This study aims to evaluate the ideas on the scope and method of economics of Joseph Schumpeter who is one of the important economists of the 20th century. The study consists of four sections: In the first section we underline the interesting points of his life to understand the roots, background, or 'vision' of his thought system. In the second section, we will examine his methodological views that he asserted in his first (but translated into English only in 2010) book. Third section will be concerned with his 'analysis of economics' which refers to his critics of Leon Walras's general equilibrium analysis (as static) and his own alternative (dynamics analysis of capitalist economies) about the central subject matter of economics. In the fourth section we will treat his approach about the development/evolution process of economic thought in time. The study concludes with a brief assessment: Schumpeter is one of the rare economists who can build his own thought system in the history of economics, and he embraced a pluralist perspective in the field of the methodology of economics.
{"title":"Method and scope in Joseph A. Schumpeter's economics: a pluralist perspective","authors":"Turan Yay","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8663","url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to evaluate the ideas on the scope and method of economics of Joseph Schumpeter who is one of the important economists of the 20th century. The study consists of four sections: In the first section we underline the interesting points of his life to understand the roots, background, or 'vision' of his thought system. In the second section, we will examine his methodological views that he asserted in his first (but translated into English only in 2010) book. Third section will be concerned with his 'analysis of economics' which refers to his critics of Leon Walras's general equilibrium analysis (as static) and his own alternative (dynamics analysis of capitalist economies) about the central subject matter of economics. In the fourth section we will treat his approach about the development/evolution process of economic thought in time. The study concludes with a brief assessment: Schumpeter is one of the rare economists who can build his own thought system in the history of economics, and he embraced a pluralist perspective in the field of the methodology of economics.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47466399","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 essay sets Chicago economics as an example for how today’s economics belittles the importance of explicit philosophical studies. Given that economists keep their methodological stances rather implicit, it is argued that the correct reconstruction of these hidden methodological foundations might require philosophers to turn to unpublished materials.
{"title":"How the attitude of Chicago economics towards philosophy changed over time: an essay on what role some historical methods should play in practicing the philosophy of economics","authors":"Peter Galbács","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8666","url":null,"abstract":"This essay sets Chicago economics as an example for how today’s economics belittles the importance of explicit philosophical studies. Given that economists keep their methodological stances rather implicit, it is argued that the correct reconstruction of these hidden methodological foundations might require philosophers to turn to unpublished materials.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46769370","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}
It is no exaggeration to consider David Hume as one of the guiding lights of Enlightenment philosophy – one of the so-called canonical authors that must be read and understood by anyone who aspires to learn the ways of the love of wisdom. His contributions to the fields of metaphysics and epistemology and of moral and political philosophy are keenly discussed even to this day and many authors see Hume as anticipating important research directions in contemporary human sciences, especially in moral psychology (Haidt 2012). This view of Hume contrasts sharply with his perceived role in the development of economics, where he is clearly overshadowed by his younger friend, Adam Smith, who is credited as the main driving force behind the emergence of economics as a science during the Age of Enlightenment. While Hume is not entirely ignored by scholars of economics, his economic ideas have not had the impact of his philosophical endeavors.
{"title":"Review of Margaret Schabas and Carl Wennerlind, A Philosopher's Economist: Hume and the Rise of Capitalism, Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press, 316 p., e-book","authors":"Mihail-Valentin Cernea","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8675","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8675","url":null,"abstract":"It is no exaggeration to consider David Hume as one of the guiding lights of Enlightenment philosophy – one of the so-called canonical authors that must be read and understood by anyone who aspires to learn the ways of the love of wisdom. His contributions to the fields of metaphysics and epistemology and of moral and political philosophy are keenly discussed even to this day and many authors see Hume as anticipating important research directions in contemporary human sciences, especially in moral psychology (Haidt 2012). This view of Hume contrasts sharply with his perceived role in the development of economics, where he is clearly overshadowed by his younger friend, Adam Smith, who is credited as the main driving force behind the emergence of economics as a science during the Age of Enlightenment. While Hume is not entirely ignored by scholars of economics, his economic ideas have not had the impact of his philosophical endeavors.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43629097","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 uses Beck's concept of reflexive modernity, and a Foucauldian approach, to critique the positivist philosophy associated with contemporary conventional economics, and to show its inadequacy for the environmental emergency. The paper suggests economics is not neutral but performs an ideological function in justifying the political and social order. Economics can be deconstructed by tracing its history, thereby laying bare its philosophical and political roots. The environmental debate repeats past debates of the 1920s and 30s. By employing the 'subjugated' institutional economics approaches economics can be redefined, and the path to a truly Green New Deal can be unearthed.
{"title":"Economics as the scientization of politics","authors":"Jon Mulberg","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8671","url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses Beck's concept of reflexive modernity, and a Foucauldian approach, to critique the positivist philosophy associated with contemporary conventional economics, and to show its inadequacy for the environmental emergency. The paper suggests economics is not neutral but performs an ideological function in justifying the political and social order. Economics can be deconstructed by tracing its history, thereby laying bare its philosophical and political roots. The environmental debate repeats past debates of the 1920s and 30s. By employing the 'subjugated' institutional economics approaches economics can be redefined, and the path to a truly Green New Deal can be unearthed.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42527763","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}
Opponents of mainstream economics have not yet called attention to the lack of in-depth examination of the general scientific conception of modern economics. However, economic science cannot consistently fulfil the epistemological and ontological requirements of the scientific standards underlying this conception. What can be scientifically recognized as true cannot be answered, neither through the actual ontological structure of the object of observation nor through a methodological demarcation. These limitations necessarily lead to the claim for both a pragmatic and a radical methodological pluralism.
{"title":"A critical note on the scientific conception of economics: claiming for a methodological pluralism","authors":"Rouven Reinke","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8664","url":null,"abstract":"Opponents of mainstream economics have not yet called attention to the lack of in-depth examination of the general scientific conception of modern economics. However, economic science cannot consistently fulfil the epistemological and ontological requirements of the scientific standards underlying this conception. What can be scientifically recognized as true cannot be answered, neither through the actual ontological structure of the object of observation nor through a methodological demarcation. These limitations necessarily lead to the claim for both a pragmatic and a radical methodological pluralism.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47863337","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}
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
{"title":"'Everything You Know is Wrong'. A series of challenges and responses","authors":"Frederic Jennings Jr.","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8669","url":null,"abstract":"HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43246177","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 Stephen J. Macekura, The Mismeasure of Progress: Economic Growth and Its Critics, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 2020","authors":"Dragoș Bîgu","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8674","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46893123","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}
A plain question of what economists can learn from historian and philosopher Michel Foucault suggests an answer based on a consideration of his elaborate and inter-related historical, political, and philosophical inquiries into knowledge, power, and ethics. First of all, economists, via reading Foucault, can aptly achieve a critical understanding of knowledge they engage with that the objects of their study such as individual, the market, the state, exchange, production, consumption, entrepreneurship, wage and profit have a political, normative and performative character. As such, mainstream economists’ general attitude towards economic knowledge as a neutral and representative tool of fact is replaced with an understanding that considers it as the constitutive element of reality. The distinction at this point between fact and reality denotes that fact being the state of affairs and things we see and sense, reality is the state we experience and live through at a moment of history under the regulations and power effects of the institutional and knowledge order. This way of understanding the political, normative, and performative character of knowledge posits economic knowledge itself as an element of reality in a manner that it is shaped by material practices and, in turn, influences actuality by giving it a line of development through producing a truth regime further than scientific explanations. Foucault helps us understand that with the rise of capitalism economic knowledge is carved out under the auspices of liberalism since the time of Adam Smith down to the present and has gained a constitutive political, normative, and performative character in the sense that it does not restrict itself to produce scientific explanations regarding the market and public economy. By extension and implication, it generates a type of knowledge beneficial to (neo)liberal political reasoning in governing the society at large within its human and non-human arrangements in accordance with and for the sake of the market economy and its principles. As a result, (neo)liberal economics for Foucault is a governmental
{"title":"What can economists learn from Foucault?","authors":"C. Gürkan","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8667","url":null,"abstract":"A plain question of what economists can learn from historian and philosopher Michel Foucault suggests an answer based on a consideration of his elaborate and inter-related historical, political, and philosophical inquiries into knowledge, power, and ethics. First of all, economists, via reading Foucault, can aptly achieve a critical understanding of knowledge they engage with that the objects of their study such as individual, the market, the state, exchange, production, consumption, entrepreneurship, wage and profit have a political, normative and performative character. As such, mainstream economists’ general attitude towards economic knowledge as a neutral and representative tool of fact is replaced with an understanding that considers it as the constitutive element of reality. The distinction at this point between fact and reality denotes that fact being the state of affairs and things we see and sense, reality is the state we experience and live through at a moment of history under the regulations and power effects of the institutional and knowledge order. This way of understanding the political, normative, and performative character of knowledge posits economic knowledge itself as an element of reality in a manner that it is shaped by material practices and, in turn, influences actuality by giving it a line of development through producing a truth regime further than scientific explanations. Foucault helps us understand that with the rise of capitalism economic knowledge is carved out under the auspices of liberalism since the time of Adam Smith down to the present and has gained a constitutive political, normative, and performative character in the sense that it does not restrict itself to produce scientific explanations regarding the market and public economy. By extension and implication, it generates a type of knowledge beneficial to (neo)liberal political reasoning in governing the society at large within its human and non-human arrangements in accordance with and for the sake of the market economy and its principles. As a result, (neo)liberal economics for Foucault is a governmental","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44115395","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}
Many today’s scientists think that religion can never come to terms with science. In sharp contrast to the widespread opinion, the authors of this paper consider that historically scientific reasoning and religious belief joined hands in their effort to investigate and understand reality. In fact, the current divorce between science and religion is nothing else than the final outcome of a gradual long-term, and deliberately assumed process of science secularization of science. However, especially during the last decades, we have all been equally confronted with the advance of a new concern over the fact that contemporary scientists have been approaching an area of investigation that had been usually addressed by the theological thought. This recent development has generated an emerging new field of investigation of Science and Religion within modern scientific epistemology.Against this background, the purpose of this paper is three-fold: firstly, to briefly emphasize that one of the defining dimensions of the dialogue between science and religion is given by the discontinuity, in which, the knowledge acquired through scientific reasoning is placed in relation to the divinely revealed knowledge; secondly, to argue that another defining dimension of the dialogue consists in the hierarchical harmony mediating the encounter between the two, thus transgressing the discontinuity and making the dialogue between theology and science possible and viable; and thirdly, to advocate the idea that the apodictic method (based on antinomic logic) can successfully structure such a dialogue.
{"title":"The apodictic method and the dialogue between theology and science (I)","authors":"Fr Petre Comşa, Costea Munteanu","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8665","url":null,"abstract":"Many today’s scientists think that religion can never come to terms with science. In sharp contrast to the widespread opinion, the authors of this paper consider that historically scientific reasoning and religious belief joined hands in their effort to investigate and understand reality. In fact, the current divorce between science and religion is nothing else than the final outcome of a gradual long-term, and deliberately assumed process of science secularization of science. However, especially during the last decades, we have all been equally confronted with the advance of a new concern over the fact that contemporary scientists have been approaching an area of investigation that had been usually addressed by the theological thought. This recent development has generated an emerging new field of investigation of Science and Religion within modern scientific epistemology.Against this background, the purpose of this paper is three-fold: firstly, to briefly emphasize that one of the defining dimensions of the dialogue between science and religion is given by the discontinuity, in which, the knowledge acquired through scientific reasoning is placed in relation to the divinely revealed knowledge; secondly, to argue that another defining dimension of the dialogue consists in the hierarchical harmony mediating the encounter between the two, thus transgressing the discontinuity and making the dialogue between theology and science possible and viable; and thirdly, to advocate the idea that the apodictic method (based on antinomic logic) can successfully structure such a dialogue.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46324759","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}
Research has shown that the knowledge worker, the decisive driver of the knowledge economy, works increasingly longer hours. In fact, it would appear that instead of working to live, they live to work. There appears to be three reasons for this living-to-work development. First, the knowledge worker ‘has to’ on account of the pressure to become ever more efficient. Such pressure translates into internalized coercion in the case of the self-responsible knowledge worker. Secondly, working is constant, because the Internet and smart technologies and mobile devices have made it ‘possible’. It gives the worker the capacity and management omnipotent control. In the final instance, the neoliberal knowledge worker works all the time because s/he paradoxically ‘wants to’. It is a curious phenomenon, because this compulsive working is concomitant with a rise of a host of physical, emotional, and psychological disorders as well as the erosion of social bonds. The paradox is exacerbated by the fact that the knowledge worker does not derive any of the usual utilities or satisfactions associated with hard work. Elsewhere I have ascribed this apparent contradiction at the heart of the living-to-work phenomenon to the invisible thumotic satisfaction generated by knowledge work. In the present article, I argue that neoliberal governmentality has found a way to tether thumos directly to the profit incentive. I draw on Foucault’s 1978-1979 Collége de France lecture course in which he analysed neoliberal governmentality with specific emphasis on the work of the neoliberal theorist of human capital, Gary Becker.
{"title":"Neoliberal governmentality, knowledge work, and thumos","authors":"Benda Hofmeyr","doi":"10.46298/jpe.8662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.8662","url":null,"abstract":"Research has shown that the knowledge worker, the decisive driver of the knowledge economy, works increasingly longer hours. In fact, it would appear that instead of working to live, they live to work. There appears to be three reasons for this living-to-work development. First, the knowledge worker ‘has to’ on account of the pressure to become ever more efficient. Such pressure translates into internalized coercion in the case of the self-responsible knowledge worker. Secondly, working is constant, because the Internet and smart technologies and mobile devices have made it ‘possible’. It gives the worker the capacity and management omnipotent control. In the final instance, the neoliberal knowledge worker works all the time because s/he paradoxically ‘wants to’. It is a curious phenomenon, because this compulsive working is concomitant with a rise of a host of physical, emotional, and psychological disorders as well as the erosion of social bonds. The paradox is exacerbated by the fact that the knowledge worker does not derive any of the usual utilities or satisfactions associated with hard work. Elsewhere I have ascribed this apparent contradiction at the heart of the living-to-work phenomenon to the invisible thumotic satisfaction generated by knowledge work. In the present article, I argue that neoliberal governmentality has found a way to tether thumos directly to the profit incentive. I draw on Foucault’s 1978-1979 Collége de France lecture course in which he analysed neoliberal governmentality with specific emphasis on the work of the neoliberal theorist of human capital, Gary Becker.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46011903","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：