Scenarios and the art of worldmaking

In this exploratory paper we propose ‘worldmaking’ as a framework for pluralistic, imaginative scenario development. Our points of departure are the need in scenario practice to embrace uncertainty, discomfort and knowledge gaps, and the connected need to capture and make productive fundamental plurality among understandings of the future. To help respond to these needs, we introduce what Nelson Goodman calls worldmaking. It holds that there is no singular, objective world (or “real reality”), and instead that worlds are multiple, constructed through creative processes instead of given, and always in the process of becoming. We then explore how worldmaking can operationalise discordant pluralism in scenario practice by allowing participants to approach not only the future but also the present in a constructivist and pluralistic fashion; and by extending pluralism to ontological domains. Building on this, we investigate how scenario worldmaking could lead to more imaginative scenarios: worldmaking is framed as a fully creative process which gives participants ontological agency, and it helps make contrasts, tensions and complementarities between worlds productive. We go on to propose questions that can be used to operationalize scenario worldmaking, and conclude with the expected potential and limitations the approach, as well as suggestions for practical experimentation.     

Relevance,responsibility, critical performativity,testimony and positive marketing: contributing to marketing theory,thought and practice

In this commentary, I chart recent changes at the Journal of Marketing Management (JMM). These include the introduction of a senior editorial board, a revised main editorial board and a modified team of associate editors. The new deputy editor is welcomed. The exemplary performance of the JMM in scholarly league-tables is registered. From this, a case is made for the pluralisation of the concepts of relevance and impact. In doing so, the emergent literature on critical performativity is unpacked. I highlight a missed opportunity in this material, namely, the potential for academics to act as critical commentators on industry practice in the courtroom. Developing the ideas associated with critical performativity leads to the scrutiny of new concepts in marketing. One of importance is positive marketing. This regressive manoeuver is critiqued; as is macromarketing narcissism. Following Dunne et al., I make a plea for more responsible academic practice. Developing logically from these ideas, a number of new potential avenues for contributing to the JMM are sketched. These include special sections and research notes among others.     

Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law

This article aims to explore whether procedural rights and administrative law mechanisms - such as, for example, the right to a hearing, the duties to provide a reasoned decision and to disclose relevant information - can enhance the accountability and democratic legitimacy of earth system governance.The democracy-enhancing potential of such mechanisms and rights - which in the national context have proved to be beneficial in strengthening citizens' participation and the acceptance of decisions - can be limited in the global arena, by a number of factors. One of these factors is “legal imperialism”, understood as the grafting onto the global level rules and institutions that impose the hegemony of western values.In fact, administrative law mechanisms, being a construct of a certain type of western, liberal model of the state (and its capitalist model of development), could be perceived, in developing countries as an instrument to reproduce the dominant position of advanced industrialized countries and their economic actors.The analysis suggests that in order to realize their democracy-enhancing potential, these mechanisms should draw, as far as possible, on cross-cultural principles, and be supported by financial and technical instruments enabling “developing countries” and marginalized groups to engage in dialog with the most powerful actors.     

VARIETY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH IN ECONOMICS

Abstract.  It has been argued by some that the distinction between orthodox economics and heterodox economics does not fit the growing variety in economic theory, unified by a common methodological approach. On the other hand, it remains a central characteristic of heterodox economics that it does not share this methodological approach, but rather represents a range of alternative methodological approaches. The paper explores the evidence, and arguments, for variety in economics at different levels, and a range of issues which arise. This requires in turn a discussion of the meaning of variety in economics at the different levels of reality, methodology, method and theory. It is concluded that there is scope for more, rather than less, variety in economic methodologies, as well as within methodologies. Further, if variety is not to take the form of 'anything goes', then critical discussion by economists of different approaches to economics, and of variety itself, is required.     

Newsletter

The comment to “What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought” spotlights critical issues in the possibility and probability of articulation and proposes a compelling argument in the explanation of the “inability of heterodoxy to define itself...” The core argument suggests that heterodox groups of economic thought cannot successfully articulate the nature of its varied programs until it recognizes and articulates the metaphysically and ontologically different system of knowledge which serves as the foundation for heterodox thought.     

What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought

Since its intellectual inception, the development of the economics discipline has been accompanied by divergence of thought. Through the years, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, a fissure has emerged within the discipline, sociologically dividing conventional, mainstream economics from the dissention of heterodox economics. The nature of that division, however, as well as the nature of heterodox thought is unclear. Historians of economic thought would seem to be uniquely suited to specify the nature of heterodox economics and the mechanism of its marginalization. Although anecdotal, personal interviews with historians of economic thought provide a breadth and depth of study not available through surveys with an immediacy not allowed by doctrinal examination. The purpose of this study and intent of this paper is to reveal the ways that orthodox and heterodox economics differ, whether heterodox economics has any clear research program other than criticizing the limits of the more orthodox view, and what aspects of heterodox economics remain underdeveloped, all through the lens of the historian of economic thought.     

失独老人的社区照顾模式探究——基于福利多元主义理论的视角

目前,我国失独老人数量与日俱增,随着年岁的增长,他们的养老需求也逐渐增加,并呈多元化趋势。我国政府、机构、家庭和民间社会组织在应对养老需求上各具优势,但这四种养老模式都难以独自面对失独老人的养老问题。运用福利多元主义理论,有效整合各种养老资源,构建依托社区、政府引导、民间社会组织支持和市场补充的多元化社区照顾模式,以解决失独老人的养老难题。     

Investigating science for governance through the lenses of complexity

This paper assesses the contributions of complexity theory to post-normal science. The oversupply of facts in science for governance is explained as a matter of complexity, defined as irreducible pluralism in the knowledge base. The paper shows how complexity provides an interface to engage with the multiple facts of science through three different examples. First, water narratives are used to show how different scales of analysis produce contradictory scientific representations of the same system. Second, smart electricity grids are assessed to demonstrate how different levels of uncertainty are associated with different representations. Third, the case of slum upgrading is used to discuss the need to take into account stakes in science for governance.     

福利多元主义视角下非营利组织参与社区社会保障路径研究

福利多元主义理论及非营利组织自身特征,为其参与社区社会保障提供了理论依据及实证依据。但在非营利组织以公共产品供给主体之一的身份参与社区社会保障建设过程中,面临广度不够、深度不足、社会效益不高等诸多困境。文章从体制嵌入、服务拓展、资源联动三个方面着手尝试完善其参与路径,并配套设计制度保障机制,营造良好的发展环境,同时加强非营利组织自身建设,确保非营利组织实现充分参与。     

What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought

Since its intellectual inception, the development of the economics discipline has been accompanied by divergence of thought. Through the years, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, a fissure has emerged within the discipline, sociologically dividing conventional, mainstream economics from the dissention of heterodox economics. The nature of that division, however, as well as the nature of heterodox thought is unclear. Historians of economic thought would seem to be uniquely suited to specify the nature of heterodox economics and the mechanism of its marginalization. Although anecdotal, personal interviews with historians of economic thought provide a breadth and depth of study not available through surveys with an immediacy not allowed by doctrinal examination. The purpose of this study and intent of this paper is to reveal the ways that orthodox and heterodox economics differ, whether heterodox economics has any clear research program other than criticizing the limits of the more orthodox view, and what aspects of heterodox economics remain underdeveloped, all through the lens of the historian of economic thought.