Can neoclassical economics become social economics?

This essay has both a general and a specific purpose. Its general purpose is to pose the question: Can neoclassical economics be social economics? Its answer to this general question is: Yes, but only if it abandons its methodological soul; that is, by abandoning methodological individualism, positivism, and ahistoricism, and expressly and systematically adopting a methodological perspective which is holistic, normative, and historical. Its specific purpose is to identify and examine the major elements in the economics of one leading figure in the historical development of neoclassical economics who self-consciously attempted to combine, to paraphrase Schumpeter, a neoclassical head with a social economics heart: Alfred Marshall.     

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.     

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.     

Kantian dignity and social economics

Many social economists endorse the ethics of Immanuel Kant, specifically his emphasis on the dignity of humanity and the equal respect due all persons. Based on these tenets, Kant mandates a social outlook in which concern for others, characterized by negative duties of respect and positive duties of beneficence, are broadly required of all rational agents. However, some of the positions that social economists derive from Kantian dignity actually violate it, such as support for a welfare state and opposition to the institution of wage employment. I will show that both of these positions are inconsistent with the traditional understanding of Kantian dignity, suggesting that social economists should either ground their positions on a different concept of dignity, or revise them to remain consistent with Kant's specific sense of dignity. For helpful comments and criticism I thank John Davis, Charles Wilber, David Ellerman, and the rest of the participants in the “Economic Philosophy and Theories of Justice” session at the 2003 meetings of the Association for Social Economics, as well as two anonymous referees. All remaining errors are my own.     

The new institutional economics and its relevance to social economics

There has been a quiet revolution in economic theory, led by the New Institutionalists. Pioneered by Douglass C. North, this group argues that institutions are the main determinants of economic performance, yet neoclassical economics has no role for institutions. Contrary to many misconceptions, this theory of institutions can be integrated with neoclassical economics, leaving mainstream economic theory in tact, but broader and more relevant. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, the main arguments of the New Institutionalists are summarized. Second, the bridge between institutions and social economics is explored. The article concludes by arguing that the New Institutional approach is fruitful, and that the theory will gradually be integrated with neoclassical economics, until the two merge into a single body of theory.     

The status of economics as a naturalistic social science

Naturalistic social science is held frequently to be the mosteffective means of discovering social reality (e.g., Kincaid,H. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: AnalyzingControversies in Social Research, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress; McIntyre, L. 1996. Laws and Explanation in the SocialSciences, Boulder, CO, Westview). This paper evaluates economicsas such a science. From Kincaid (1996), criteria for naturalismin social science are identified. The focus here is whetherrational, objective empirical methods exist for choosing economictheories; whether fair, cross and independent tests exist fortheories, assumptions and methodological norms; and whethereconomic theories chosen in these ways have public policy relevance.Examples from economics are related to each of these naturalisticcriteria. These encompass the relevance of econometrics to testingeconomic theories, the complications the non-natural-kind qualityof economic variables impose on testing, and the question ofwhether naturalistic methods reveal economic reality. The paperconcludes that the practice of economics does not, and is notable to, rely on naturalistic methods.     

Pastoral economics within the framework of a social economy

Eucken, in his paradigm of a functionally competitive social market economy, established the basis for a free market economy which institutionalizes concerns for economic and social justice. The Bishops’ Pastoral (and also the Lay Letter) on the U.S. economy approach the concept of a social and just economy from a Christian moral tradition. A community of interests between these two approaches, as well as Donaldson’s synthesis of Nozick’s and Rawl’s theories of justice, causes a moral-economic dialogue and cross fertilization to emerge. The Bishops postulate that the evolution of a just and fair market economy, as the guarantor of freedom, human dignity, and justice, cannot be left to chance but needs to be consciously guided. Therefore, they emphasize the integration of economic theories and policies with notions of “fairness” and “justice,” advocating a holistic approach in viewing the economic system as an organic whole. This paper shows that the broad economic guidelines, which Bishops suggest, fall within the framework of a functional market economy, i.e., a social market economy. It does not deal with the religious and biblical arguments of the Pastoral Letter.     

The elementary economics of social dilemmas

Abstract.  A social dilemma is, in essence, a prisoners' dilemma in a continuous strategy space. I discuss a number of social dilemmas that have caught my attention, offer an elementary, diagrammatic synthesis of them, and discuss some of the economic insights that the diagrams capture, including incentives for pre‐commitment. Finally, I model pre‐commitment via delegation and link results to the literature on the evolution of preferences.     

The social economics of job security

Using a social economics perspective, this essay examines the positive and negative effects of job security, insecurity and the perceptions thereof on the welfare of workers, organizations, and society, as well as policy options that could alleviate the negative socio-economic consequences of job insecurity. The essay questions perceived job insecurity as a device to increase worker effort, both on efficiency and ethical grounds. It also suggests that increased perceptions of job insecurity have adversely affected workers' well-being and have undesirable macroeconomic and social effects. Public policy makers and researchers should examine ways to minimize the negative consequences associated with involuntary job loss. They should also consider to what extent both limiting firms' ability to layoff workers and providing incentives to firms that downsize to use alternatives to layoffs are socially desirable. The authors thank two anonymous referees for comments, and Elizabeth Kirkwood and Deanna Behrens for outstanding research assistance. The authors invite others to e-mail them if interested in organizing a panel for a future ASE meeting.     

The basic income guarantee and social economics

This article introduces the Review of Social Economy symposium on the basic income guarantee (BIG). It argues that there are several ways in which the BIG is consistent with social economics. First, the BIG is an attempt to meet the minimum material needs of US citizens and contribute to the common good. Second, important arguments for a BIG move beyond the positive-normative dichotomy. Finally, the BIG would help individuals function as social citizens.     

Early contributions to the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon

During the 1920s some American women economists developed theoretical, empirical and historical analyses that constituted a theory of consumption. The original formulations of this approach were based on the view, theorised by T. Veblen, that consuming certain goods makes it possible to identify with specific social groups. These analyses were explicitly alternative to the theories of consumption based on marginal utility. In the 1930s, however, the analyses of a second generation of women economists became exclusively empirical and the theoretical features that made the approach original and an alternative to marginalism were lost.     

Presidential address,association for social economics,January 2005

In recent years social economists have been utilizing a broader than conventional perspective for examining the behavior of economic agents. While traditionally the focus has been on the one-dimensional maximizing “individual with this newer approach the focus is on the multidimensional “person.” Thus the name “Personalist Economics.” Long ago the British writer Thomas Carlyle devoted volumes of pages to the sorts of topics and issues that are prominent in the personalist approach. Here are explored some areas of overlap between Carlyle's and today's personalist perspective, and some questions that might be raised about the two approaches.     

Ethics,human behavior and the methodology of social economics

Social economists differ among themselves but are united in rejecting the rational actor model. They insist that individuals are more than economic actors; they arepersons with ethical values who live in community. That agreement over fundamentals leads social economists to embrace a methodological approach that differs substantially from the mainstream of economics. They (sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly), engage in a special form of storytelling known in the philosophy of social science as pattern modeling. Instead of using a pre-existing theoretical framework, such as rational choice theory, to logically construct a story, this type of story is constructed empirically from the bottom up through the use of case studies. The article concludes with a specific consideration of Albert Hirschman's methodology to illustrate the storytelling approach of a first rate and well-recognized social economist.     

Ethics,human behavior and the methodology of social economics

Social economists differ among themselves but are united in rejecting the rational actor model. They insist that individuals are more than economic actors; they arepersons with ethical values who live in community. That agreement over fundamentals leads social economists to embrace a methodological approach that differs substantially from the mainstream of economics. They (sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly), engage in a special form of storytelling known in the philosophy of social science as pattern modeling. Instead of using a pre-existing theoretical framework, such as rational choice theory, to logically construct a story, this type of story is constructed empirically from the bottom up through the use of case studies. The article concludes with a specific consideration of Albert Hirschman's methodology to illustrate the storytelling approach of a first rate and well-recognized social economist.