The goal of “Inclusive Economics” is to tie together various authoritative strands of contemporary economic theory into an easily comprehensible whole that illuminates the need for a broader approach to contemporary economic policymaking undistorted by obsolete 18th century rationalist assumptions about utility, ethics, worthiness and traditional culture. This is accomplished by elaborating the rationalist competitive ideal along the optimizing lines pioneered by Paul Samuelson (neoclassical economics); plumbing modifications necessitated by Herbert Simon's realist concepts of “bounded rationality” and (...) “satisficing”; refined further by applying a pragmatist outlook to probe the consequences of relaxing Enlightenment teleological, ethical, spiritual and cultural taboos. The exercise will explain why competitive market economies guided by rational utility-seeking invariably are less productive, efficient, just and beneficent than most theorists concede, and will illuminate the full range of interventions needed to achieve better outcomes. We call this program in its entirety “Inclusive Economics”, including the integration of micro and macroeconomics. (shrink)

This volume, first published in 1991, represents a wide-ranging inquiry into the general field of structural economic analysis and provides a thorough appraisal of the method of economic dynamics. It comprises nine original essays by distinguished scholars, all of which assess different aspects of the concept of economic structure. The analytical contribution of the volume is to draw attention to the relationship between 'horizontal' and 'vertical' treatments of economic structure that have characterized economic theory. (...) The former focuses on the circular character of economic relationships, as exemplified in the Quesnay–Leontief literature, while the latter concentrates on the relationships between the 'fund' of productive resources and the production of finished goods. Perhaps the most important contribution of the volume is to provide a linkage between the two approaches and to put forward a new conceptual framework that combines an appreciation for the importance of technical relationships with a recognition of the institutional arrangements in the economic system. (shrink)

In these two volumes, David P. Levine undertakes the systematic clarification and further development of the theoretical contributions of classical political economy. It focuses on such central issues in economic theory as: * need, value and exchange * capital and its production * the concept of labour * growth * the firm * price determination. Throughout the treatment is at a high level of abstraction.

The first part of this book (“Social Waste and Non-Commodity Waste, and the Individual Circuit of Capital”) will probably be of most interest to readers of this journal. The author argues that Marx’s formula for individual circuits of capital does not allow a fully adequate comprehension of capitalism. Marx discusses the initial money capital invested (M), the commodity inputs purchased with investment capital (C), the production process (P), the new commodities produced (C’), and the money appropriated from sales of (...) those commodities (M’). Custers insists that two other elements must be included: the non-commodity waste produced in the course of commodity production, and the social waste that results when commodities have “negative use-values” (this occurs when their use inflicts net harm on society). He takes the pollution generated in the course of producing nuclear energy as the main example of non-commodity waste, while nuclear weapons provide the paradigmatic illustration of social waste. Custers adds symbols for these two phenomena (-W and =W, respectively) to Marx’s M-C-P-C’-M formula. The discussion of the profound environmental costs of each and every stage in the production of nuclear energy warrants special mention due to its clarity and comprehensiveness. Representatives of the nuclear industry and their allies are becoming increasingly emboldened to propose nuclear energy as the solution to global warming. Many of us suspect this is an insane idea. But it is important to know precisely why this.. (shrink)

This article focuses on the latest developments in mainstream economic theory as of 1999. Changes in economic theory are particularly significant in a period when the Stalinist version of Marxian theory is also in disarray, and the whole question of markets and economic coordination in socialist economies is in practical and theoretical flux. The most important abstract results in the finite-commodity space general-equilibrium theory are that equilibria are locally unique, that is, prices close (...) to but different from the equilibrium prices leave an imbalance between supply and demand, and that a logical link exists between competitive equilibrium allocations and an efficient allocation of resources. A stronger theory of the productive unit can now develop to balance the so far one-sided concentration of theory on market interactions. (shrink)

By examining the development of economics in the 20th century, this book argues that the breakthroughs of post WWII general equilibrium theory and its rejection of utilitarianism and marginal productivity have been misunderstood. Mandler maintains that although earlier neoclassicism deserved criticism, current theory does not adequately address the problems the discarded concepts were designed to solve, and that intractable dilemmas therefore appear.

The use of the marginal concept in academic economic theory is found to underlie a good deal of current orthodox economic analysis. The marginal concept is used by thinkers with a collectivist bent as well as thinkers of an orthodox stamp. Marginal analysis is reasonably serviceable on some occasions but fraught with difficulties on others. When the marginal concept refers to a measurable factor, such as the marginal product of an additional unit of capital, it is unquestionably (...) useful for analysis. When it refers to a subjective situation, such as a marginal increase or decrease in satisfaction or demand, the analysis which rests upon it is often somewhat shaky. This paper is an attempt to point out some difficulties in the use of marginal analysis when such analysis refers to internal psychological states of economic men. The points made here will center about the concept of marginal satisfaction in income, that is to say, the assumption that the increment of satisfaction resulting from an additional unit of income, diminishes with size of income. (shrink)

Neoclassical and Austrian/evolutionary economic paradigms have different implications for integrating corporate social responsibility (corporate citizenship) and competitive strategy. porter's "Five Forces" model implicitly rests on neoclassical theory of the firm and is not easily reconciled with corporate social responsibility. Resource-based models of competitive strategy do not explicitly embrace a particular economic paradigm, but to the extent their conceptualization rests on neoclassical assumptions such as imperfect factor markets and profits as rents, these models also imply a trade-off between (...) competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Differences in Austrian/evolutionary economic model's assumptions about equilibrium, profits, and other economic concepts allow this paradigm to embrace alternative views of strategy such as the activities or dynamic capabilities views. These alternative views of strategy focus on learning and adaptation; they align more easily with corporate social responsibility. In practice this alignment comes about because social engagement facilitates the learning and adaptation that are a source of competitive advantage. Among the many business arguments for CSR such as improved employee morale/productivity or brand differentiation, this view prioritizes innovation. (shrink)

Marx develops his economic theory in Capital in a rather peculiar way. This paper focuses on some of these peculiarities, especially his attempt to base his account of prices and derivative entities (profit, rate of profit, etc.) on the labour theory of value. Although he may be said to have failed in this, there is still some kind of Marxist theory of prices possible. This is due to both, the so-called fundamental theorem (linking profit and surplus-value) (...) and the possibility, shown by Sraffa and others, to determine prices from the physical parameters of production. By adding on an earlier paper of mine, in which the surplus-value theory has been reconstructed within the structuralistic framework, this paper sketches such a reconstruction for the basic parts of a full-blown Marxist economic theory of capitalistic production. (shrink)

This book is about the conceptual foundations of an intermediate way between liberalism and socialism: a synthesis of classical and Keynesian political economy. Classical theory deals with proportions between individuals or collectives and society in tackling problems of distribution and value. Keynesian theory is concerned with the scale of economic activity as explained by effective demand. The economy considered is primarily a monetary production economy, not a market or a planned economy. The author sets up a (...) system linking political economy with other social sciences, i.e. sociology, law and politics in the traditional sense, thus establishing the unity of the social sciences. To complete the picture, issues of method associated with the theory of knowledge in the social sciences and the problem of linking theory with historical reality are also covered. (shrink)

This book presents a new transhistorical framework of defining production, work and consumption. It shows that they all share the common feature of intentional physical transformation of something external to the agent, at some point in time.

Methodological appraisal usually aims at a discourse that contributes to the improvement of knowledge production processes in economics. Attempts by economists, such as that by Gilboa et al. (2022. Economic theories and their dueling interpretations. Journal of Economic Methodology, 1–20) to engage in such a discourse are laudable and needed because they draw on field-specific expertise and experience from economic practice and thereby can steer such discourse into promising directions. However, while Gilboa et al. seem to (...) share the ambition of doing economic methodology in the service of progress, their contribution is not sufficiently self-critical. Instead of seriously considering the diversity of contemporary modeling practices, their position commits them to an outdated view of economics and can be read as licensing the preservation of conceptual and theoretical elements of standard economics that the discipline has long been criticized for. As such, the authors miss out on fully reaching their own ambitions of a practice-based appraisal that pushes economists towards self-critical and forward-looking modeling. (shrink)

This concerns the dignity and the degradation of labour. Work has great power to undermine or to foster happiness. Bernard feels the moral dimension of labour has been neglected in political theory and practice and he aims to restore productive labour to its place in moral and political debate.

Ragnar Frisch received the first Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science together with Jan Tinbergen in 1969 for having played an important role in ensuring that mathematical techniques figure prominently in modern economic analysis. Frisch was also a co-founder of the Econometric Society in 1930, the inaugural editor of its journal Econometrica for over 20 years, and a major figure in Norwegian academic life. This collection of essays derived from the centennial symposium which marked Frisch's birth explores his (...) contributions to econometrics and other key fields in the discipline as well as the results of new research. Contributors include eminent scholars from Europe, the United Kingdom and North America who investigate themes in utility measurement, production theory, microeconomic policy, econometric methods, macrodynamics, and macroeconomic planning. (shrink)

Chapter 5 is an essay on the methodology of equilibrium theory. In the course of examining recent controversies concerning lawlike claims and "assumptions" in economic theory, I reach a position similar to J. S. Mill's. Neo-classical economics is what Mill would call "a separate science." It follows a deductive method, since its basic laws supported by everyday experience. In its general equilibrium formulation, equilibrium theory possesses, however, no explanatory worth and very little explanatory importance, since its (...) idealizations are not legitimate. General equilibrium theory ought fundamentally to be regarded as an explanation of how economic equilibrium is possible. ;In conclusion I argue that Sraffa's contribution is a legitimate form of economic theorizing. Those methodological views, like Lionel Robbins', which would proscribe the sort of piecemeal theorizing Sraffa exemplifies, are, as methodological strictures, unjustified. In fact they involve an ideological distortion. Given the weaknesses in general equilibrium theory identified in Chapters 3 and 5, one has good reason to be eclectic. The Austrian theory, despite the Cambridge criticisms, may be useful in some investigations. A much more segmented economics built around Sraffa's work may have a great deal to teach us. Theories of capital, interest and exchange value currently are underdeveloped, unsupported, and subject to ideological influence. ;In Chapter 3 one special formulation of intertemporal general equilibrium theory is examined. I argue that general equilibrium theory may be taken as a theory of the rate of interest to which the Cambridge criticisms do not apply. Puzzles remain, however, concerning both the apparently lawlike claims and the unrealistic stipulations concerning background conditions that general equilibrium theory makes. ;In Chapter 4 Sraffa's system in The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities is presented and tentatively assessed. I argue that it is consistent with equilibrium theory, but may be combined with other claims that are not consistent with equilibrium theory. What is puzzling but, I argue, methodologically legitimate in Sraffa's work is that he takes as givens factors like the composition of output, that are themselves subject to further economic analysis. Sraffa's work, when properly understood, can prove valuable to Marxian economists. ;Chapter 1 establishes a contrast between physical cost and marginal utility theories of exchange value and examines why issues concerning capital and interest are theoretically central to both theories. I point out that physical cost theories of value are not tenable. ;Chapter 2 is concerned with simplified aggregate capital theories, especially Wicksell's Austrian theory of capital, and with the Cambridge criticisms of such theories. The Cambridge criticisms show, I conclude, that aggregative capital theories make unwarranted economic claims. ;This dissertation examines from both an economic and a philosophical perspective controversies concerning the theory of capital and interest and the relationship of capital and interest to exchange value. The fundamentals of the neo-classical and neo-Ricardian approaches to economic theory are made explicit and compared. The neo-Ricardian approach is partially defended. (shrink)

This article reviews and brings together two literatures: classical political economists’ views on the skilling or deskilling nature of technological change in England, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when they wrote, are compared with the empirical evidence about the skill effects of technological change that emerges from studies of economic historians. In both literatures, we look at both the skill impacts of technological change and at the “inducement mechanisms” that are envisaged for the introduction of new technologies. Adam (...) Smith and Karl Marx both regarded the deskilling of the labour force as the predominant form of biased technical change, but other authors such as Charles Babbage also took account of capital-skill complementarities and skill-enhancing effects of technological change. For Smith, the deskilling bias was an unintended by-product of the increasing division of labour, which in his view “naturally” led to ever more simplification of workers’ tasks. As opposed to Smith, Marx considered unskilled-biased technical change as a bourgeois weapon in the class struggle for impairing the workers’ bargaining position. Studies of economic historians lend support to Marx’s hypothesis about the inducement mechanisms for the introduction of unskilled-biased innovations, but have produced no clear-cut empirical evidence for a deskilling tendency of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century technological change as a whole. Industrialization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries rather led to labour polarization, by simultaneously deskilling a large part of the workforce and raising the demand for some high-skilled workers. (shrink)

Economies are complicated systems encompassing micro behaviors, interaction patterns, and global regularities. Whether partial or general in scope, studies of economic systems must consider how to handle difficult real-world aspects such as asymmetric information, imperfect competition, strategic interaction, collective learning, and the possibility of multiple equilibria. Recent advances in analytical and computational tools are permitting new approaches to the quantitative study of these aspects. One such approach is Agent-based Computational Economics (ACE), the computational study of economic processes modeled (...) as dynamic systems of interacting agents. This chapter explores the potential advantages and disadvantages of ACE for the study of economic systems. General points are concretely illustrated using an ACE model of a two-sector decentralized market economy. Six issues are highlighted: Constructive understanding of production, pricing, and trade processes; the essential primacy of survival; strategic rivalry and market power; behavioral uncertainty and learning; the role of conventions and organizations; and the complex interactions among structural attributes, institutional arrangements, and behavioral dispositions. (shrink)

This volume is inspired by developments in two strands of economic theorising. Firstly, research on structural economic dynamics based on three sources: Hicks' work on traverse analysis, Pasinetti on disproportional growth and Goodwin on dynamic decomposition and economic fluctuations. The second strand goes back to Georgescu-Roegen's interest in an organisational theory of production based upon the interrelationship between tasks, fund factors and material transformations. The approach taken involves a comprehensive view of sub-units of the whole (...) economic system representing dynamics of structural adaptation and compositional change. Furthermore, a detailed representation of micro-organisational features leads to the analysis of networks and networking processes within and amongst such sub-units. (shrink)

Revenues from television spot-advertising can be viewed as a kind of indirect financing of editorial content. This applies still further to endeavours to incorporate advertising messages into programming. In order to identify problems associated with doing away with the separation principle, it is meaningful to adopt a perspective that brings together theories and findings which are genuinely embedded in economics and communication science. Such a perspective shows that appealing to the self-regulating forces of the market is nonsensical in a sector (...) where market failure is the rule as opposed to the exception. And when it comes to media competence of television viewers, audience research and research on media effects indicates that expectations with respect to the advertising effectiveness of product placement are unlikely to be met. (shrink)

This book presents the main economic argument developed by Marx in the three volumes of Capital in a coherent and comprehensive manner. It also delves into three long-standing debates in Marxist political economy: the transformation problem, the Okishio theorem, and theories of exploitation and oppression. Starting with discussions of methodology, including dialectics and historical materialism, the book explains key concepts of Marxist political economy: commodity, value, money, capital, reserve army of labour, accumulation of capital, circuit of capital, reproduction schemas, (...) prices of production, profit, interest and rent. Scholars of economics, sociology, geography, political science, anthropology, and other kindred disciplines, will find here an accessible yet rigorous treatment of Marxist political economy. (shrink)

Mr Dobb examines the history of economic thought in the light of the modern controversy over capital theory and, more particularly, the appearance of Sraffa's book The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, which was a watershed in the critical discussions constituted a crucial turning-point in the history of economics: an estimate not unconnected with his reinterpretation of nineteenth-century economic thought as consisting of two streams or traditions commonly confused under the generic title of 'the (...) classical tradition' against which Jevons so strongly reacted. (shrink)

This work on index-number construction focuses on production indexes, including output and input deflators that can be used for constructing real output and real input. Fisher and Shell treat separately the different production units: the firm, the industry, and the economy, as well as the different forms of industrial organization: monopoly, monopsony, and competition. Only in the simplest cases is the appropriate theory isomorphic to that of the cost-of-living index because of the interlinkages among the various (...) class='Hi'>production units. A firm cannot always assume that the behavior of its competitors, suppliers, and customers will be unaffected by price changes and only in special cases can an industry take supply and demand conditions as given. (shrink)

The theory of social-property relations, or political Marxism, has argued that in contradistinction with pre-capitalist forms of exploitation, capitalism is characterised by the separation of the economic and the political, which makes surplus appropriation under this system uniquely driven by economic coercion. In spite of political Marxism’s various strengths, this article argues that the paradigm puts forward an ahistorical and sanitised conception of capitalism typical of bourgeois economics, which is an outcome of its formal-abstractionist approach to the (...) concept of the mode of production and the separation between theory and history that it operates. A more satisfactory solution to political Marxism’s inability to make sense of past and present forms of coercion and violence under capitalism can be found in Jairus Banaji’s emphasis on Marx’s historical – rather than formal – conception of the mode of production. (shrink)

This paper juxtaposes Deleuze's notion of the virtual alongside Oyama's notion of a developmental system in order to explore the promises and perils of thinking bodily identity as indeterminate at a time when new technologies render bodily ambiguity increasingly productive of both economic profit and power relations.

After Marx, dissenting economics almost always used 'the labour theory' as a theory of value. This paper develops a modern treatment of the alternative labour theory of property that is essentially the property theoretic application of the juridical principle of responsibility: impute legal responsibility in accordance with who was in fact responsible. To understand descriptively how assets and liabilities are appropriated in normal production, a 'fundamental myth' needs to be cleared away, and then the market mechanism (...) of appropriation can be understood. On the normative side, neoclassical theory represents marginal productivity theory as showing that (a metaphorical version of) the imputation principle is satisfied ('people get what they produce') in competitive enterprises. Since that shows the moral commitment of neoclassical economics to the imputation principle, the labour theory of property is presented here as the actual non-metaphorical application of the imputation principle to property appropriation. The property-theoretic analysis at the firm level shows how the neoclassical (and much heterodox) analysis in terms of 'distributive shares' wholly misframed the basic questions. Finally, the paper shows how the imputation principle (modernised labour theory of property) is systematically violated in the present wage labour system of renting persons. The paper can be seen as taking up the recent challenge posed by Donald Katzner for a dialogue between neoclassical and heterodox microeconomics. (shrink)

Stakeholder theorists distinguish between normative stakeholders, those who gain moral standing by making contributions to the firm, and derivative stakeholders, those who can constrain the corporate association even though they make no contribution. The board of directors has the legal authority to distinguish among these stakeholder groups and to distribute rights and obligations among these stakeholder groups. To be sure, this stakeholder formulation appropriately seizes on the firm’s voluntary, associative character. Yet, the firm’s constituents contribute assets and incur risks to (...) participate in market, economic activities. And, as such, the firm’s “stakeholders” must share an imperfect language to assist in making two key economic decisions: (1) who are the legitimate and who are the derivative stakeholders; and (2) who should sit on the board? Still, stakeholder theorists have good reason to be skeptical of neoclassical economics. Its assumptions that all act opportunistically and that all can calculate rationally and fully hardly correspond to studies on the managerial experience of corporate coordination. However, advances in behavioral law and economics now provide a cogent economic logic that readily fits into a stakeholder mode. In brief, we argue that (1) the firm’s economic purpose designates legitimacy to core stakeholders, to those who add value, assume unique risk, and can incur harm; (2) the board serves as the principal who coordinates these core stakeholders to sustain competitive advantage and new wealth creation; and (3) state incorporation law, Delaware in particular, reinforces the board’s function. These, in turn, supply selection criteria for board membership. We aim to synchronize concepts from behavioral law and economics with stakeholder theory. (shrink)

This paper presents a personal view of the interaction between the analysis of choice under uncertainty and the analysis of production under uncertainty. Interest in the foundations of the theory of choice under uncertainty was stimulated by applications of expected utility theory such as the Sandmo model of production under uncertainty. This interest led to the development of generalized models including rank-dependent expected utility theory. In turn, the development of generalized expected utility models raised the (...) question of whether such models could be used in the analysis of applied problems such as those involving production under uncertainty. Finally, the revival of the state-contingent approach led to the recognition of a fundamental duality between choice problems and production problems. (shrink)

Conventional theory assumes that economic agents perform at optimal levels of efficiency by definition and this is achieved when individuals behave in a particular fashion. Moreover, neoclassical production theory masks the process by which optimal output can be achieved. I argue that economic theory should be revised to incorporate some key findings of behavioural economics, while retaining the conventional theory’s normative ideal of optimum output whilst rejecting its normative procedural ideals of how to (...) achieve optimality in production. I argue that neoclassical procedures can be expected to yield sub-optimal levels of output and therefore should not be benchmarks for procedural rationality. I present an alternative more realistic and analytically precise specification of the production function related to the fast and frugal heuristics narrative pioneered by Gigerenzer and Leibenstein’s x-efficient theory. This approach incorporates an understanding of the appropriate procedures, psychological and organization variables, decision-making capabilities and end-goals required to achieve optimality in production and, thereby, grow the wealth of nations, thereby enhancing the material wellbeing of the population at large. This also provides us with the tools to better identify economic inefficiency and the conditions that contribute to it. (shrink)

In mainstream economic theory money functions as an instrument for the circulation of commodities or for keeping a stock of liquid wealth. In neither case is it considered fundamental to the production of goods or the distribution of income. Augusto Graziani challenges traditional theories of monetary production, arguing that a modern economy based on credit cannot be understood without a focus on the administration of credit flows. He argues that market asset configuration depends not upon consumer (...) preferences and available technologies but on how money and credit are managed. A strong exponent of the circulation theory of monetary production, Graziani presents an original and perhaps controversial argument that will stimulate debate on the topic. (shrink)

This volume contains a selection of Professor Uzawa's important contributions to mathematical economics. Subjects covered by these nineteen essays include consumption, production, equilibrium, capital, growth, planning, international trade, and the theory of social overhead capital. Written in the 1960s and early 1970s, the papers form a basis upon which economic theory has developed over the last twenty years. The collection includes some of Uzawa's classic contributions, such as 'Preference and Rational Choice in the Theory of (...) Consumption', 'Time Preference, the Consumption Function, and Optimum Asset Holdings', 'Neutral Inventions and the Stability of Growth Equilibrium', 'On a Two-Sector Model of Economic Growth', 'Time Preference and the Penrose Effect in a Two-Class Model of Economic Growth', and 'On the Economics of Social Overhead Capital'. The collection will be useful not only in understanding the nature of the development in economic theory today, but also in reflecting upon the direction toward which economic theory will be advancing in the future. (shrink)

This compelling book contains a comprehensive analytical treatment of the theory of production in a long-period framework. Although the authors take a 'Classical' approach to their subject, the scope of investigation and methods employed should interest all economic theorists. Professors Kurz and Salvadori explore economic systems that are characterised by a particular kind of primary input in the production process, such as different kinds of labour and natural resources. These systems and the corresponding prices can (...) be understood to reflect characteristic features of a capitalist market economy in an ideal way: they express the pure logic of the relationship between value and distribution in an economic system. Specific chapters deal with prices and income distribution, economic growth, joint production, fixed capital, scarce natural resources, and heterogeneous labour. The historical origins of the concepts used are also discussed in considerable detail. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes' method of deriving some moral principles from a social contract has inspired some contemporary moral philosophers to combine the contractarian approach with the model of rational behavior familiar to economists, in order to derive substantive principles of right from essentially formal constraints on the choice of principles. They argue that the device of a hypothetical social contract could serve to generate intuitively plausible moral principles even when the contractors are assumed to be self-interested maximizers of expected utility . (...) Since economic rationality, as defined here, is a relatively pliable model of rational deliberation, the hope is that this approach will provide a systematic tool for the derivation and justification of moral principles. ;Given this conception of rationality, a hypothetical social contract may be interpreted as any of several formal models of rational choice, each of which I examine, as exhibited in the work of some contemporary contract theorists: John Rawls' early work represents the view that choosing the social contract involves an individual decision under certainty; in his later work , Rawls presents the social contract as an individual decision made under ignorance; John Harsanyi defends the case for an individual decision under risk; and David Gauthier's recent work treats the social contract as the product of a rational collective bargain. ;I argue that, if the model of economic rationality is taken seriously, none of these conceptions of the social contract produce principles which conform to our considered moral judgments, and most of them will fail to produce a contractual agreement of any sort. Consequently, I conclude that the combination of economic rationality and procedural constraints on the deliberations of such contractors is an inadequate substitute for other-regarding sentiments usually considered necessary for the justification of moral principles. (shrink)

David Hamilton is a leader in the American institutionalist school of heterodox economics that emerged after WWII. This volume includes 25 articles written by Hamilton over a period of nearly half a century. In these articles he examines the philosophical foundations and practical problems of economics. The result of this is a unique institutionalist view of how economies evolve and how economics itself has evolved with them. Hamilton applies insight gained from his study of culture to send the message that (...) human actions situated in culture determine our economic situation. David Hamilton has advanced heterodox economics by replacing intellectual concepts from orthodox economics that hinder us with concepts that help us. In particular, Hamilton has helped replace equilibrium with evolution, make-believe with reality, ideological distortion of government with practical use of government, the economy as a product of natural law with the economy as a product of human law and, last, he has helped us replace the entrepreneur as a hero with the entrepreneur as a real person. These articles provide an alternative to the self-adjusting market. They provide an explanation of how the interaction of cultural patterns and technology determine the evolutionary path of the economic development of a nation. This is not a simple materialist depiction of economic history as some Marxists have advocated, instead Hamilton treats technology and culture as endogenous forces, embedded and inseparable from each other and therefore, economic development. This volume will be of most interest and value to professional economists and graduate students who are looking for an in-depth explanation of the origins and significance of institutional economics. (shrink)

The participatory economics model (ParEcon) of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel represents an important contribution to the debate about feasible alternatives to capitalism. What distinguishes the model from other proposals, like market socialism or cybersocialism, is the central role given to the participation of citizens in economic planning. Citizens form workers’ and neighbourhood consumers’ councils which develop production and consumption proposals. These councils form federations responsible for the coordination of planning. An Iteration Facilitation Board plays a mere perfunctory (...) role in the facilitation of the planning process. This way, economic planning is done entirely by the citizens themselves rather than planners at a central planning agency. The ParEcon model is thereby supposed to be more democratic than historical central planning.In this paper, I consider whether three possible justifications for democracy can also be used to support this kind of participatory economy. These justifications can be referred to as (1) the protection of citizens’ interests, (2) the revealing of preferences and (3) liberty. In my paper, I show that these three justifications of democracy do not in fact support democratic participation in concrete economic plans in the way envisaged by Albert and Hahnel. Instead of individual plans, citizens should choose general planning procedures. This prevents citizens from being subjected to the arbitrary power of their co-workers or neighbours. Such an algorithmic planning process also prevents central planners from holding arbitrary power since, much like the Iteration Facilitation Board in the ParEcon model, they simply facilitate the prescribed planning process without retaining significant discretion. As I elaborate in the case of consumption planning, citizens can still participate in planning, however they do so through their individual choices rather than a democratic vote. Individual citizens should not require the approval of their neighbours for their personal consumption. (shrink)

Habermas' discourse theory stresses the autonomy of public deliberation transcending the spontaneous emergence of private networks of legal relationships between individuals. Only the public discourse which is detached from the inertia of overlapping practical forms of coordination can refer to the ideally designed social work of legitimated interpersonal relationships. The democratic constitution is regarded as a legal institutionalization of the priority of the public forum of discourse. Conceptions related to classical liberalism would question the cognitive potential of public deliberation, (...) and even deny its productivity as a normative frame of reference for (post‐)modern societies which are confronted with the challenge of uncertainty and the continuous process of self‐transformation. (shrink)

Is economics always self-corrective? Do erroneous theorems permanently disappear from the market of economic ideas? _Intellectual Path Dependence in Economics _argues that errors in economics are not always corrected. Although economists are often critical and open-minded, unfit explanations are nonetheless able to reproduce themselves. The problem is that theorems sometimes survive the intellectual challenges in the market of economic ideas even when they are falsified or invalidated by criticism and an abundance of counter-evidence. A key question which often (...) gets little or no attention is: why do economists not reject theories when they have been refuted by evidence and falsified by philosophical reasoning? This book explores the answer to this question by examining the phenomenon of intellectual path dependence in the history of economic thought. It argues that the key reason why economists do not reject refuted theories is the epistemic costs of starting to use new theories. Epistemic costs are primarily the costs of scarcity of the most valued element in academic production: time. Epistemic scarcity overwhelmingly dominates the evolution of scientific research in such a way that when researchers start off a new research project, they allocate time between replicable and un-replicable research. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the methodology, philosophy and history of economics. (shrink)

ArgumentIn the decades following World War II, the Cowles Commission for Research in Economics came to represent new technical standards that informed most advances in economic theory. The public emergence of this community was manifest at a conference held in June 1949 titledActivity Analysis of Production and Allocation. New ideas in optimization theory, linked to linear programming, developed from the conference's papers. The authors’ history of this event situates the Cowles Commission among the institutions of postwar (...) science in-between National Laboratories and the supreme discipline of Cold War academia, mathematics. Although the conference created the conditions under which economics, as a discipline, would transform itself, the participants themselves had little concern for the intellectual battles that had defined prewar university economics departments. The authors argue that the conference signaled the birth of a new intellectual culture in economic science based on shared scientific norms and techniques un-interrogated by conflicting notions of the meaning of either science or economics. (shrink)

The development of evolutionary game theory is closely linked with two interdisciplinary exchanges: the import of game theory into biology, and the import of biologists’ version of game theory into economics. This paper traces the history of these two import episodes. In each case the investigation covers what exactly was imported, what the motives for the import were, how the imported elements were put to use, and how they related to existing practices in the respective disciplines. Two (...) conclusions emerged from this study. First, concepts derived from the unity of science discussion or the unification accounts of explanation are too strong and too narrow to be useful for analysing these interdisciplinary exchanges. Secondly, biology and economics—at least in relation to EGT—show significant differences in modelling practices: biologists seek to link EGT models to concrete empirical situations, whereas economists pursue conceptual exploration and possible explanation.Keywords: Models; Evolutionary game theory; Interdisciplinarity; Unification; Unity of science; Theory import; Biology; Economics. (shrink)

The article presents sociological considerations in regards to the advent of globalism. With the implosion of capitalism and the acceleration of globalization, the concept of globalism is in need of new interpretations. Some sociologists indeed would see it solely as the ideology of globalization. In the article, globalism is regarded as a social system not only with ideological characteristics but also economic ones. This radically changes the very logic of capitalism, which is focused on linear and monocentric production. (...) Through the theory of link-value the article illustrates the process by which economic development takes place. It is shown that as well as the assets identified by the main economic schools, development is based on factors such as infrastructure investments, technologies, and networking. Today, with globalism, it is economic ties that create wealth and they are more important than the production process itself. Such transformation is highlighted through the growth of the financial and commercial dimensions, as well as the change in industrial activities. The article deals with the fundamental importance of the global value chain in nowadays, as well as the reshoring and the nearshoring. After illustrating the evolution of territorial networks, several case histories are presented: from the new economic centres of globalism to the decline of industrial districts. Finally, the article examines new generations models of innovation and culture districts. Keywords : Economic development; Globalism; Production processes; Global value chain; Territorial networks; Open innovation. [1] Sunto L'articolo espone alcune considerazioni sociologiche relative all'avvento del globalismo. Con l'implosione del capitalismo e l'accelerazione della globalizzazione, il concetto di globalismo necessita di nuove interpretazioni. Alcuni sociologi infatti lo considerano solamente come l'ideologia della globalizzazione. Nell'articolo, il globalismo è considerato come un sistema sociale con caratteristiche non solo ideologiche ma anche economiche. Questo cambia radicalmente la logica stessa del capitalismo, che è incentrato sulla produzione lineare e monocentrica. Attraverso la teoria del valore-legame l'articolo illustra il processo attraverso il quale si crea lo sviluppo economico. Viene dimostrato che oltre ai fattori proposti dalle principali scuole economiche, quali le infrastrutture pubbliche e la tecnologia, lo sviluppo dipende anche dal networking. Oggi, con il globalismo, sono i legami economici che creano ricchezza e questi ultimi diventano più importanti del processo produttivo in sé. Tale trasformazione è evidenziata dalla crescita delle dimensioni finanziarie e commerciali dell’economia, nonché dal mutamento delle attività industriali. Nell’articolo viene trattata l’importanza che attualmente rivestono le catene globali del valore, ma anche i nuovi fenomeni del reshoring e del nearshoring. Dopo aver illustrato l’evoluzione delle forme di networking territoriale, vengono presentati diversi casi-studio: dai nuovi poli produttivi globalizzati al declino dei distretti industriali. Nella parte finale dell’articolo vengono illustrati modelli distrettuali di nuova generazione come quelli dell’innovazione e della cultura. Parole Chiave : Sviluppo economico; Globalismo; Processi produttivi; Catena globale del valore; Reti territoriali; Innovazione aperta. (shrink)

The capitalist mode of production and consumption is caught in a double bind: its expansion destabilises natural systems and fails to curb social inequities, while slowdown destabilises the inner workings of the economic system itself. To better understand what is happening in this phase of instability, this article proposes a System Dynamics representation that combines elements of Georgescu-Roegen's Ecological Economics with Marxian theory. Specifically it draws from a diagram recently developed by David Harvey to communicate Marx's political (...) economy in its totality; Harvey's diagram is then adapted to incorporate the flow-fund model developed by Georgescu-Roegen. The contribution made by this adaptation is twofold: first, it allows us to emphasise key connections and discrepancies between the two traditions; second, it extends System Dynamics into (eco-)Marxian analysis, which serves to visualise the fundamental causes and consequences of a spiralling, ever-expanding capitalist economy. (shrink)

The point of departure of David Ellerman's paper is that the role of labour in economics can be looked at in a fundamentally different way than has typically been the case. The paper's purpose is, therefore, oppositional. However, it cannot simply be dismissed. It is clearly articulated, well reasoned, and most importantly, thought provoking. It requires one to rethink how one conceives some basic issues in economics. As such, one does not need to be entirely convinced by the argument to (...) consider it worthy of dissemination. At the same time, if one subscribes to the ethic of structured or critical pluralism one must also consider the pressure points of the argument (see Dow, 2004; Dobusch and Kapeller, 2012). Below, I briefly reconstruct Ellerman's core claims and provide some comment on that argument. Read David Ellerman's paper "The Labour Theory of Property and Marginal Productivity Theory". (shrink)

This book presents a new theoretical framework for the analysis of production processes. It is based on a rigorous reconstruction of the intellectual heritage of economics, but also considers issues traditionally left aside by economists, such as the distinction between three dimensions of the production process, the organizational approach to scale and size, and the idea that different institutional set-ups may be compatible with the same objective standard of efficiency.

Jamie Morgan's commentary (Morgan, 2016) on my paper 'The Labour Theory of Property and Marginal Productivity Theory' (Ellerman, 2016) and Ted Burczak's later comments (Burczak, 2016) raise a number of issues that surely will occur to other readers and that need to be addressed. I take the occasion to expand upon the arguments and to explore some related issues. In the narrative that unfolds, Frank H. Knight plays the role of the sophisticated defender of the system of renting, (...) hiring and employing human beings. He was quite clear that the social role of economics is to develop an idealised model, the competitive free enterprise model, and then to frame the normative discussion in terms of that model. Knight would agree with the whole thread of heterodox 'criticism' that the actual economy falls far short of the ideal – which is why I largely eschewed the descriptive shortcomings of ideal model as a purported model of the actual economy. Instead my paper focused on developing a critique of the key part of the idealised model, the marginal productivity theory of distribution under competitive conditions. That critique is based on the usual juridical principle of imputing legal responsibility in accordance with factual responsibility – the principle whose property-theoretic application is the modern treatment of the labour theory of property. Historically, heterodox economics faced a fork in the road in the 19th century: whether to criticise 'the system' by developing the inchoate 'labour theory' as a theory of value or a theory of property. Marx and much of left-wing economics took the labour-theory-of-value road, whereas my paper is part of a modern attempt – Thomas Hodgskin (1832) being an earlier attempt – to take the labour-theory-of-property road. As we will see, much of the debate still revolves around these two roads. Read David Ellerman's original paper "The Labour Theory of Property and Marginal Productivity Theory" › Read Jamie Morgan's commentary on David Ellerman's paper ›. (shrink)

The paper reviews links between Bernard Lonergan's theory of innovative economic growth and cycles, and the ideas of Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, and Joseph Schumpeter. They were contemporary economists, who remain influential today. For Lonergan, although markets define what is bought and sold in an exchange economy, production decisions are more fundamental. These decisions are choices about the direction of development, the standard of living, and variations in the distribution of wealth in a modern society. The (...) paper shows how Lonergan's pure cycle theory extends mainstream theory to include a broader view of human behaviour and choice. (shrink)

This article endeavors to describe and explain the constitution of modernity, its different trajectories, and its ongoing crisis using the Weberian concept of ‘legitimate order’, and by considering the changing relations between orders. One possible basis for the interpretation of the changing constitution of modernity – which involves, most significantly, a move beyond the great public/private dichotomy – is drawn from economic theory, or rather theories, of goods. The ability of certain orders to produce certain types of goods (...) and to allocate them defines different types of society; in different societies, the same good will differ in nature and occupy a place within different property regimes. Changing relations can also be analyzed on the basis of the capacity of an order to impose upon others its negative externalities, and to manage effectively the production and allocation of its characteristic goods at different territorial scales. (shrink)

According to Marx’s unfinished critique of political economy, capitalist relations of production rely on what Marx refers to in Capital as ‘the mute compulsion of economic relations’. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that this constitutes a distinct form of economic power which cannot be reduced to either ideology or violence, and to provide the conceptual groundwork for a systematic theory of capital’s mute compulsion.

In this essay, my point of departure is Bernard Hodgson’s analysis of neo-classical economic theory and his demonstration that neo-classical economic thought is already a branch of normative theory. I undertake to broaden the demonstration by showing that other contemporary conceptions of economics are also irreducibly normative. The essay begins with an overview of Hodgson’s argument strategy, and a discussion of his thesis that economics is a moral science. This illustrates in what way moral presuppositions are (...) at play as core principles that both positivist and normativist economics take for granted. My strategy is to show that alternative conceptions of economics, in particular Schumpeterian accounts of evolution/innovation, and orthodox versions of ecological economics, share with classical and neo-classical economics normative assumptions about the common good, extending Hodgson’s thesis to one about moral science . For then these assumptions (both moral and scientific ) commit economics to unworkable notions of social and environmental optimization that ignore the pure historical contingency of physical, economic, social and cultural conditions. It is concluded that the relationship between facts and values must be fundamentally retheorized. (shrink)

To date, philosophers of education have shown relatively little interest in analyzing the theoretical basis in which the economics of education is grounded. The main argument of this article is that due to the changing nature of orthodox economic theory’s influence on education, a philosophical examination of its underpinnings is required. It is maintained that as a result of economics imperialism, namely the penetration of economic modes of thinking into new domains, educational philosophers have an essential role (...) to play in examining economic theory. The article briefly discusses this role and provides some examples of how educational philosophers can make a unique contribution to current thinking about the relationship between economics and education. (shrink)

In the economic debate, power is defined and studied mainly as an interpersonal relation occurring out of perfect competition. This is a consequence of the combination of methodological individualism and the assumption of competition as a natural and everlasting coordinating mechanism, operating without any sort of coercion. This methodology, however, is not adequate to analyze the forms of social coercion that characterize capitalism. " Economics and Power" criticizes the main theories of power developed in economic literature, analyzing ultraliberal (...) contractualism to radical political economics, and ultimately suggesting a Marxist conception of power and coercion in capitalism. Palermo s ontological argument is rooted in the philosophy of critical realism.This unique volume presents his main finding as being that the essential coercive mechanism of capitalism is competition. Capitalist power is not caused by a lack of competition, but by the central role it plays in this mode of production. Following this, the chapters reconstruct a Marxian conception of power where it is analyzed as a social relation and argues that perfect competition does in fact exist under the disguise of capitalist power. This book criticizes the construct of power and the underlying ideas surrounding perfect competition. This book is of interest to those who study political economy, as well as economic theory and philosophy. ". (shrink)