Economic science has – lamented by some, applauded by others – turned into a monistic discipline. In this short research note, a socio-economic answer to the question of why this has happened is provided by combining an economic approach to the market for economic ideas with a sociological approach to a scientific (power) field.
{"title":"'Why has economics turned out this way?' A socio-economic note on the explanation of monism in economics","authors":"A. Heise","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10696","url":null,"abstract":"Economic science has – lamented by some, applauded by others – turned into a monistic discipline. In this short research note, a socio-economic answer to the question of why this has happened is provided by combining an economic approach to the market for economic ideas with a sociological approach to a scientific (power) field.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70491152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of Altug Yalcintas, Intellectual Path Dependence in Economics: Why economists do not reject refuted theories, Routledge, 2016, hb, xiv + 173 pages, ISBN 978-1-138-01617-0This book's main interrogation, 'why should economists change their minds?' (p. 29), is apparently trivial. After all, scholars of all propensities find their raison d'etre in the capacity to shape their minds along the path to knowledge. The actual practice of economists (pp. 29-31) shows indeed that this presupposition can be valid. But the author, a historian and philosopher of economics at the University of Ankara (Turkey) [1], makes every effort to convince his reader that the question is subtle (subtler, anyway than the subtitle suggests) and that it deserves thorough attention because changing one s mind is deliberative and processual rather than merely inevitable in the advancement of science.The whole argument rests on the presumed survival of 'unfit' explanations, errors that are not dislodged by mere academic dignity or decency. A perfect market of ideas ought to perform the 'function to fix errors fully' (p. 9), but this idealistic environment does not exist for two reasons. Firstly, scientists (economists) are not always rational and sciences (economics) are not always self-corrective, despite impeccable behaviour on behalf of researchers. Secondly, science is an economic activity and hence can be explained in economic terms: giving up a theorem is costly in intellectual and possibly monetary terms and may not be perceived as the best option given the low benefits it provides to the researcher. So, the economists do change their minds, but in the process they get immersed in seemingly never-ending battles of ideas on the one hand, and questionable research practices (QRP) on the other hand, with the effect that decentralized mechanisms of self-correction (e.g. open debate, peer-review, replication, or reproduction) do not always work.Established results in economics may be a result of 'powerful institutions' and discretionary financial resources (e.g. military or corporate funds) driving research to predefined objectives (pp. 8, 15-17). For Stanley Jevons, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill were 'wrong-headed' men who put economics on a wrong track, unable to understand the 'true doctrines' (p. 15). Some original works in economics, from contributors such as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Joseph Schumpeter, are tainted by plagiarism (p. 16), ideologically biased editing (pp. 54-55), and external corrections (p. 54), respectively. Others are tainted by faulty handling of methodological shortcuts such as statistical tests and software packages (pp. 16-17). In short, the market's working is imperfect: economics is at times a provider of 'manipulated and erroneous ideas' (p. xi). One of the author's favourite cases of artificial idea selection, and the books leitmotif, is Ronald Coase's problem of social cost. The case is aptly chosen: besides making for a relaxing re
{"title":"Review of Altug Yalcintas, Intellectual Path Dependence in Economics: Why economists do not reject refuted theories, Routledge, 2016, hb, xiv + 173 pages, ISBN 978-1-138-01617-0","authors":"Valentin Cojanu","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10697","url":null,"abstract":"Review of Altug Yalcintas, Intellectual Path Dependence in Economics: Why economists do not reject refuted theories, Routledge, 2016, hb, xiv + 173 pages, ISBN 978-1-138-01617-0This book's main interrogation, 'why should economists change their minds?' (p. 29), is apparently trivial. After all, scholars of all propensities find their raison d'etre in the capacity to shape their minds along the path to knowledge. The actual practice of economists (pp. 29-31) shows indeed that this presupposition can be valid. But the author, a historian and philosopher of economics at the University of Ankara (Turkey) [1], makes every effort to convince his reader that the question is subtle (subtler, anyway than the subtitle suggests) and that it deserves thorough attention because changing one s mind is deliberative and processual rather than merely inevitable in the advancement of science.The whole argument rests on the presumed survival of 'unfit' explanations, errors that are not dislodged by mere academic dignity or decency. A perfect market of ideas ought to perform the 'function to fix errors fully' (p. 9), but this idealistic environment does not exist for two reasons. Firstly, scientists (economists) are not always rational and sciences (economics) are not always self-corrective, despite impeccable behaviour on behalf of researchers. Secondly, science is an economic activity and hence can be explained in economic terms: giving up a theorem is costly in intellectual and possibly monetary terms and may not be perceived as the best option given the low benefits it provides to the researcher. So, the economists do change their minds, but in the process they get immersed in seemingly never-ending battles of ideas on the one hand, and questionable research practices (QRP) on the other hand, with the effect that decentralized mechanisms of self-correction (e.g. open debate, peer-review, replication, or reproduction) do not always work.Established results in economics may be a result of 'powerful institutions' and discretionary financial resources (e.g. military or corporate funds) driving research to predefined objectives (pp. 8, 15-17). For Stanley Jevons, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill were 'wrong-headed' men who put economics on a wrong track, unable to understand the 'true doctrines' (p. 15). Some original works in economics, from contributors such as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Joseph Schumpeter, are tainted by plagiarism (p. 16), ideologically biased editing (pp. 54-55), and external corrections (p. 54), respectively. Others are tainted by faulty handling of methodological shortcuts such as statistical tests and software packages (pp. 16-17). In short, the market's working is imperfect: economics is at times a provider of 'manipulated and erroneous ideas' (p. xi). One of the author's favourite cases of artificial idea selection, and the books leitmotif, is Ronald Coase's problem of social cost. The case is aptly chosen: besides making for a relaxing re","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70491220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The methodological foundations of mainstream economics have been cited as one of the main reasons for its failure to account for the economic crisis of 2008. In spite of this, the status of economic methodology has not been elevated. This is due to the persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. The anti-methodology stance has a long presence as exemplified in Frank Hahn’s (1992) work. After focusing on the debate originating after the publication of Hahn’s arguments, the paper offers a categorization of the main explanations for mainstream methodological aversion. Subsequently, it suggests an explanation based on the role of the physics scientific ideal, arguing that the endeavor to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. The relevant writings of the extremely influential mainstream economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, reinforce the assertion that the alleged hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. The paper also calls for a more systematic discussion of this issue, especially in the wake of the line of argument that links the recent failings of mainstream economics to its methodological basis.
{"title":"Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics","authors":"Stavros A. Drakopoulos","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10694","url":null,"abstract":"The methodological foundations of mainstream economics have been cited as one of the main reasons for its failure to account for the economic crisis of 2008. In spite of this, the status of economic methodology has not been elevated. This is due to the persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. The anti-methodology stance has a long presence as exemplified in Frank Hahn’s (1992) work. After focusing on the debate originating after the publication of Hahn’s arguments, the paper offers a categorization of the main explanations for mainstream methodological aversion. Subsequently, it suggests an explanation based on the role of the physics scientific ideal, arguing that the endeavor to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. The relevant writings of the extremely influential mainstream economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, reinforce the assertion that the alleged hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. The paper also calls for a more systematic discussion of this issue, especially in the wake of the line of argument that links the recent failings of mainstream economics to its methodological basis.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70491534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of Mary Godwin, Ethics and Diversity in Business Management Education. A Sociological Study with International Scope, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2015, eb, x + 94 pages, ISBN 978-3-662-46654-4Mary Godwyn's Ethics and Diversity in Business Management Education is part of Springer book series on CSR, Sustainability, Ethics and Governance. Godwyn's book draws on a qualitative study of business ethics programmes in 17 different countries, spanning five continents. As a sociologist, rather than a philosopher or an economist, her goal was to research the various business management education programs, but also delve into public opinion within various cultural backgrounds in order to provide the data for a rich comparative analysis. Such a goal should certainly be praised, since so much work in the field of business ethics is done almost exclusively by philosophers or economists, and it is often discussed without the benefit of solid empirical work as a building foundation. Godwyn's work is precisely that - a solid social scientific empirical foundation for a number of questions that are of great interest for researchers and teachers from various academic fields with an interest in business ethics, such as philosophy, economics, law, sociology, etc. The foremost research questions that Godwyn wanted her respondents to answer were:1. Are there different definitions and expectations for business ethics and socially normative ethics, and if so, how do they differ?2. How much does business ethics education affect business practices?3.How do larger cultural values impact the presentation and interpretation of business ethics?Based on this research, Godwyn concluded that ethical behaviour is not merely relative to space, time (in terms of geographical and historical context) and culture, but that it I..J depends upon the group with which [respondents] are currently identifying.' (p. v) In short, she found that the same person would make different decisions and have a different grounding for their ethical arguments, depending on whether they are asked the same questions as members of companies, or citizens, or consumers, etc.Godwyn presents and comments on her findings through five chapters and a conclusion. In the first chapter, A Qualitative Study of Business Ethics: A Sociologist Walks into a Business School (pp. 1- 20) she introduces the idea of ethical reasoning and behaviour as relative to the group with which a person currently identifies, and explains the basic theoretical framework of her research. This framework is crucial for explaining unethical behaviour in business, and in creating it; Godwyn relies on Hannah Arendts concept of the banality of evil, and Emile Durkheims concept of solidarity. This also makes the first chapter the most interesting and engaging from a philosophical point of view, which is why we will grant it a bit more space in this review.Ultimately, Godwyn is interested in why essentially good people do bad things in busi
玛丽·戈德温:《商业管理教育中的伦理与多样性》书评。《具有国际视野的社会学研究》，海德堡，施普林斯出版社，2015,eb, x + 94页，ISBN 978-3-662-46654-4Mary Godwyn的《商业管理教育中的伦理与多样性》是施普林格系列关于企业社会责任、可持续发展、伦理与治理的书的一部分。戈德温的书对横跨五大洲的17个不同国家的商业道德项目进行了定性研究。作为一名社会学家，而不是哲学家或经济学家，她的目标是研究各种企业管理教育项目，并深入研究各种文化背景下的民意，以便为丰富的比较分析提供数据。这样的目标当然应该受到赞扬，因为商业伦理领域的许多工作几乎完全是由哲学家或经济学家完成的，而且讨论时往往没有坚实的实证工作作为基础。戈德温的工作恰恰是——一个坚实的社会科学实证基础，为来自哲学、经济学、法学、社会学等对商业伦理感兴趣的各个学术领域的研究人员和教师提供了许多非常感兴趣的问题。戈德温希望她的受访者回答的最重要的研究问题是:1。对于商业道德和社会规范道德是否有不同的定义和期望?如果有，它们有何不同?商业道德教育对商业行为的影响有多大?更大的文化价值如何影响商业道德的呈现和解释?基于这项研究，Godwyn得出结论，道德行为不仅与空间、时间(就地理和历史背景而言)和文化有关，而且取决于[被调查者]目前所认同的群体。简而言之，她发现同一个人会做出不同的决定，对他们的道德论点有不同的基础，这取决于他们是否被问到与公司成员、公民或消费者等相同的问题。戈德温通过五章和结论来展示和评论她的发现。在第一章《商业伦理的定性研究:一位走进商学院的社会学家》(第1- 20页)中，她介绍了与一个人目前所认同的群体相关的道德推理和行为的概念，并解释了她研究的基本理论框架。这个框架对于解释和创造商业中的不道德行为至关重要;戈德温依赖于汉娜·阿伦特的平庸之恶概念和埃米尔·迪尔凯姆的团结概念。这也使得第一章从哲学的角度来看是最有趣和最吸引人的，这就是为什么我们会在这篇评论中给它更多的空间。最终，戈德温感兴趣的是，为什么本质上是好人在商业中做坏事，连接阿伦特和迪尔凯姆概念的框架允许她说，这通常是出于一种群体团结的感觉，或者更确切地说，是与公司、商业环境或任何其他环境中普遍存在的精神团结。为了证明这一点，戈德温引用了纳粹集中营、安然这样的大公司、商学院和职业体育协会的例子。她在提出她的理论框架时试图说明的一点是，在整个人类社会中，我们经常能够找到一些活动，在这些活动中，行为者按照一种道德框架行事，这种道德框架通常与整个社会的道德框架不一致，有时甚至完全矛盾。当一个这样的口袋里的活动(一个政党或运动，公司，或竞争运动员协会)变得如此不道德，以至于很难相信它们真的发生了，它们只能通过参考特定于同一口袋的精神来解释。…
{"title":"Review of Mary Godwin, Ethics and Diversity in Business Management Education. A Sociological Study with International Scope, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2015, eb, x + 94 pages, ISBN 978-3-662-46654-4","authors":"S. Buzar","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10698","url":null,"abstract":"Review of Mary Godwin, Ethics and Diversity in Business Management Education. A Sociological Study with International Scope, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2015, eb, x + 94 pages, ISBN 978-3-662-46654-4Mary Godwyn's Ethics and Diversity in Business Management Education is part of Springer book series on CSR, Sustainability, Ethics and Governance. Godwyn's book draws on a qualitative study of business ethics programmes in 17 different countries, spanning five continents. As a sociologist, rather than a philosopher or an economist, her goal was to research the various business management education programs, but also delve into public opinion within various cultural backgrounds in order to provide the data for a rich comparative analysis. Such a goal should certainly be praised, since so much work in the field of business ethics is done almost exclusively by philosophers or economists, and it is often discussed without the benefit of solid empirical work as a building foundation. Godwyn's work is precisely that - a solid social scientific empirical foundation for a number of questions that are of great interest for researchers and teachers from various academic fields with an interest in business ethics, such as philosophy, economics, law, sociology, etc. The foremost research questions that Godwyn wanted her respondents to answer were:1. Are there different definitions and expectations for business ethics and socially normative ethics, and if so, how do they differ?2. How much does business ethics education affect business practices?3.How do larger cultural values impact the presentation and interpretation of business ethics?Based on this research, Godwyn concluded that ethical behaviour is not merely relative to space, time (in terms of geographical and historical context) and culture, but that it I..J depends upon the group with which [respondents] are currently identifying.' (p. v) In short, she found that the same person would make different decisions and have a different grounding for their ethical arguments, depending on whether they are asked the same questions as members of companies, or citizens, or consumers, etc.Godwyn presents and comments on her findings through five chapters and a conclusion. In the first chapter, A Qualitative Study of Business Ethics: A Sociologist Walks into a Business School (pp. 1- 20) she introduces the idea of ethical reasoning and behaviour as relative to the group with which a person currently identifies, and explains the basic theoretical framework of her research. This framework is crucial for explaining unethical behaviour in business, and in creating it; Godwyn relies on Hannah Arendts concept of the banality of evil, and Emile Durkheims concept of solidarity. This also makes the first chapter the most interesting and engaging from a philosophical point of view, which is why we will grant it a bit more space in this review.Ultimately, Godwyn is interested in why essentially good people do bad things in busi","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70491329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Potrošačka kultura i konzumerizam [Consumer Culture and Consumerism], edited by Snježana Čolić, Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, 2013, pb, ISBN 978-953-7964-00-9, 206 pages","authors":"Ana Maskalan","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10690","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10690","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70491065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
If we agree that ‘institutions are the kinds of structures that matter most in the social realm: they make up the stuff of social life’ (Hodgson, 2006, p.2), and we also agree that they largely influence, either positively or negatively, even many of the decisions relative to our personal lives, then we should conclude that emphasis on quality institutions to a people should not be wished away. Drawing on the earlier stated, the present work critically responds to the position of Hassoun (2014) that making aid conditional on good institutional quality is not good for the poor. It may be true that giving aid to the poor without consideration of the quality status of their social institutions may serve their immediate purposes, but if the poor are not to be consigned and confined to the margins of perpetual dependence, then due attention should rather be shown to ensure better reforms for their institutions, given that quality institutions largely and positively influence and sustain, in spite of other considerations, human development in the final analysis.
{"title":"Poor countries and development: a critique of Nicole Hassoun and a defense of the argument for good institutional quality","authors":"Ronald Olufemi Badru","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10687","url":null,"abstract":"If we agree that ‘institutions are the kinds of structures that matter most in the social realm: they make up the stuff of social life’ (Hodgson, 2006, p.2), and we also agree that they largely influence, either positively or negatively, even many of the decisions relative to our personal lives, then we should conclude that emphasis on quality institutions to a people should not be wished away. Drawing on the earlier stated, the present work critically responds to the position of Hassoun (2014) that making aid conditional on good institutional quality is not good for the poor. It may be true that giving aid to the poor without consideration of the quality status of their social institutions may serve their immediate purposes, but if the poor are not to be consigned and confined to the margins of perpetual dependence, then due attention should rather be shown to ensure better reforms for their institutions, given that quality institutions largely and positively influence and sustain, in spite of other considerations, human development in the final analysis.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70490696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The current paper explores the relationship between some relatively new concepts in the field of economics-slow living, slow food, slow writing and the green economy. The goal of the paper is twofolddiscussing the possibilities opened by these exciting new concepts, in terms of an increase in the quality of life combined with an environmentally sustainable lifestyle, as well as ascertaining what the concepts may entail in the context in which the effects of the recent economic crisis may make green and slow living seem like a distant dream. It is this holistic view that we shall attempt to enlarge upon in the paper, with the avowed purpose of weighing out the possibilities presented in the complicated, crisis-fraught global context.
{"title":"Slow living and the green economy","authors":"Diana Ioncică, Eva-Cristina Petrescu","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10689","url":null,"abstract":"The current paper explores the relationship between some relatively new concepts in the field of economics-slow living, slow food, slow writing and the green economy. The goal of the paper is twofolddiscussing the possibilities opened by these exciting new concepts, in terms of an increase in the quality of life combined with an environmentally sustainable lifestyle, as well as ascertaining what the concepts may entail in the context in which the effects of the recent economic crisis may make green and slow living seem like a distant dream. It is this holistic view that we shall attempt to enlarge upon in the paper, with the avowed purpose of weighing out the possibilities presented in the complicated, crisis-fraught global context.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70490877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In neoclassical economics, substitution assumptions support equilibrium models in closed systems shunning interdependence. On these grounds an array of frames show outcomes as stable, efficient, unique and determinate. Heterodox economists say equilibrium models sidestep practical knowledge and the rich reality of economic behavior. Rigor or realism, mainstream or radical, ecological, institutional, socio-cultural: economics invites a wide diversity of assumptions, once short-term models of substitution are opened to question. The answers are blurred by applications; there is clarity in a simplicity shielded from mundane detail. This paper addresses the methodological impact of planning horizons, increasing returns and complementarity, and their proper representation in economic constructions. Horizonal economics can be construed as extending orthodox standards into a realm of time, but for its subtler ramifications. Increasing returns make our relations complementary and not substitutional, loosening the tight deductions from mainstream models of choice. The horizonal extension of our received theory of price applies time to cost and demand curves, showing Marshallian scissors (supply and demand) cut outward and downward with expanded horizons. Static conceptions appear in horizonal groups, suggesting complete theories of price should specify agents’ horizons, with no further radical impact: the trouble emerges with increasing returns and complementarity. Horizons stem from unbounded causality; if all we do ripples outward forever in nature and society, the relevant field of inquiry for economics is interdependent: this is the case for bounded rationality as an analytical limit to economic conceptions. In turn, interdependence suggests a use of network constructs to frame complex systemic cascades, and networks open a door to complementarity and increasing returns in transport and information exchange. The gaping maw of increasing returns and complementarity opens, swallowing down neat traditions such as stability, equilibrium, marginalism, partial analysis, supply and demand depictions of price, etc. The methodological lesson of this shift to network contexts and dynamic complex systems supersedes some of our favored doctrines and the analyses on which they stand. Without decreasing returns and substitution, neoclassical arguments simply do not work. Heterodox approaches – and their intelligent application – are required in this setting. The paper offers a few guidelines to an unexplored domain of fundamental departures.
{"title":"The case for increasing returns (2): the methods of planning horizons","authors":"Frederic Jennings Jr.","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10686","url":null,"abstract":"In neoclassical economics, substitution assumptions support equilibrium models in closed systems shunning interdependence. On these grounds an array of frames show outcomes as stable, efficient, unique and determinate. Heterodox economists say equilibrium models sidestep practical knowledge and the rich reality of economic behavior. Rigor or realism, mainstream or radical, ecological, institutional, socio-cultural: economics invites a wide diversity of assumptions, once short-term models of substitution are opened to question. The answers are blurred by applications; there is clarity in a simplicity shielded from mundane detail. This paper addresses the methodological impact of planning horizons, increasing returns and complementarity, and their proper representation in economic constructions. Horizonal economics can be construed as extending orthodox standards into a realm of time, but for its subtler ramifications. Increasing returns make our relations complementary and not substitutional, loosening the tight deductions from mainstream models of choice. The horizonal extension of our received theory of price applies time to cost and demand curves, showing Marshallian scissors (supply and demand) cut outward and downward with expanded horizons. Static conceptions appear in horizonal groups, suggesting complete theories of price should specify agents’ horizons, with no further radical impact: the trouble emerges with increasing returns and complementarity. Horizons stem from unbounded causality; if all we do ripples outward forever in nature and society, the relevant field of inquiry for economics is interdependent: this is the case for bounded rationality as an analytical limit to economic conceptions. In turn, interdependence suggests a use of network constructs to frame complex systemic cascades, and networks open a door to complementarity and increasing returns in transport and information exchange. The gaping maw of increasing returns and complementarity opens, swallowing down neat traditions such as stability, equilibrium, marginalism, partial analysis, supply and demand depictions of price, etc. The methodological lesson of this shift to network contexts and dynamic complex systems supersedes some of our favored doctrines and the analyses on which they stand. Without decreasing returns and substitution, neoclassical arguments simply do not work. Heterodox approaches – and their intelligent application – are required in this setting. The paper offers a few guidelines to an unexplored domain of fundamental departures.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70491094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses a key contemporary problem, that of inequality. Certainly, the most visible inequality today is economic inequality, which is not only a characteristic found today, but is also the result of a long historical development. The problem arises when inequality becomes artificial (produces itself) and thus becomes a matter of social sciences and humanities. At this point, the question of economic inequality becomes a non-economic issue and thus opens the possibility of formulating such principles that will be able to reduce the issue to a minimum. This paper discusses this possibility, while referring to Thomas Piketty's book on capital in relation to John Rawls's principles of justice to which Piketty refers to.
{"title":"Rawls and Piketty: the philosophical aspects of economic inequality","authors":"Goran Sunajko","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10688","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a key contemporary problem, that of inequality. Certainly, the most visible inequality today is economic inequality, which is not only a characteristic found today, but is also the result of a long historical development. The problem arises when inequality becomes artificial (produces itself) and thus becomes a matter of social sciences and humanities. At this point, the question of economic inequality becomes a non-economic issue and thus opens the possibility of formulating such principles that will be able to reduce the issue to a minimum. This paper discusses this possibility, while referring to Thomas Piketty's book on capital in relation to John Rawls's principles of justice to which Piketty refers to.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70490755","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of Dani Rodrik, Economics Rules: Why Economics Works, When It Fails, and How to Tell the Difference, Oxford University Press, 2015, hb, ISBN 978-0-19-873689-9, xi+253 pagesAt the beginning of every course of economics, students are taught that free-markets are what should be aimed for. That markets have the ability to self-adjust, every intervention of the state leading to a misallocation of resources. Only later do students learn that the free-market concept may backfire by not bringing the anticipated results. Two cases are worth mentioning: (i) the one of South East Asian economies and (ii) the other of Latin America. In the first case, a pivotal role was played by the long arm of the state, which established important protectionist measures that in turn helped the countries of the region to further develop the private businesses and the well-being of labour (Lim, 1983). Those economic policies contradict the idea that free-market economic theory is the most effective way of organizing a market. In the second case, the Latin American countries applied the principles mentioned in the Washington Consensus, which mainly propose stability based on three pillars: macro-stability, liberalization, and privatisation (Williamson, 1990). However, these failed due to the fact that free markets work in the presence of healthy institutions, which were taken for granted. A malfunctioning institution cannot enforce the law, which can affect the relationship between different market actors. The problem of enforcing the contracts is one such example.These cases represent only a few of the many situations that demonstrate the failure of mainstream economic theory to deliver the promised results. Therefore, questioning the economics discipline seems to be something normal. However, the criticism towards this science has started to increase in intensity after the 2007-financial upheaval when the mainstream economic theory failed to predict it. Yet, economic science is still in high demand across the world.Often labelled as an economist that casts doubt upon the power of free market, Rodrik has brought significant contributions to political economy through his focus on growth policies, industrialization and globalization. To better understand an economic model, Rodrik analyses in his last book the way in which it is created and it can be applied within different parts of the world. In this way, the weaknesses and strengths of the discipline can be better underlined. The author wants to make economists and non-economists understand that a model and not the model is applicable in various social, political and economic contexts. The models have to be seen as a toolbox where each model can solve a specific problem within the market. As such, there is no unique tool, or universal grand theory, that can be applied in all settings.In the first chapter of the book, Rodrik attempts to offer a description of what models do. An association is made with the fables (18-
回顾Dani Rodrik，经济学规则:为什么经济学工作，当它失败时，以及如何分辨差异，牛津大学出版社，2015年，hb, ISBN 978-0-19-873689-9, xi+253页在每门经济学课程的开始，学生被教导自由市场应该是什么目标。市场有自我调整的能力，政府的每次干预都会导致资源配置不当。学生们后来才知道，自由市场概念可能会适得其反，因为它没有带来预期的结果。有两个例子值得一提:(i)一个东南亚经济体和(ii)另一个拉丁美洲经济体。在第一种情况下，国家的长臂发挥了关键作用，它制定了重要的保护主义措施，反过来帮助该地区的国家进一步发展私营企业和劳工福利(Lim, 1983)。这些经济政策与自由市场经济理论是组织市场的最有效方式的观点相矛盾。在第二种情况下，拉丁美洲国家采用了华盛顿共识中提到的原则，该共识主要提出了基于三大支柱的稳定:宏观稳定、自由化和私有化(Williamson, 1990)。然而，这些都失败了，因为自由市场是在健康的机构存在的情况下运作的，而健康的机构被认为是理所当然的。一个失灵的机构无法执行法律，这可能影响不同市场参与者之间的关系。执行合同的问题就是这样一个例子。这些案例只是证明主流经济理论未能带来预期结果的众多情况中的一小部分。因此，质疑经济学学科似乎是一件正常的事情。然而，在2007年金融动荡之后，主流经济理论未能预测到这一现象，对这一科学的批评开始加剧。然而，经济科学在世界范围内仍然需求量很大。罗德里克经常被称为怀疑自由市场力量的经济学家，他通过关注增长政策、工业化和全球化，为政治经济学做出了重大贡献。为了更好地理解一个经济模型，罗德里克在他的最后一本书中分析了它的创建方式以及它可以在世界不同地区应用的方式。通过这种方式，可以更好地强调学科的弱点和优势。作者想让经济学家和非经济学家明白，在各种社会、政治和经济背景下，模型是适用的，而不是模型。这些模型必须被视为一个工具箱，每个模型可以解决市场中的一个特定问题。因此，没有一种独特的工具，或普遍的宏大理论，可以适用于所有的环境。在本书的第一章中，Rodrik试图描述模型的作用。与表格(18-21)有关。寓言在引言中强调人物的个性，使现实简单化。人物所采取的行动引出了寓言寓意的结论。在经济科学中，抽象的环境中有真实的公司和个人，这些公司和个人的特征在模型的开头被描述。“故事”围绕着因果关系展开，而从结论中我们可以提取出道德或政策建议。表格和模型在应用于特定环境之前都需要仔细判断，因为它们可以根据行动的因果过程提供不同的结论。在寓言的例子中，道德可能有所不同，因为:你必须有朋友，但不要那么多;信任与合作固然重要，但自力更生也很重要;准备，但不要过度准备。在经济学中，应用一种理论的结论可能会产生截然不同的结果。…
{"title":"Review of Dani Rodrik, Economics Rules: Why Economics Works, When It Fails, and How to Tell the Difference, Oxford University Press, 2015, hb, ISBN 978-0-19-873689-9, xi+253 pages","authors":"D. Chirițoiu","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10691","url":null,"abstract":"Review of Dani Rodrik, Economics Rules: Why Economics Works, When It Fails, and How to Tell the Difference, Oxford University Press, 2015, hb, ISBN 978-0-19-873689-9, xi+253 pagesAt the beginning of every course of economics, students are taught that free-markets are what should be aimed for. That markets have the ability to self-adjust, every intervention of the state leading to a misallocation of resources. Only later do students learn that the free-market concept may backfire by not bringing the anticipated results. Two cases are worth mentioning: (i) the one of South East Asian economies and (ii) the other of Latin America. In the first case, a pivotal role was played by the long arm of the state, which established important protectionist measures that in turn helped the countries of the region to further develop the private businesses and the well-being of labour (Lim, 1983). Those economic policies contradict the idea that free-market economic theory is the most effective way of organizing a market. In the second case, the Latin American countries applied the principles mentioned in the Washington Consensus, which mainly propose stability based on three pillars: macro-stability, liberalization, and privatisation (Williamson, 1990). However, these failed due to the fact that free markets work in the presence of healthy institutions, which were taken for granted. A malfunctioning institution cannot enforce the law, which can affect the relationship between different market actors. The problem of enforcing the contracts is one such example.These cases represent only a few of the many situations that demonstrate the failure of mainstream economic theory to deliver the promised results. Therefore, questioning the economics discipline seems to be something normal. However, the criticism towards this science has started to increase in intensity after the 2007-financial upheaval when the mainstream economic theory failed to predict it. Yet, economic science is still in high demand across the world.Often labelled as an economist that casts doubt upon the power of free market, Rodrik has brought significant contributions to political economy through his focus on growth policies, industrialization and globalization. To better understand an economic model, Rodrik analyses in his last book the way in which it is created and it can be applied within different parts of the world. In this way, the weaknesses and strengths of the discipline can be better underlined. The author wants to make economists and non-economists understand that a model and not the model is applicable in various social, political and economic contexts. The models have to be seen as a toolbox where each model can solve a specific problem within the market. As such, there is no unique tool, or universal grand theory, that can be applied in all settings.In the first chapter of the book, Rodrik attempts to offer a description of what models do. An association is made with the fables (18-","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70490716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：