D.C. North's institutional economics is an innovative approach to reformat economics in its historical intertwining of markets, laws, policies and cultural standards. But is this approach viable? The bridge to culture in particular appears too narrow. The stabilizing effect of institutions is based on a traditional concept of time which fails to cover the historical dynamism involved. North remains within perceptions of history that pertain to the 19th century. His institutional change does not sufficiently consider modern aspects. Hypermodern institutions are less time stable than his theory presumes. Is North's theory already a historical phenomenon?