Growth versus Conservation: A Veblenian Perspective

This article is concerned with the role of institutions in organizing the economy and argues with some neoclassical and Marxist positions. The neoclassical approach usually ignores the role of institutions, while its “public choice-property rights” extensions overemphasize the market solution to market failure problems. The Marxist approach is useful in relating institutions to the conflicts of interest, but tends to be overoptimistic about possibilities of social control of economic activities.     

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.     

The Impossibility of Entrepreneurship Under the Neoclassical Framework: Open vs. Closed-Ended Processes

In spite of its use to explain market processes, neoclassical economics still has not integrated entrepreneurship into its analyses. This explanatory gap is the consequence of the analytical closed-endedness of the “market” processes described by the neoclassical framework, where social interactions do not result in new unpredictable information. However, entrepreneurship as profit-seeking under uncertainty is an open-ended process characterized by a creatively reflexive and emergent interactive behavior in society. This open-endedness involves the generation of novel, complex, and extensive future information that is not what anyone intended it to be. Neoclassical economics, with its predetermined assumptions on economic behavior, cannot really account for the fundamental uncertainty of open-ended processes because it cannot explain reflexivity or emergence. Therefore, it cannot explain entrepreneurship as either an innovatively cohesive or disruptive behavior that converges toward future market situations.     

Optimal stationary consumption with stochastic production and resources

Uncertainty about technology and resources is represented in terms of uncertainty about an (exogenous) environment whose successive states form a stationary stochastic process, with probabilities that are unaffected by economic decisions. The successive states of the economy depend both on the environment and on the decisions taken with regard to production and consumption. It is shown that, under conditions that are natural extensions of “neoclassical” conditions in the case of certainty, (1) Capital saturation is possible, i.e., an optimal stationary stochastic program exists, and (2) An optimal program can be sustained by a price system that takes the form of a stationary stochastic process of price vectors. In other words, an optimal stationary program can be sustained by a stochastic “equilibrium,” in which at each date the optimal production decisions maximize expected intertemporal profit, and the optimal aggregate consumption vector has minimum cost among all aggregate consumption vectors yielding no less (social) utility.     

Market failure vs. system failure as a rationale for economic policy? A critique from an evolutionary perspective

This paper reconsiders the explanation of economic policy from an evolutionary economics perspective. It contrasts the neoclassical equilibrium notions of market and government failure with the dominant evolutionary neo-Schumpeterian and Austrian-Hayekian perceptions. Based on this comparison, the paper criticizes the fact that neoclassical reasoning still prevails in non-equilibrium evolutionary economics when economic policy issues are examined. This is more than surprising, since proponents of evolutionary economics usually view their approach as incompatible with its neoclassical counterpart. In addition, it is shown that this “fallacy of failure thinking” even finds its continuation in the alternative concept of “system failure” with which some evolutionary economists try to explain and legitimate policy interventions in local, regional or national innovation systems. The paper argues that in order to prevent the otherwise fruitful and more realistic evolutionary approach from undermining its own criticism of neoclassical economics and to create a consistent as well as objective evolutionary policy framework, it is necessary to eliminate the equilibrium spirit. Finally, the paper delivers an alternative evolutionary explanation of economic policy which is able to overcome the theory-immanent contradiction of the hitherto evolutionary view on this subject.     

Theological visions in economics and religion

Professional economists and religious thinkers have generally not communicated effectively over the past two centuries, largely because the two groups tend to think about social systems from the perspective of incompatible “theological visions.” A theological vision is an encompassing set of presuppositions about how the social world functions and (implicitly) how it ought to function. The dominant theological vision among economists asserts that economic systems, while the product of purposive actions by individuals, are not the product of any design. Religious thinkers reflecting on economic systems tend to assume, by contrast, that whatever results from economic interactions has been willed by some individuals or groups. The modal economist assigns the economic system a kind of autonomy, which the religious thinker will be inclined to regard as almost idolatrous. Dialogue capable of bridging this gap will require the kind of close attention to other people's arguments that is rare outside of very small discussion groups.     

Overcoming Contemporary Mythology: An Essay

Over the last 35 years, a free market, laissez faire program has increasingly dominated perceptions as to what constitutes correct economic theory and policy. Most adherents of this program trace its origins to Adam Smith, and claim that its dominant position is the result of superior theory.

The argument here is that Adam Smith is not the theoretical ancestor of modern laissez faire economics, and that there are fundamental differences between Smith’s position on laissez faire and that of conventional neoclassical theory. A difference between “soft” and “hard” laissez faire is made, where Smith represents the former position; neoclassical theory the latter. Further, and more important, it is argued that the current laissez faire program is an outgrowth of a political program instituted in the 1930’s and financially supported in the present era by conservative foundations to promote an ideological framework that permits the development of specific governmental (and non-governmental) actions.     

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.     

Why equity cannot be separated from efficiency: the welfare economics of progressive social pricing

Applied neoclassical microeconomists maintain that when profits are constrained, and average costs are higher than marginal costs, Ramsey “inverse elasticity” pricing optimizes static consumer welfare. However, when weighted, instead of unweighted, consumer surplus aggregation is used, the Ramsey pricing rule becomes a “progressive social pricing rule,” which suggests that under plausible conditions “direct-elasticity” rather than “inverse-elasticity” pricing is consumer welfare optimal.     

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN? GENDER,LABOR, AND DISCOURSE IN THE NOIDA EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AND DELHI

Abstract

Export processing zones (EPZs) are like islands of globalization. Much of the literature on EPZs and export-oriented industries (EOIs) notes a preponderance of women who are constructed as “cheap,” “nimble fingered,” and “docile” labor. This literature is dominated by socialist feminist thinkers, and this paper argues that there is a need to incorporate the insights of postmodern feminist thinkers. The article focuses on the role that language, discourse, and subjectivity play in the gendering process in handmade jewelry production in the Noida Export Processing Zone (NEPZ) and in the ranch production units related by common ownership in Delhi, India. It thus gives “voices” to women and men, and brings out their agency in structuring the labor market. The study confirms that gender division of labor is a product of discursive and material practices that are reproduced through discourses into which different actors invest, and that feed into the gendered subjective identities of these actors.     

Property and Industrial Organization in Communist and Capitalist Nations

Endogenous growth theorists argue that certain equity-enhancing social institutions enhance growth. Despite the centrality of inequality in these approaches, there is no sense in which economic actors exercise power or collective action to create and maintain social norms and rules that are personally advantageous but socially costly. This despite the work of neoclassical economists on rent-seeking, which posits that efforts to claim unearned revenues can pose significant costs for growth. The question of the impact of gender equity on economic growth is an instructive context for understanding these contradictions. Even though gender practices are inherently about the exercise of power, that they have become a feature of the neoclassical growth literature alights on obvious tensions in the neoclassical institutionalist paradigm. By incorporating insights from both the rent-seeking and feminist economics literatures, we will present analternative explanation of why gender hierarchies persist despite their obvious economic costs.     

Why Need is “A Word We Cannot Do Without” in Economics

Economists in the neoclassical tradition do their best to avoid using the word “need.” Social economists have traditionally been more open to discussions of need. Philosophic discussions of need are also scarce but nevertheless helpful. This essay will argue that need is “a word we cannot do without” in economics, and not only in social economics. Need is objective, satiable, and absolute, by contrast with want or preference as it is defined in neoclassical economics. With this clarification, 1) it is reasonable that public policy should consider need as well as want and aim to satisfy some needs, and 2) for some purposes, such as the economics of health care, conventional demand cannot be understood without the concept of need. Thus, even the narrower purposes of neoclassical economics cannot be achieved without clarifying and using the concept of need, in addition to the more usual motivational assumptions of neoclassical economics.     

The economics of the division of labour in early Chinese literature: With particular comparison to the ancient Greek thought

Like their Greek counterparts, a number of Chinese thinkers of the “Axial Period” wrote extensively on the division of labour. In particular, Kuan Chung, Hsün Tzu and Ssu-ma Ch’ien explicitly discussed economic issues related to the division of labour, contributing sophisticated analysis on the subject. In this article, we first examine Kuan Chung and his followers’ fairly interesting analysis of the economies of agglomeration of specialists, and Ssu-ma Ch’ien's deep insight into the Taoist invisible hand of the market in coordinating the division of labour. The common ground between them is a sound understanding of the role of market exchange in facilitating the social division of labour, but the latter goes much further in appreciation of the spontaneous market order. We then turn to Hsün Tzu's profound scholarship of specialised learning or doing and his Confucian theory of the origin of social division, highlighting, in particular, his Confucian notion of natural equality and utilitarian account of the formation of society. Similarity in profundity and influence notwithstanding, of greater interest, appears to be the remarkable differences between the Chinese scholars and the philosophers of classical Athens in respect of their study of the division of labour, and we therefore investigate how and why the Chinese treatment contrasts thus sharply with the Greek/Europeans.     

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.     

Sickonomics: Diagnoses and Remedies

In their recent analysis of the alleged decay in modern economics, Ben Fine and Dimitris Milonakis claim to find its source and origin in the “marginal revolution” of the 1870s. They argue that this development led to “methodological individualism” and the detachment of economics from society and history. I contest their account of the marginal revolution and of the role of Alfred Marshall among others. They also fail to provide an adequate definition of methodological individualism. I suggest that neoclassical economics adopted a denuded concept of the social rather than removing these factors entirely. No such removal is possible in principle. It is also mistaken to depict neoclassical economics as the science of prices and the market. In truth, neoclassical economics fails to capture the true nature of markets. I consider some sketch an alternative explanation of the sickness of modern economics, which focuses on institutional developments since World War II.     

Political Opinions and the TUCE

The TUCE is being widely used in economic education research at the college level. Although it has gained acceptance as a standardized evaluation instrument, it has also become the subject of close scrutiny. Rothman and Scott report on their study to determine whether or not the TUCE “may also measure political attitudes.” The relationship between the students' political opinions and their scores on the TUCE are examined, but other possible explanatory variables (such as previous economics instruction, sex and SAT scores) are also analyzed. The authors discuss possible reasons why “untrained conservatives know more about market systems than do untrained liberals,” and suggest that there are factors other than economic conservatism at work.     

The analytical solution of balanced growth of non-linear dynamic multi-sector economic model

In a one-sector neoclassical dynamic economic growth model, a reasonable ratio of investment to consumption exists, i.e., the “Golden Rule of Consumption”. This study is to extend one-sector neoclassical growth model to a multi-sector one. It is assumed that both the production function and the utility function are of Cobb–Douglas type, and the analytical expression of the balanced growth solution of the multi-sector model is provided, mainly including analytical expressions of the optimal distribution coefficient of fixed capital investment, the optimal distribution coefficient of labor hour, the proportion of production, the economic growth rate, the rate of change of the price index, and rental rates of different fixed capital.     

Epistemology and the tasks of feminist economics

This paper examines the implications of current epistemological debates for the work of feminist economists. Feminist economists must acknowledge (in accordance with recent developments in the study of science) that (a) inquirers can never be certain whether claims about the world are true; (b) scientific inquiry is permeated with “internal” and “external” values; and (c) beliefs are affected by inquirers' social locations. But feminists should not, it argues, embrace the “relativist” stance of some postmodern thinkers, or reject the ideal of “truth,” or argue that beliefs are strictly determined by inquirers' identities and interests. It seeks to outline an epistemological “middle ground” for feminist economics, between the extremes of exaggerated claims of certainty and a disempowering relativism.     

Development Processes Seen Through Non-Marginalist Lenses with Considerations of Complementarities

Marginalism has deeply shaped neoclassical concepts and analytical tools that are applied to development economics. With a static notion of efficiency defined for a state of competitive equilibrium, neoclassical economists study development in equilibrium frameworks, regarding underdevelopment as the consequence of market failures. How might one, who is not equipped with marginalist lenses, look at development processes as they unfold in history? Prior to the emergence of marginalism such observations abounded in the works of the so-called “protectionists,” where ever-evolving production complementarities figure prominently, and there were considerations of indivisibility. In the postwar era, this is present in the works of some early development economists, especially Albert Hirschman in his employment of backward and forward production linkages to characterize development processes, which are viewed as unfolding series of disequilibria. Historical sequences of events reflect path-dependence and they feedback on each other to exhibit circular and cumulative causation. One thing leads to another, or some things lead to others and so on, including institutional changes. However, the activation of linkages could encounter obstacles, with “technological strangeness” being one, in which case sequential policy intervention could be warranted. This article briefly considers differences with the neoclassical approach in generating policy recommendations.