下面是我看到的一段，不理解“institutional and verbal-theoretic writings”的确切含义，谁能够分析一下？

For some thirty years following World War II, most bright young economists did not go into industrial organization, It was not hard to see why this was so. The quick, big payoffs in economics tend to go to theorists, and industrial organization was s subject in which theory was unsatisfactory, but moribund. The promise of the Chamberlin-Robinson revolution of the early 1930s had not been fulfilled, and, while institutional and verbal-theoretic writings on the subject were sometimes illuminating, there was no hard analytic theory formalizing the structre-conduct-performance paradigm. Oligopoly, in particular, showed no signs of analytic tractability.

自二战以来的三十多年里，大部分有才华的年轻经济学家很少研究产业组织理论。理解其缘由并不困难。学者们通常喜欢从经济学研究中得到快速而丰厚的回报，当时的产业组织理论是一门不仅理论不得人心而且看起来行将就木的学科。1930年代早期的钱柏林·罗宾逊革命的前景并没有得到兑现，且虽然有时候一些有关此主题的[涉及制度和语言理论的]著作富有启发性，但是还没有任何坚实的分析性理论总结出结构——行为——绩效的范式。特别地，寡头理论没有显示出容易作分析性处理的迹象。