of the rise of corporations and the difference between capitalism (which is an individual activity) and corporatism (which is a group activity). The problem is: nobody else knew of the unforeseen consequences and risks of a multitude of large organisations and the cultural effect of having so many graduate bureaucrats.

So, in 1844 the Joint-Stock Act was passed in England and by 1858 the Liberal Party was formed and the Liberal Party cannot be separated from these huge organisations. The Liberals favoured laissez-faire international trade and international Law. Conservatives, true to their roots favoured local capitalism – ie shopkeeping in all its forms, owned by individuals and families, rather than the globalist corporate model, a model that crashed in 1916 during WWI, never to recover in England. The party was closed in 1980 and replaced by the Liberal Democrats. In the USA, Liberals support the Democrat party. In Australia the Conservatives call themselves Liberals and Canada seems to continue to be Liberal vs Conservative.

This dichotomy is still to be seen: the Liberal Left and the Reform-Conservative parties, the first corporate and the latter capitalist (although the Conservatives have struggled with Liberals being covertly in the party). The real issue is, as we have all seen, that corporations demand the same type of conformity that government and Church demand, albeit the Church has been sidelined by the welfare State. It is this conformity that both makes the institutions work, but it is also their weakness.

Conformity

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.” (Milgram: The perils of Obedience, 1974).

Any psychologist worth the name will know about Milgram’s experiments (Milgram,1974). Although criticised on ethical grounds since, these experiments point out something concerning if a person, let’s say a bureaucrat, is unable to ignore the instructions of someone seen as an authority figure, even if those instructions cause harm. The answer was no. Although the experiment was a fake scenario, the results were clear. Whether or not their values allowed it, they would inflict pain. We have discussed cognitive dissonance before, and it would seem that some participants inflicting the (imaginary) pain – the victim was an experimental confederate and was faking the cries of pain – did have qualms or reservations i.e. cognitive dissonance was kicking in, as it were, but the result was the same. They pushed that button to squeals of pain; (the experiments were originally undertaken to explain the cruelty of National Socialist (“Nazi”) guards in the prison camps).

So it is with modern corporations: only in exceptional cases will employees refuse instructions (Amy Gallagher is one). We have seen many examples of people being cancelled or sacked for non-conformist views in educational settings (Kathleen Stock and myself). In the Post Office scandal, we saw sub-postmasters being prosecuted even when the lawyers concerned knew the discrepancies in the postmasters’ accounts were not caused by the Postmasters’ themselves but by the Horizon computer system itself.

As with the case of Edward Henry KC, representing the postmasters, pondered in his summing up. How could professional executives and lawyers do this?

Institutional Pressures

“Institutions act as forces upon individuals and organizations, developing social pressures and constraints and setting limits for all things accepted and not accepted. These influences can be in the shape of normative, coercive and mimetic pressures” (Davidsson et al., 2006; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

“Subordinates expect to be told what to do” (Hofstede et al, 2010, p73).

There are three principle forms of institutional pressure: coercive, mimetic, and normative filed under “Institutional Isomorphism” (e.g. DiMaggio and Powell,1983). In the context of the criminal justice system in general, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), defence lawyers and the judiciary in particular, all these forces come into play as pressures. Coercive speaks for itself, mimetic is when one wants to “fit in” by copying other players and normative is sociological and refers to fitting-in with broader social ideals such as respectability and reliability amongst others.

We’ve heard the phrase “I’ve got kids in college” as the catch-all phrase for corporates who accept doing something they don’t want to do. It’s a fair point. You work at a corporation and get £50,000 a year if you’re lucky, losing your job would be disastrous given all the expenses we have now. Gone are the days of a cheap flat, a telephone and a cheap car. Offspring going to university - which isn’t always the best idea – is expensive and itself was politically motivated to get as many graduates as possible to fit into the corporate Liberal worldview of DEI and Woke in the first place.

The government bureaucracy is a good job choice if you’re the conformist/concrete operational type. A steady income, (which is not always the way with sole-traders i.e. capitalists, where turn-over is directly linked to economic circumstances) and, what’s more, a reasonable pension after 30 years. From a sole-trader’s point of views that pension is a massive benefit. One wouldn’t want to lose that, would one?

Then there is the nature of the education. Universities demand conformity, the technical college system (originally Mechanics’ Institutes) teaches Socratic thinking. Indeed, in the 19th Century such colleges were at loggerheads with the university system. These two mind-sets are significantly different, and the technical college system promoted by Darwin’s Bulldog, T.H. Huxley was created in the mid-19th century exactly to provide assistance to “working” people to get appropriate skills. As outlined above, universities have an ancient origin in the early feudal period. The technical colleges were a new system for a new system and a new man: Homo Economicus.

Pyramids and Fruit bowls

The fundamental issue regarding hierarchies, institutions and bureaucracies is that they are pyramidal or more commonly known now as “top down”. Instructions come from above and employees are concerned not to rock the boat: “subordinates expect to be told what to do” (Hofstede, 2010, p73).

Where DiMaggio and Powell are pointing to inter-institutional relationships such as trade standards, political correctness such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, there is less emphasis on the thought of the individual in such constructed environments. Sociology is the study of the inter-play of institutions, the law regulates the interaction between them, but individual psychological states (or mindsets) have only relatively recently become issues. The standard institution depends on punctuality, presence, and conformity and the following of instructions from the leadership. Information comes down. Trying to send information upwards is difficult as many a whistleblower has found out. The mere attempt at whistle-blowing can be career-ending and involvement in court cases.

While organisations may be seen as looser structures and institutions have the idea of tradition within them, the multitude of joint-stock corporations are disciplined internally and less traditionalist; they nevertheless resemble baronetcies jostling for power in feudal England; but that posture in itself becomes a normative pressure as a mimetic (copying) pressure in that all institutions want to maintain their status alongside similar institutions. Hierarchies have been around a long time. There must, as they say, be another way.

The solution I suggest is the “fruit bowl” system: power should still rest at the centre but information should flow “down” to the centre so as to better inform the decision-maker(s) of market and/or social conditions and stop them making mistakes. The immediate concern is that, with that fruit bowl metaphor, power cannot flow “out” (or down) from the centre to the in-group in a direct fashion as a hierarchy can; but this is just a metaphorical fruit bowl. It encourages the leadership to listen as well as instruct. Often, leadership has suffered itself from institutional pressures, they undoubtedly have. They were treated arbitrarily, so they expect others to do the same. For example, the police hand the papers to the CPS, the CPS decide to prosecute and then the wheels go into action despite the fact it turns out to be a failed prosecution, or it goes to appeal when it would have been better not to charge the person at all. Greater discussion could have avoided such a waste of time and money.

Thereby hangs the tale: “I was just following orders”. This, in itself, can cause massive problems if the employees are carrying out orders that turn out to be disastrous as the recent spate of serious miscarriages have shown.

Similarly, the Gender Recognition Act (2004), which so clearly conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, should have been questioned at the time, at first and second readings, as well as in committee.

Likewise with the Rape Gangs. The claims are that the necessary prosecutions DIDN’T take place was because powerful institutional pressures within councils prevented them from doing so because of fears of damaging community relations, when the Labour dominated councils really feared losing Muslim and other votes if they allowed said prosecutions. That is hard to process, personally. The need for votes exceeded the need for child safety? That, in itself, is criminal.

Then, there’s the Post office scandal where action was taken against postmasters when the corporate executives and lawyers knew the Horizon system was at fault.

Then, there’s the Lucy Letby case where there was ample exculpatory evidence in the first place not to press charges, in fact the case should have been directed at, and now appears to be, against the two senior consultants and the NHS administrators. The institutional pressures within the Countess of Chester Hospital obviously played a massive part in Lucy’s conviction with the hospital trying to protect their consultants and admin staff.

Conclusions

Prior to the Enlightenment, started symbolically by the 1485 Battle of Bosworth, the world was inhabited by peasants, subsistence farmers or what we can call Homo Peasanticus. Then, although not entirely without warning, a new man was metaphorically created at the Battle of Bosworth: Homo Economicus. Then, to complicate matters, over time and in large part created by the new Protestant, High Anglican Church, another man was created: Homo Bureaucraticus. Economic Man is motivated by markets and making money. Bureaucratic Man is interested in process and administration. Bureaucratic Man tends to despise Economic Man, now usually known as a “Tory” or Conservative.

The larger the state, the larger the bureaucracy, but by the 18th century the aggregate market became bigger than the State. With the creation of joint-stock corporations, after the end of WWII, corporations, especially US ones, had become bigger than some states.

However, the State is bigger than any one corporation, rather like the King was larger than any one Lord. Orwell’s 1984 gave a dystopic, but not altogether impossible, view of the authoritarian bureaucratic state which Economic Man, who is by nature individualistic, opposes and fights against.

This whole trend of individualism increased so enormously that, in 1851, England became the first country in the world to have more people living in cities than on the land, a landmark statistic. This new, rational man, released from the feudal controls of service began to invent and create.

Meanwhile the bureaucratic state still dominated but, by 1945, it had expanded round the world in the form of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation to create a massive global administration at which point the bureaucrats and corporates realised they had much in common in that they were hierarchies and their roles started to blur, leading to the “revolving door” phenomenon where politicians became corporates and corporates became politicians such as Mark Carney in Canada recently.

What this created was a powerful international in-group that were salaried, bureaucratic and protected from the real world by taxis, limousines, private jets for some and corporate welfare. And handsome pensions. That is, as long as they stuck to the narrative which was dictated by corporate aggregate wealth, manage by international believers.

This sort of Liberal Corporate life becomes a determinant of thinking style/mindset and spreads its threads throughout the administrative state down to the judges and the courts. What is dangerously clear is the new corporate, Liberal globalist elite started to see themselves as superior to the ordinary people (who were financing their salaries) and started to protect their own from the ordinary uneducated masses, other than those that went to university. The Bureaucrat had become the Pharoah. The masses were ants, and institutional buildings the garden ornaments.

Consequently, in CPS offices and the judges’ chambers, international institutional pressures also came to play. Let me give a practical illustration of this.

Showbusiness and politics have many similarities, but the most striking is this: when I was a late teenager getting a band together, everyone thinks it’s great. A new band, a new sound – a mixture of funk and rock in my case – and enthusiastically supported and enjoyed (notwithstanding the usual band bust-ups) by a local and then a regional “fan base”. Similarly, a hard-working and energetic councillor or M.P. – the amount of walking they have to do – and I did -is prodigious - works hard and their supporters think they’re just great.

Then, when we hit the Big Time back in the day, everything changed: false allegations, gossip, back-stabbing, issues from your past all become the norm and it becomes a tough, if not actually unpleasant, experience. We can see the same happens when a back-bencher becomes a minister. The spotlight turns on them. Recently Labour minister Louise Haige had a similar problem from her past ending her ministerial career, at least for now.

That’s the power of power and money. What was fun, becomes a nightmare, the stakes being so high because of the aggregate wealth of national and international corporate forces. As a pop singer you are faced with massively powerful corporate record companies and an M.P. is faced with powerful nation-states, and corporations, as well as unions and trade associations. That is institutional pressure. Are you making decisions YOU want to make or are you trying to satisfy external pressures that suggest advancement of your own career. Fame, my friends, is a poison chalice, and some people love drinking from it, Madonna for example.

At that point, in a legal setting, there comes the danger of confirmation bias, where the judge, prosecutor, police or defence lawyer may crumble in the face of institutional pressures (“I want this criminal caught!”) and take the easy option, which is what confirmation bias does. Papers are lost, emails deleted, evidence concealed, discovery/disclosure denied, the waters muddied, in one direction of another, an innocent person convicted, the bureaucrats get paid and they all go home, college fees paid.

Ridiculous you cry! Sadly not: and even I did not know it was this bad until I studied it specifically in 2019. Both in the Post Office case and the Rape gangs’ case, one a private corporation, the other the centre of the bureaucratic machine, innocents were sacrificed for the benefit of a lot of jobs, pensions and reputations on one hand, and the Muslim community and the Labour party on the other. The reputations of the defendants didn’t matter, they were little people. Only the Big People matter. The bureaucrats, now known as the Liberal Elite, hold sway.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) have also come to the fore as a result of recent events, where permission for an appeal of a contested conviction have been extremely difficult to get. Having tested the system in late 2022, early 2023, I can confirm that their attitude to applications is dismissive. Despite my offering to provide further evidence (I wanted to ascertain from them the appropriate form the evidence should take, i.e. transcripts etc) they had no interest in helping me other than to tell me if I didn’t like their decision, I could make a complaint to the CCRC complaints department. That I did, but it just extended a process that was aimed at delaying and putting me off. It subsequently became clear that the CCRC is a “gatekeeper” of the system of appeals, to prevent matters being reviewed. The institutional pressure is for them to prevent further appeals. The ”real possibility” test depends on “new” evidence, but as we can see know, not least in the Malkinson case, inter alia, no real attempt is made by the CCRC to properly examine new evidence, not least in my case: they didn’t even look at it. In this instance, I was using my case to act as a “mystery shopper”, enabling me to examine how the system works and my impression was and is that it doesn’t.

The good news is that the then head of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher resigned on January 15th, this year, 2025, after an independent panel decided she was not fit to be Chair (as detailed by Michael Naughton in the Bristol Law School Blog on February 3rd, 2025). Management experience suggested to me there was poor leadership, the facts show that it isn’t really the CCRC agents “fault” that applications are dismissed, but that the CCRC is set up politically so that convictions – and the decision-making of judges - cannot be easily be contested. It wasn’t just Pitcher that was responsible but the whole cohort of public employees engaged in this work. My advice to Ms. Pitcher and her colleagues is simple: don’t work for organisations that don’t treat the public fairly.

Last, but not least, there is the unspoken “Noble Lie”: this amazing bureaucratic system is too important to be damaged by little people, whether young girls or Britain's postmasters. The system, in some peoples’ minds “the Blob”, is too important to be exposed to its own failures. As the Head of Faculty said to me at a private meeting in his office: “Play the game, Robert”. I asked, “Play what game”? He didn’t answer, but we both knew what he meant: give up your own integrity for the sake of the “game” otherwise known as political expediency. Should we lose a well-trained paediatrician on the word of some nurse? Should we destroy the careers of bureaucrats and politicians on account of some white girls considered by some to be 'trash'? Of course, not: play the game. It's bigger than you. Most people succumb for the job and the pension. I didn’t need the money. I already had a job – my own business – and I already had a pension. No sale Professor Bureaucrat. So, they cancelled me. I sued them and got compensation; but other people, who’s career has been in the bureaucracy, need the salary and in particular the pension. In the USA, it’s corporate medical insurance that plays the part of money to encourage conformity.

Now it won’t help the feelings of the victims of this essay to say the fault is educational and Piaget identified it. The first significant phase is when children are, say, 5 years old to 11 years old. In that phase, we all learn how to do things. These are processes. Riding a bike, tying your shoelaces or learning to read are all “concrete operational” skills. The training successful students are given is a concrete learning process, which does require a good memory. However, it ends in specialisation, what the media calls “experts”. The focus becomes narrower and narrower.

This somewhat holds back the next Piagetian phase which is called Formal Operations, where Homo Sapiens can think abstractly and deal with ideas (like “justice” and “empathy”) rather than things. This stage is especially noteworthy by its feature of multiple abilities in different areas, so-called “Renaissance Man”. Bureaucrats are in essence concrete operational thinkers and think, if you like, on a rail-track. Employees expect to be told what to do. Initiative is frowned upon: just follow the narrative.

But the Liberal bureaucratic elite, more interested in culture than the economics that pays their wages, will end up in some archaeological dig in 4,000 years’ time if they don’t see that miscarriages of justice are caused by their actions (or non-actions) and theirs alone. They are responsible. Not Tories, or the mythical far right. They themselves. Bureaucrats are oftentimes knowingly putting people in gaol on the orders of a higher authority that exists only in their own minds: like the idea of men turning into women on account of a piece of paper.

Criminal cases cannot be conducted on the basis of belief, but only on fact. When an assertion is made, the judge should say: “where is your fact?”, not just “Where is the evidence?” Evidence can be confusing, as I suggest: the movement of the sun around the Earth is confusing. Evidence can be false. There must be incontrovertible facts that prove the assertion, not evidence that is misleading.

And, if such misleading evidence is entered, then there must be sanctions against the lawyer(s) that approved and/or presented such evidence. If a stop is to be brought to the unconscionable level of miscarriages AND abortions of justice, the hand of the Law must be turned against everyone, not just “the little people”.

The Iron Cage revisited, indeed.

By Robert Luther-Smith

References

Di Maggio, P. and Powell, W.W (1983); The Iron Cage Revisited: Collective Rationality and Institutional Isomorphism in Organisational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-150.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov. M.; (2010) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind; McGrawHill.

Milgram, S. (1974); Obedience to Authority; Tavistock Publications Ltd

Orwell, G. (1948): 1984; Secker and Warburg.

Piaget, J. and Barbel. I (1969); The Psychology of the Child; Basic Books

Scott, R. K. (1995). Creative employees: A challenge to managers. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(1), 64–71

Smith. A, (1776): The Wealth of Nations; Secker and Warburg.

Weber, M. (1921/2019): Economy and Society; HUT