Social capital and social economics

The “discovery” of social capital in the early 1990s led to an upsurge of research into the economic impact of social cohesion and governmental effectiveness. This paper outlines key developments in the social capital literature over the past 13 years. It then examines theory and evidence of the links between social cohesion, quality of governance, economic performance and human welfare. The literature indicates that social capital makes a measurable contribution to economic development and overall wellbeing, particularly in developing countries. Partly in response to this emerging body of evidence, there has been increased interest in the application of community development principles to economic development initiatives. This paper argues that the advent of social capital theory represents a partial convergence between social economics and mainstream economics, and signifies an increased acceptance that economic activity cannot be meaningfully “disembedded” from social and political context.     

The economics of education and policy: Ideas for a principles course

There are many aspects of the “economics of education” that would make excellent examples for introductory economics students. The author presents two topics that are central to the economics of education and to human capital theory: the economic benefit (or “returns”) to schooling and educational attainment as an investment. There are two key concepts the author hopes students get from this discussion. The first is that there are both private and social benefits of schooling whence we derive the rationale for government intervention. The second is that educational attainment is an investment decision with both costs and benefits, and some risk.     

A Pathway Forwards for the Social Capital Metaphor

A major topic in economics is the analysis of a broad class of phenomena associated with interpersonal relationships, a topic that originally grew from theories of “social capital.” While the concept has been instrumental in bringing increased attention to social effects on economic outcomes, it has increasingly been replaced with approaches that consider instead networks and discrete interactions rather than aggregate measures of social capital. This has been an analytical improvement, but a great deal of work remains to bring empirical validity and relevancy to social network analysis. This paper presents two important approaches for achieving this, statistical analysis and agent-based modeling, and discusses their benefits, limitations, and complementary nature. Rather than waiting for either approach to achieve an ambiguous quality of maturity, integrating statistical analysis with simulation models of networks must begin now to push the frontiers of social network analysis forward.     

社会资本与经济发展:理论及展望

随着社会资本理论的发展，发展经济学演进到新的发展阶段———“社会关系至关重要”。社会资本理论的引入丰富了经济发展理论研究思路：发展中国家需要构造以社会资本为纽带的综合经济发展体系；在全球化背景下，协调社会资本与现代经济发展是经济学面临的课题。     

The Histonomic Approach to Economics: Beyond Pure Theory and Pure Experience

This article starts off with the distinction between logico-deductive and empirico-deductive approaches to economic theory. The logicodeductive approach, for instance neoclassical economics, uses an axiomatic framework that has only little empirical substance. The empirico-deductive approach, for instance, Ricardian economics, attempts to state economic theory as a “typical” structure of reality. It appears that the latter approach touches reality more closely and is more sensitive to intellectual enrichment and to substantial empirical evidence. However, both approaches operate within the basic assumption applied in classical physics, that theory must represent an invariant structure of reality—highlighting in this case economic phenomena that do not change over time. In the following, the induction issue is given new life, suggesting its validity under the non-conventional assumptions ofvariancy and time-asymmetry. A “histonomic” approach stressing the importance of making theoretical (-nomic) statements about economic phenomena that are basically historical (histo-) in their non-classical properties of variancy and time-asymmetry is favored.     

自然资源丰裕程度与经济发展水平关系的研究

“资源的诅咒”是经济学中的一个经典假说,但这一命题在一国内部不同地区是否成立尚缺乏验证。本文以中国的省际面板数据为样本,对这一假说进行了实证检验。计量结果显示,该命题在我国内部的地区层面同样成立,多数省份丰裕的自然资源并未成为经济发展的有利条件,反而制约了经济增长。自然资源的丰裕以及对这种资源的依赖,主要是通过资本投入的转移机制制约了经济增长,劳动投入的转移机制也存在这种效应,但不如前者显著。本文选择山西为典型省份,进一步揭示“资源的诅咒”的作用机制。结果表明,密集而过度的资源开采引致的制造业衰退和制度弱化是制约经济增长的主要原因。     

语言的经济学分析:一个综述

本文对语言经济学这门新兴交叉学科的产生与兴起、研究现状及其学科定位等进行了总结和评述。语言经济学孕育于民族主义问题之中,发端于加拿大的官方语言问题,它的兴起成就于人力资本理论和教育经济学。语言经济学有广义与狭义之分。广义上,语言经济学采用经济学的理论、方法及工具,把语言和言语行为当作普遍存在的社会和经济现象来加以研究;狭义上,语言与劳动收入关系研究、语言政策与语言规划的经济学分析、语言动态发展的经济学分析以及博弈论在语言学中的应用等构成了当前语言经济学研究的主要内容。伴随着经济的全球化,语言经济学的重要性正在提升,一方面,语言经济学为语言学的相关研究提供了新的视角和思路,带来新的分析工具;另一方面,它也正在为经济学自身提供新的研究话题。     

新制度经济学委托代理理论视野的拓展*

新制度经济学中的委托代理理论基于“经济人理性”假定，设计出了精密、精巧、精致的委托代理制度，有效化解了现代企业中委托人与代理人之间利益冲突并提升了企业运营效率。然而，现代企业实践已经证明，即使委托代理制度十分精密、精巧、精致，仍然没有彻底解决委托人与代理人之间的利益冲突和企业运营效率进一步提升问题。因此，必须拓展既有理论视野，从“经济人理性”假定拓展到“经济人+社会人+家庭人复合理性”假定，这样就能够实现委托代理理论视野的拓展。运用新制度经济学研究方法和双边对称信任数理模型表明：基于委托代理制度，进一步强化委托人与代理人之间双边对称信任度，可以进一步化解他们之间的利益冲突并且改善企业运营效率。基于这一结论，强化委托人与代理人之间双边对称信任度的具体路径是优化社会信任环境系统。     

Cornelius Castoriadis on the Scope and Content of Neoclassical and Marxian Economics

The paper presents the thought of the political philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis on economic methodology and the neoclassical and Marxian traditions. Castoriadis suggested that the scope of economic theory includes the identification of “local” regularities and not the search for invariant “laws.” He criticized the use of equilibrium and the utilitarian framework in the neoclassical tradition and proposed to approach human agency based on the Aristotelian concept of the “social individual.” In addition, he criticized the deterministic nature of the Marxian “laws.” According to Castoriadis, the use of concepts such as the “production function” and “capital” presents a number of caveats.     

Methodological interactionism: Theory and application to the firm and to the building of trust

Recent insights from the “embodied cognition” perspective in cognitive science, supported by neural research, provide a basis for a “methodological interactionism” that transcends both the methodological individualism of economics and the methodological collectivism of (some) sociology and is consistent with insights from social psychology. It connects with a Mengerian exchange perspective and Hayekian view of dispersed knowledge from Austrian economics. It provides a basis for a new, unified social science that integrates elements from economics, sociology, social psychology, and cognitive science. This paper discusses the roots of this perspective, in theory of cognition and meaning, and illustrates its application in a summary of a social–cognitive theory of the firm and an analysis of processes by which trust is built up and broken down.     

The Economics of Regulating Cross-border Finance: Two New Views

For much of the 20th century the dominant view in macroeconomics was that cross-border finance needed to be regulated in order to balance the ‘impossible trinity’ first sketched by John Maynard Keynes in his two books on monetary theory. The dominant view in development economics during the same period was that cross-border capital flows need to be regulated for similar reasons but also to mobilize domestic resources for economic development. The view that capital mobility was something to be constrained fell out of favor in mainstream economics by the 1980s and 1990s. The experience of numerous financial crises in the past 20 years has spawned new economic theories that reintroduce the notion that cross-border finance can cause financial instability. One strand of new theory in this realm picks up from Ragnar Nurkse, Hyman Minsky, and others, and has become popular in many emerging market capitals and in the United Nations system. Another strand of new theory comes from modern welfare economics and is gaining ground in mainstream economics, central banks, and the Bretton Woods institutions. This paper examines these new breakthroughs and traces them to their origins in economic thought. Coupled with new econometric evidence on the efficacy of capital account regulation, the regulation of capital flows is justified now more than ever.     

Consumer Capital as the Source of Happiness: The Missing Economic Theory Underlying the Income-Happiness Paradox

Self-reported happiness does not generally increase with rising income, as established by Richard Easterlin. We argue that the current debate in economics about the income-happiness paradox has paid too little attention to the theoretical foundation of the expected positive relation between income and happiness, seeking an empirical resolution through better data and more elaborate estimating equations instead. We return to the history of economics and revisit the contributions of Irving Fisher and Kenneth Boulding for the missing economic theory that underlies the income-happiness paradox. According to both Fisher and Boulding, “consumer capital” is the ultimate source of welfare, whereby consumer capital is defined as an accumulated stock of tangible and intangible instruments that yield a stream of services over their useful life. In the view of Fisher and Boulding, it is the utilization of this capital stock that renders happiness to individuals. Moreover, income that pays for the goods of consumption can be a “bad,” reflecting the cost of maintaining the consumer capital stock. Therefore, Fisher and Boulding’s insights bring a new perspective to the Easterlin paradox, showing that the empirical finding that rising income contributes only little, if anything, to levels of happiness has been overemphasized at the expense of the theoretically more relevant relation between consumer capital and happiness, and the exact role of income therein.     

Killing for Money and the Economic Theory of Crime

There is a large literature on the economics of crime and punishment, yet surprisingly little attention is paid to the receipt of money for crime. “Contract killing” is surprisingly neglected not only by economists but also by social scientists in general. In this paper, I look at the case not of professional gangster “hitmen” but of individuals who have found themselves in a position where they wish to have a killing carried out. This discussion does not condone the practice any more than an economic analysis of suicide is an inducement to individuals to kill themselves. To the lay reader, the cases where an individual feels the need to pay for killing may seem to be such that rationality is not a likely form of behaviour. However, the economics of crime has adopted the use of the rationality postulate as a heuristic for all types of crime.     

The market as a social space: On the meaningful extraeconomic conversations that can occur in markets

Prominent economic sociologist Richard Swedberg has argued that economists have failed to develop a theory of the market that recognizes it as a “social phenomenon in its own right.” While this may be true of mainstream economics, the Austrian school’s theory of the market is much richer than the standard view. For Austrians, the market has always been a central concern. And Austrians have always argued that the market is a social structure where both exchange and competition occurs. Still, Austrians give little more than scant attention to the noneconomic sociality that occurs in markets. The market, however, is both a conversation and an arena where meaningful conversations can occur. This paper is an effort to focus attention on the market as a social space where social activity (beyond competition and exchange) takes place and where noneconomic relationships and economic relationships develop.     

You can’t beat something with nothing: getting an alternative into the curriculum

This paper describes an alternative paradigm, “contextual economics,” which is being developed, initially, in the form of an introductory microeconomics textbook. This paradigm gives special attention to the goals of economic actors and of the discipline of economics; and to the physical and the social/psychological contexts within which economies function.     

Social Economics and Evolutionary Institutionalism Today

This paper discusses theoretical and methodological elements that constitute social economics. It also considers those elements for evolutionary (Veblenian) institutional economics. It investigates how these “heterodoxies” may further converge. Such convergence would probably not trigger a complete unification, but lead to a broadly defined common research program and a strategy for joint “heterodox” survival, in face of the ranking game of the neoclassical “mainstream” and of the dominant powers supporting it as the discipline providing ideological legitimization. A common denominator of “heterodoxies” in terms of real-world orientation, direct interdependency and interaction of agents (social decision situations), appropriate complexity, and the treatment of values is drafted. Theoretical concepts discussed include complex and open systems, individual agency, institutions, embeddedness, networks, social reform, and process orientation. Formal methodological developments considered are complex modeling, game theory, or computer simulations. We arrive at a more formal common basis, which we term socio-economics. We also consider the relations of evolution and institutions, the institutional dichotomy, and the theory of institutional change. The monism of the “market” of the “mainstream” turns out to dissolve into the institutional diversity of real-world network forms, which helps explaining real-world forms of markets, hierarchies, or spatial clusters. Focuses of “heterodox” convergence will have to be the related “microfoundations” and “macrofoundations” projects, integrating an interdisciplinary “naturalistic” approach to genetic-cultural co-evolution of cooperation, and social reform. While modern socio-economics makes “heterodoxies” leading in economic research, their future still appears open between ideological cleansing and extinction through the mainstream, and proactive paradigmatic pluralism.     

资本市场开放与企业创新——基于沪深港通交易制度的准自然实验

资本市场改革能否有效促进实体经济发展是当前中国经济发展面临的重大挑战。基于企业创新研究视角，以沪深港通交易制度作为外生事件，采用多时点双重差分模型(DID)系统考察了我国资本市场开放对公司创新的影响及内在作用机理。研究发现，沪深港通交易制度实施显著提升了标的公司创新绩效，表现为专利产出增加，且该现象在管理层持股比例高、融资约束强的样本中较为显著，表明沪深港通制度通过提升管理层创新意愿与提高企业创新能力两大途径提升创新绩效。进一步分析发现，资本市场开放对企业创新的正向影响在信息透明度低、沪深港通交易活跃股以及法制环境不完善样本中更显著。上述结论不仅拓展了企业创新影响因素研究，也为实施沪深港通交易制度带来的经济影响提供了来自微观公司层面的经验证据，亦为后续完善该项制度提供了参考与借鉴。     

Natural Images in Economics: A Review Essay

An extended review of Philip Mirowski's edited collectionNatural Images in Economic Thought. Examines the roles of metaphors; the relationships between metaphors of the “natural” and the “social”; the significance of metaphoric reasoning, for economics, with regard to questions of meaning, ontology and epistemology; the discursive, or rhetorical, nature of economic theory; and significant historical and interpretive issues pertinent to economic thought.     

Modelling industrial dynamics with “History-friendly” simulations

The use of simulation techniques has increased greatly in recent years. In economics the industrial dynamics approach makes use of simulation techniques to understand the complexity of the industrial process of continuous change. Among these models, a new branch of studies known as “History-friendly” models aims at establishing a close link between formal theory, developing stand-alone theoretical simulation models, and empirical evidence. In this paper, we study “History-friendly” analyses and counterfactuals. Some examples of “History-friendly” models are widely examined. Finally, the paper makes a critical contribution to “History-friendly” methodology and defines the role of “History-friendly” models in the debate on the empirical validation of simulations.     

Japanese Consumption,External Disequilibrium and their Statistical Measurement

Georgescu-Roegen's work is usually divided into two categories, his earlier work on consumer and production theory and his later concern with entropy and bioeconomics beginning with his 1966 introductory essay to his collected theoretical papers published in the volume Analytical Economics. Most economists usually praise his earlier work on pure theory and ignore his later work which is highly critical of neoclassical economics. Those economists sympathetic to his later work usually take the position that he “saw the light” and gave up neoclassical theory some time in the 1960s to turn his attention to the issues of resource scarcity and social institutions. It is argued here that there is an unbroken path running from Georgescu's work in pure theory in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, through his writings on peasant economies in the 1960s, leading to his preoccupation with entropy and bioeconomics in the last 25 years of his life. That common thread is his preoccupation with “valuation.” The choices our species makes about resource use and the distribution of economic output depends upon our valuation framework. Georgescu-Roegen's work begins in the 1930s with a critical examination of the difficulties with the hedonistic valuation framework of neoclassical economics, moves in the 1960s to the conflict between social and hedonistic valuation, and culminates in the 1970s and 1980s with his examination of the conflict between individual, social, and environmental values. This paper traces the evolution of Georgescu-Roegen's thought about valuation and the environmental and social policy recommendations which arise out of his bioeconomic framework.