Global Journal of Management and Business Research, B: Economics and Commerce, Volume 23 Issue 3

Also noteworthy is the work of researcher John Burns (2000), who carried out synergistic research on Institutional Theory and Accounting. The result evidenced the existence of spaces left by the classic works, in a perspective of different institutional environments. It is expected that this research will be a kind of framework which, through a logical and growing conceptual structure, allows the homogeneous study of different business objects and, with this, predefine common deliverables for each object. II. T heoretical F ramework a) The Institutionalist Theory In the 1890s, the United States of America (USA), due to rapid industrialization, received the first research and subsequent publications from institutionalists Thorstein. Veblen and John R. Commons. Perhaps the most obvious justification for these studies is the decline in the relative importance of agriculture in the American economy and society (MAYHEW, 1972). The phenomenon that did not go unnoticed by economists and sociologists was the emergence of a new company that replaced the industrial company with a single plant and a single product and managed by a single individual (COATS, 1954). Parallel to this, there was the growth of new forms of banking activities, greater importance of the external investor to the company, new forms of competition, higher operational costs and worthy of studies, control and management, and also, larger markets (MAYHEW, 1972). The works of Veblen and Commons, when they described the emerging social and economic consequences of the industrialization of the United States, broke with traditional economic thinking and supported the new social science that emerged impacting the world in the economic and social aspect (MAYHEW, 1972). The emergence of institutions occurs when people's way of thinking becomes ingrained in such a way that it shapes the behavior pattern of these or the members of a group or society (HODGSON, 1985). Therefore, institutions emerge in the course of the historical process of social coexistence, establish unique behavioral bases for a group of people and, in this way, bring together thoughts and behaviors recognized as correct and acceptable (VIANO, 2009). In this circumstance, the use of the terminology “institution” became widespread in the social sciences and reflects the growth of Institutional Economics when observing the presence of this concept in several other disciplines such as: philosophy, sociology, politics and geography (HODGSON, 1985). North (2018, p. s s13) explains that “the notion that institutions affect the performance of economies is uncontroversial. The notion that the differential performance of economies over time is fundamentally influenced by the way in which institutions evolve”. It follows that, in order to provide a better understanding of what institutions are, Fiani (2011, p. 3) brought together some definitions originating from the perceptions of different authors and expressed that each one illuminates a different aspect: 1. “It is man-made constraints that shape human interaction. As a result, they structure incentives in the exchange between men, whether political, social or economic” (NORTH, 2018, p.3); 2. “(...) an institution will be defined as a set of formal and informal rules, including the arrangements that guarantee its obedience” (FURUBOTN; RICHTER, 1986, p.6); 3. “Institutions are human relationships that structure opportunities through constraints and capabilities” (SCHMID, 2004, p.1). For the same reason and without the intention of exhausting them, different but complementary understandings externalized by North (2018) about institutions are cited: (i) they are the rules of the game of a society; (ii) they reduce uncertainty by giving structure to everyday life; (iii) encompass any forms of constraint that human beings engender to shape human interaction and these creations can be both formal and informal; (iv) affect the performance of the economy through their effect on transaction and transformation costs; and (v) reduce uncertainties by establishing a stable, but not necessarily efficient, framework for human interaction. Item (iii) of the understandings expressed by North (2018) deals with the formality and informality of institutions, it is clear that the açaí whisk, object of this research, is not always acting formally or as a legal entity under the protection of a National Registry of Legal Entities (CNPJ), which does not diminish its relevance in the economic and social context of the northern region of Brazil (ARAÚJO, 2017; FURTADO et al., 2020). In this conception, and regarding the formality or otherwise of institutions, Mantzavinos (2001, p. 84) says that “formal institutions impose obedience through the law, while informal institutions do not need the State to impose obedience”. Following, it is possible to highlight some understandings contrary to the Institutionalist Theory, these especially in relation to the initial moment: 1. The absence of a theoretical analytical field and a positive research agenda condemned, in the post- 1930s, Institutionalism to ostracism and oblivion (WILLIAMSON, 1991); 2. The work of American Institutionalism had nothing to pass on, except a mass of descriptive material waiting for a theory or the bonfire (NELSON, 1995); 16 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue III Version I Year 2023 ( ) B © 2023 Global Journals Study of Artisanal Açaí Beater under the Light of Institutionalist Theory: An Integrative Review