Showing papers in "International Journal of Social Economics in 1987"
TL;DR: The body of knowledge includes both theory and facts as mentioned in this paper, i.e., history, description of institution, statistical data, etc., which refer to human economising behaviour, as well as the human religious understanding of Jesus of Nazareth.
Abstract: By “political economy” I mean both the method of thought and the body of knowledge which refer to human economising behaviour. The body of knowledge includes both theory — theorems, laws, empirical generalisations, etc., and “facts” — history, description of institution, statistical data, etc. By “Christian theology” I mean both the method of thought and the body of knowledge which refer to the human religious understanding of Jesus of Nazareth. “Religious” here implies awareness of, or belief in, God. The body of knowledge may include pre‐Christian religion (such as that reported in the Old Testament), and the results of independent inquiry (such as natural theology) in so far as these are interpreted by, or “refracted” through what theologians call the “Christ event”.
18 citations
TL;DR: The authors investigate whether competing traditions in the history of economics are commensurable or not, that is, whether there is a firm ground on which a researcher could adjudicate the truth content of a theory.
Abstract: This article attempts to tackle a fundamental methodological question in economics. The task is to investigate whether competing traditions in the history of economics are commensurable or not, that is, whether there is a firm ground on which a researcher could adjudicate the truth content of a theory. Thomas Kuhn in philosophy and Donald McClosky in economics among others are understood to advance the thesis that theories are incommensurable since there is no empirical ground to resort to in order to resolve disputes among traditions in economics. Karl Popper in philosophy and Mark Blaug in economics among others argue that theories are commensurable since there is a sharp and distinct criterion which could determine the scientific content of a theory. A more sophisticated version of Popper's falsificationism has been advanced in philosophy by Imre Lakatos and has been correspondingly followed in economics by Spiro Latsis, E. Roy Weintraub and others.
18 citations
TL;DR: For example, the authors argue that the human species, as members of the animal kingdom, live as other species do, by taking low entropy from the natural environment and discharging it back into that environment as high entropy waste.
Abstract: The description “bio‐economics” is currently being claimed by two opposing schools of thought. For one group of economists, led by Kenneth Boulding, Herman Daly and Nicholas Georgescu‐Roegen, the term is chosen to emphasise the biological foundations of our economic activity. They remind us that the human species, as members of the animal kingdom, live as other species do, by taking low entropy from the natural environment and discharging it back into that environment as high‐entropy waste. The economic system is thus viewed as a sub‐set of larger processes taking place in the natural world. This school questions the reductionism typical of modern science and seeks to build an alternative approach based on a holistic view of nature and society.
17 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, it is argued that more resources should be allocated, and attention paid, to the results of forms of case-study, to personal histories, and to the study of primary sources.
Abstract: There are many accepted ways in which the economist may look at the business enterprise, each of which involves a different blend of theory and empirical evidence. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that many microeconomists have had no direct contact with firms: their experience of the very object on which some lavish such intricate mathematical analysis is entirely second‐hand. Happily, such isolation from the proper object of analysis, the firm, is by no means typical of the history of economic analysis. Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, was well acquainted with the business community of Glasgow. He was on good terms with the leading merchants of the day including, most notably, Provost Andrew Cochrane who assisted Smith in the acquisition of statistical and institutional information later to be used the The Wealth of Nations. Alfred Marshall too had a serious concern for the realities of business activity. In 1885 he made an extended visit to the United States which took him into many factories and provided the basis for his paper “Some Features of American Industry”. Even ten years later “his zeal for field work remained unimpaired”, and the months of August and September saw Marshall undertaking extensive tours of English mines and factories. One hundred years later, one notices scarcely any enthusiasm on the part of economists for fieldwork of the sort that would take them into the business enterprise. A welcome sign of the possibility that this parlous state may yet be modified is contained in an article by Lawson, where it is argued that “more resources should be allocated, and attention paid, to the results of forms of case‐study, to personal histories, and to the study of primary sources. At the very least a re‐evaluation of research priorities and methods may be in order”. Such an attitude is in sympathy with the line of argument pursued in this article.
16 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a reflection on the roots of organistic systems thinking in economics, notably on the contributions made by Wilhelm Roscher and Gustav von Schmoller, outstanding representatives of the Historical school in nineteenth-century Germany, is presented.
Abstract: This essay comprises a reflection on the roots of organistic systems thinking in economics, notably on the contributions made by Wilhelm Roscher and Gustav von Schmoller, outstanding representatives of the Historical school in nineteenth‐century Germany.
14 citations
TL;DR: The authors studied substitution behavior for burglary, robbery and theft using 1981 data for the police force areas of England and Wales and compared their results with those of American researchers and also examined the impact of substitution on the broad conclusions of the conventional non-substitution model.
Abstract: Economists have, in the last 20 years, made many contributions to the study of the deterrent effect of sanctions on criminals — these are surveyed in Brief & Fienberg (1980), Blumstein & Cohen (1978), Tullock (1974), Palmer (1977) and Taylor (1978). A considerable amount of the empirical work has dealt with crime supply functions for specific types of crime. Surprisingly little attention has been given to the switching of criminals between crimes in response to differentials in deterrence. Only three empirical studies of this phenomenon have appeared: Heineke (1978), Holtmann & Yap (1978), Hakim et al. (1984). All of these use cross‐section US data for property crimes. Their findings are thus somewhat tentative given that they may not hold up in other national contexts. This paper seeks to remedy this gap by studying substitution behaviour for burglary, robbery and theft using 1981 data for the police force areas of England and Wales. We compare our results with those of American researchers and also examine the impact of substitution on the broad conclusions of the conventional non‐substitution model.
12 citations
TL;DR: Methods for measuring willingness to pay are being strengthened and may soon play an important role in health services research, according to the authors.
Abstract: Measuring the benefits of health and life‐saving programmes is a difficult and problematic task. Nevertheless, if one wants to compare the costs and benefits of a programme using cost‐benefit analysis methodology the value of life extension and improved quality of life ought to be expressed in monetary terms. The willingness‐to‐pay approach can serve as a tool to deal practically with this task. Over the years considerable criticism of the reliability and validity of this method has appeared in the literature (for example, ). In spite of the vast criticism it seems that “methods for measuring willingness to pay are being strengthened and may soon play an important role in health services research”.
12 citations
TL;DR: In this article, Rugina mentions several times his affinity and indebtedness to the German economist, Walter Eucken (1891-1950), and does so most outspokenly in the following quotation:
Abstract: In his work Dr Rugina mentions several times his affinity and indebtedness to the German economist, Walter Eucken (1891–1950). He does so most outspokenly in the following quotation:
9 citations
TL;DR: The global society, today, is under serious stress due to a continuous breakdown of the rules of the game whereby one or two superpowers have been trying to maintain their hegemony in different parts of the world.
Abstract: The global society, today, is under serious stress. Among other things, this stress follows from a continuous breakdown of the rules of the game whereby one or two super‐powers have been trying to maintain their hegemony in different parts of the world. As a result, expenditure on armaments and means of human destruction has been mounting. It is estimated that the expenditure on the military in 1978 was 412 billion US dollars. Since then it has accelerated much faster. There is now such a large stockpile of destructive atomic weapons that it can destroy industrial civilisation — the creator of this stockpile — in a matter of hours.
6 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors point out the importance of ethical considerations in economic theory and argue that the mobilisation of capital through savings and investment took the form of massive and expensive transfer of technology from the industrialised countries to the developing ones.
Abstract: To start off our ethical economic thesis in this article, a few examples will suffice to point out the important relevance of ethical considerations in economic theory. During the 1950s and the 1960s the developing countries were being swayed by economic planners on prescriptions of neo‐classical growthmanship. Two such prescriptive models of economic growth were the Harrod‐Domar model and Rostow's linear stages model. According to the Harrod‐Domar model, economic growth was based on the attainment of the right quantity and mixture of savings, investment and foreign aid. Third World countries were being asked to follow a plan based on a long‐run economic growth path emulating the pattern of growth of the developed economies. In Rostow's linear stages model, optimisation of savings and investment was considered as the principal instrument of economic growth for the Third World. It turned out that the mobilisation of capital through savings and investment took the form of massive and expensive transfer of technology from the industrialised countries to the developing ones.
6 citations
TL;DR: In the countries of Eastern Europe, economic reform has been a constant theme in academic discussion and policy implementation as mentioned in this paper, and major reform programmes accompanied the five-year plans beginning in 1956, 1966, and 1969.
Abstract: Since the post‐Stalin thaw of the mid‐1950s, economic reform has been a constant theme in academic discussion and policy implementation in the countries of Eastern Europe. In Poland, major reform programmes accompanied the five‐year plans beginning in 1956, 1966, and 1969. The current economic crisis in that country has elicited yet another set of reform proposals.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a critique of the methodological basis of orthodox economics, arguing that it has historically loaded the analytical and predictive dice in favour of the capitalist or so-called free market system.
Abstract: Despite its all‐encompassing title this article aims to offer a number of pointers to a Christian critique of the methodological basis of orthodox (or broadly speaking neoclassical) economics. The contention for which the author aims to offer some justification is that that methodological basis is such that it has historically “loaded” the analytical and predictive “dice” in favour of the capitalist or so‐called free market system. By exploring the way in which economic analysis has evolved into a subject that claims to be “positive” (meaning ethically neutral, or free from subjective valuation), we question both the desirability of such a characteristic, and if indeed orthodox economics has succeeded in achieving it. The nature of this alleged “positivist fallacy” is such that the predictive ability of conventional economic analysis is to be brought severely into doubt and, in the present author's opinion, justifies an approach to economics based on unashamedly normative Biblical principles (as for example attempted by Hay and Kent).
TL;DR: In this paper, moral and ethical aspects of Marx's vision of the future society and connecting those considerations to his socio-economic and sociohistorical perspective on capitalism have been studied.
Abstract: In several previous papers, the present author has examined Marx's view of the future, post‐capitalist society, but without systematic consideration of moral or ethical issues (Elliott, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1986; Elliott and Scott, 1986). In recent papers, moral and ethical dimensions of Marx's critique of capitalist society have been studied (Elliott, 1986a, 1987). This article endeavours to link and synthesise these two lines of inquiry by expressly identifying moral and ethical aspects of Marx's vision of the future society and connecting those considerations to his socio‐economic and socio‐historical perspective on capitalism.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors group Mandeville's contributions among four overlapping subject headings as follows: subjectivism, laissez-faire economics, subjectivism and free market economics.
Abstract: Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, ungenerously described by its author as a “rhapsody void of order and method”, actually developed several ideas about the functioning of markets that anticipate some of the concerns of contemporary subjectivist economics such as are expressed in the writings of the modern Austrian School. While it may be too much of an exaggeration to follow F.B. Kaye by declaring Mandeville a “founder” of laissez‐faire economics, it is also quite incorrect to reach the negative verdict of one recent author who concluded that Mandeville “did not advance free‐market economics on any issue”. Mandeville did advance economics in general (and free market economics, incidentally) when he emphasised how patterns of conduct that emerge from the clash of individual egos guided by the flattery of politicians often function to promote some degree of commodious social life that is especially enjoyed by those quick to condemn the conduct as “immoral”. This theme still has its adherents today. I shall group Mandeville's contributions among four overlapping subject headings as follows:
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist-liberal democratic tradition(s) and consider hypotheses concerning the exceptional quality of relationships between the two.
Abstract: This article examines relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist‐liberal democratic tradition(s). Bentham and the Mills are taken as initiating both this tradition and the core elements of the debate within it. Pre‐Benthamite theories are first reviewed. Then, after discussion of Bentham and James Mill and of John Stuart Mill, Mill's late nineteenth and early twentieth century successors are examined. We then go on to consider hypotheses concerning the “exceptional” quality of relationships between capitalism and democracy in the United States. The penultimate section of the article adumbrates the main contours of mid‐twentieth century pluralist‐elitist theories. We conclude with a summary.
TL;DR: For the first time "survival" as well as "development" is the focus of international social work meetings as discussed by the authors, and it is the universal, collective "we" of the human species, past, present and future.
Abstract: We are in very deep trouble. This is not the pompous royal “we”, nor is it the “we” which may embrace our families, fellow citizens, or even our groupings of nations. It is the “we” of the human species — the universal, collective “we”, past, present and future. For the first time “survival”, as well as “development”, is the focus of international social work meetings. Survival is obviously a necessary but, as social workers especially know, certainly not a sufficient condition of human well‐being. The prophets of impending doom multiply in our midst, sometimes peddling their own particular brand of salvation, more often spreading cynicism and despair, foreshadowing a likely future that we do not want to know about or take responsibility for. “The future is no longer what it used to be” captures the current mood and reality.
TL;DR: This paper defined love as a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons, which implies intense fondness or deep devotion and may apply to various relationships or objects, such as love can be treated in a broad sense to mean the feeling of benevolence and closeness that people may have for each other.
Abstract: Webster's New World dictionary defines love as a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons. It implies intense fondness or deep devotion and may apply to various relationships or objects. What distinguishes love from “affection” or “attainment” is that the feelings implied by the latter are not as powerful or deep as those implied by love. Also, love can be treated in a broad sense to mean the feeling of benevolence and closeness (or brotherhood) that people may have for each other.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the compatibility of the emphasis on the state as an instrument to achieve socially optimal results with what has come to be called social economics and compare the modern social economist to Charles Devas.
Abstract: In her popular Development of Economic Analysis, Ingrid Rima writes early on of the “compatibility” of “emphasis on the state as an instrument to achieve socially optimal results…with what has come to be called social economics”. Subsequently (1978, p. 322; 1986, p. 396), she treats of J.M. Clark's “crucial” contribution to the development (1920s/1930s) of a new type of economics he describes as “social”. Similarly, George F. Rohrlich, in his 1970 introductory essay, “The Challenge of Social Economics”, wrote of “The emerging field of social economics”, and noted that “in the United States the term was used in the 1930s and occasionally thereafter”. More recently (1982), Samuel Cameron singles out Mark A. Lutz's 1980 USE contribution, e.g., for neglecting Charles Devas(op. cit., 1876–1907) “as a contributor to the founding of social economics”, while comparing Devas to “the modern social economist”.
TL;DR: Most contemporary economists feel ill at ease with respect to big topics such as national economic organisation, interpretation of economic history, relations of economic and political power, origins and functions of economic institutions as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Most contemporary economists feel ill at ease with respect to big topics — national economic organisation, interpretation of economic history, relations of economic and political power, origins and functions of economic institutions. The terrain is unsuitable for our tools. We find it hard to frame meaningful questions, much less to answer them. (James Tobin, Nobel Laureate)
TL;DR: Schmoller's work is almost completely locked up in the German language, save for his The Mercantile System and its Historical Significance, published in 1888 and his essay on "The Idea of Justice in Political Economy".
Abstract: In 1988, German‐speaking economists plan to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Gustav von Schmoller. Yet, in contemporary America, Schmoller is hardly known. His work is almost completely locked up in the German language, save for his The Mercantile System and its Historical Significance, published in 1888 and his essay on “The Idea of Justice in Political Economy”. Furthermore, because he was not an econometrician or a mathematical economist, nobody has much use for Schmoller today anyway.
TL;DR: Rugina as mentioned in this paper considered the nature of money, a topic that he has concerned himself with during much of his career and that forms a significant link in his current major project, “Toward a New Principia Politica”.
Abstract: It is appropriate in these sessions called in honour of Anghel N. Rugina to consider the nature of money, a topic that he has concerned himself with during much of his career and that forms a significant link in his current major project, “Toward a New Principia Politica”.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors learn that a theological cerebration that is not conscious of its social base cannot be critical of it and therefore becomes a captive of unconscious social determinants.
Abstract: We would learn that theological cerebration that is not conscious of its social base cannot be critical of it and therefore becomes a captive of unconscious social determinants.
TL;DR: Hill as discussed by the authors argued that the goals and objectives of social economies are completely compatible with the philosophy and methodology of institutionalism and concluded that both schools of economic thought could be strengthened by a synthesis which would merge the goals of social economics with the pragmatic philosophy of institutional economics.
Abstract: In 1978, Lewis Hill, in an instructive article in the Review of Social Economy, persuasively demonstrated that “the goals and objectives of social economies are completely compatible with the philosophy and methodology of institutionalism”. Consequently, he concludes, “both schools of economic thought could be strengthened by a synthesis which would merge the goals and objectives of social economics with the pragmatic philosophy and methodology of institutional economics”. Hill arrived at this conclusion by first summarising the goals and objectives of social economics and by distilling the work of Thorstein B. Veblen, John R. Commons, Wesley Clair Mitchell and Clarence E. Ayres, thereby setting forth the philosophy and methodology of institutional economics. Noting that the “four founding fathers of institutionalism constitute an extremely diverse group of scholars”, he observed that “the only feature which ties them together…was their common acceptance of pragmatism as the philosophical basis of their economic thought”. He then identified seven aspects of the effects of pragmatism on the philosophical foundation of institutionalism. He also described five characteristics that set social economists apart.
TL;DR: Keynes, with his heretical contribution to the family of the neo-classics, was as profound as the heresies of Luther against the Pope as mentioned in this paper, who accepted the institution of profit, private initiative, personal ownership of the means of production, the price mechanism of the market in the production and consumption of goods and distribution of income.
Abstract: Keynes, with his heretical contribution to the family of the neo‐classics, was as profound as the heresies of Luther against the Pope. He accepted the institution of profit, private initiative, personal ownership of the means of production, the price mechanism of the market in the production and consumption of goods and distribution of income. He refused to accept, however, the old concept of equilibrium with full employment according to the Say law of the markets. Instead he introduced the concept of equilibrium with unemployment, anathema to the classics.
TL;DR: However, despite the fact that the United States economic growth in the past has been impressive, the individual actor in the economic world appears to remain a dismal creature as mentioned in this paper, not in the Malthusian sense of population trap, but in the sense that the actor never seems to be satisfied with what he has.
Abstract: Contemporary American economists are almost universally proud of their contribution to the enhancement of human welfare. They will readily and honestly dismiss the once famous nickname of economics, the dismal science. However, despite the fact that the United States economic growth in the past has been impressive, the individual actor in the economic world appears to remain a dismal creature. “Dismal” not in the Malthusian sense of population trap, but in the sense that the actor never seems to be satisfied with what he has — even though what he has has greatly increased. In other words, economic man did collectively generate the wealth of the nation, but the increased wealth does not seem to have led the majority of people individually to a more satisfying life. In the meantime, economists have begun to focus on Democracy in Deficit, The Economy in Deficit, and America's Great Consumption Binge.
TL;DR: The task of positivistic economics, guided by instrumentalism, is seen as the search for efficient means for attaining ends which are externally given as mentioned in this paper, and modern economics pretends that empirical testing, in combination with testing for logical consistency can be counted upon for ensuring scientific progress.
Abstract: Modern economics, because of its instrumental orientation and its adherence to positivistic canons of science, suffers from two pernicious illusions. The first is that the discipline fails to acknowledge its own participation in the determination of the ends to be sought. The task of positivistic economics, guided by instrumentalism, is seen as the search for efficient means for attaining ends which are externally given. Second, modern economics pretends that empirical testing, in combination with testing for logical consistency, can be counted upon for ensuring scientific progress. As a result of these illusions, modern economics has become preoccupied with the seemingly endless formalisation of an exceedingly narrow body of theory. Because mainstream economics lacks an adequate methodological foundation, it has not only substantially abdicated its function of providing public enlightenment, but it is too readily used as ideology.
TL;DR: A widely accepted belief holds that social economics is logically inconsistent with the pragmatic philosophy as mentioned in this paper, a view expressed by Mark A. Lutz at the Third World Congress for Social Economics.
Abstract: A widely accepted belief holds that social economics is logically inconsistent with the pragmatic philosophy. This view has been very clearly and forcibly expressed by Mark A. Lutz at the Third World Congress for Social Economics. Lutz has summarised his conclusions in the following quotation:
TL;DR: The welfare of the society should be measured by its condition, including its human capital, not by its throughput of production and consumption, for the gross national product increasingly includes such unproductive and "maintenance" items as national defense, replacement of unnecessarily shoddy commodities, and so on.
Abstract: The welfare of the society…should be measured…by its…condition…its total capital structure, including its human capital, not by its throughput of production and consumption, for the gross national product increasingly includes such unproductive and… ‘maintenance’ items as national defense, …the replacement of unnecessarily shoddy commodities, and so on[3, p. 45].
TL;DR: The Marxian concept of the instauration, the founding, the advent of the New Man was introduced in this paper, and it has been studied extensively in the last few decades.
Abstract: Beyond the purview of religious teachings, I find the Marxian conception of the New Man the most intriguing one in the whole secular world. Is it chimerical to hope for the coming of this New Man, I ask myself? Is Marx the vaunt‐courier of this ideal really naive and the New Man nothing other than the last straw he could grasp, considering his philippics against capitalism and his traduction of Christianity? Was the New Man his only hope? The votaries of the free enterprise system have rejected him out of hand. Are the beaux esprits of Marxian doctrine no less naive than Karl Marx himself, clinging as they do to this fantastic belief? I would like here today briefly to review the Marxian concept of the instauration, the founding, the advent of the New Man, to examine its possibilities. Most of the authorities to whom I shall here have recourse are sons of France, forbidding me therefore from denying the French connection.
TL;DR: In this paper, Rugina's contribution goes further for he asks us to consider matters from a different perspective to that of both classical and modern economics and create a Third Revolution in economic thought.
Abstract: Today much of economic theory, particularly microeconomic theory, rests on neo‐classical foundations. Through a consideration of neo‐classical concepts, one can reassess current economic thought. This may support the view that relevant advances in economic thought have taken place or (in the light of Professor Anghel Rugina's research and observations) may result in doubt about the basis and direction of current economic thought, especially in macroeconomics. However, Rugina's contribution goes further for he asks us to consider matters from a different perspective to that of both classical and modern economics and create a Third Revolution in economic thought.