Contributions of German and American jesuits to economics: The last 100 years

This article focuses on the contributions of six economists schooled in the Jesuit tradition. Four are Jesuit priests: Heinrich Pesch and Oswald von Nell-Breuning who are German, and Bernard Dempsey and Joseph Becker who are American. Two others, Goetz Briefs and William Waters, are lay persons who are referred to as “Jesuits without collars.” Five have direct ties to one another. Von Nell Breuning was a student of Pesch, as was Briefs. Waters was a student of Briefs, and Dempsey was influenced by Pesch and von Nell-Breuning. All five are solidarist economists who think about economics and economic affairs in a distinct way which originates with Pesch. Today they would be called personalist economists. The distinctive work of these six Jesuits is barely visible in the ranks of academic economists. Their contributions should be highlighted before they are lost forever to those who sense there is something inadequate about mainstream economics.     

The economics of Frank H. Knight: An Austrian interpretation

This paper interprets, in the modern Austrian economics perspective, Frank H. Knight's three core contributions; namely, economic methodology, theories of human action, uncertainty and entrepreneurship. Though Knight is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Chicago School of economics, this paper argues that Knight's contributions are essentially Austrian. Influenced by William James, Henri Bergson and Max Weber, Knight's subjectivist economics can be seen as a link between Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises in the history of Austrian subjectivism. This paper further suggests that Knight may be more appropriately located in the Austrian-German School, for the reason that the term “Austrian School” is too narrow to accommodate german influences. This paper concludes that Knight's legacies have left much to be appreciated by neoclassical mainstream economists in general and Austrian economists in particular. The author thanks Dian Kwan for her proof reading in this essay.     

Remembering Jim Buchanan

James Buchanan was an important influence on the Austrian revival and not incidentally on my own career. By taking the work of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Israel Kirzner seriously at a time when Austrian economics was ignored by the economics profession and by making his own contributions to subjectivist economics, Buchanan helped make the Austrian perspective professionally respectable, and inspired a generation of young economists interested in the Austrian school.     

Menger’s causal-realist analysis in modern economics

Carl Menger pioneered a unique theoretical research method which served as the foundation of the early Austrian school of economics. Menger’s causal-realist analysis was revived and formalized just before and after World War 2 by Ludwig von Mises as the “praxeological method.” Murray Rothbard, a student of von Mises’, utilized the method in formulating a comprehensive system of economic theory in his treatise, Man Economy, and State published in the early 1960s. Rothbard’s treatise became the foundational work for the “Austrian revival” in the 1970s. In this paper, we address several issues related to the role of Menger’s method in modern economics. First, ample evidence is adduced that von Mises and Rothbard each expressed a surprising ambivalence with respect to his own work in relation to the early Austrian school. Second, von Mises viewed Rothbard’s treatise as beginning a new epoch in economic theory. Third, contrary to the conventional view, a careful analysis of his treatise shows that Rothbard drew heavily on the contemporary neoclassical literature in developing his theoretical system and that his intent was never to set up a heterodox movement to challenge mainstream economics. Rather, his main aim was to consistently apply the praxeological method to rescue economics from what he considered the alien methodology of positivism, which was imported into economics after World War 2. Lastly, I will tentatively suggest that the term “Austrian economics” as the designation for the intellectual movement that coalesced in the early 1970s may now have outlived its usefulness. This term, which initially served an important strategic purpose in promoting the revival of the broad Mengerian tradition, may have come to obscure the meaning and importance of the praxeological research paradigm that Menger originated.     

The Cambridge challenge to the Ricardian analysis of poverty

The Ricardian economists’ famous model of economic growth employed the Malthusian population doctrine, the law of diminishing returns, and the classical or iron law of wages. This analysis was based on utilitarian moral philosophy. The gloomy Stationary State conclusions of the Ricardian growth model — maldistribution of income and widespread poverty — were challenged by both economists and moral philosophers. A particularly important challenge was that offered by William Whewell (1794–1866), Professor of Moral Philosophy and the dominant figure at the University of Cambridge. Whewell is remembered today for his early contributions to mathematical economics. This article begins with a review of the Ricardian growth model. Next, Whewell’s system of moral philosophy is examined and the scientific and religious basis of Whewell’s antagonism to Ricardian economics is considered. After considering Whewell’s treatment of agricultural progress, economic classes, and rent doctrine, his own model of economic growth is analyzed. Finally, Whewell’s appraisal of the duty of government to those harmed by development is explored.     

International impact of Austrian economists

This paper attempts to document the contributions of Austrian economists to the development of economics. To this purpose we investigated the publications in international economics journals as well as citations of Austrian economists in the period from 1980 to 1989. Our results show only a very limited presence of Austrian economists in the ongoing scientific discussions, with marked differences between university departments.

---

Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Arbeit versucht, den Beitrag österreichischer Universitäts- und Forschungsinstitute zur internationalen Forschung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften anhand von Publikationen und Zitationen für den Zeitraum 1980 bis 1989 quantitativ zu erfassen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, daß österreichische Ökonomen in internationalen, besonders in anglo-amerikanischen Zeitschriften wenig präsent sind, wobei erhebliche Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen Universitätsinstituten bestehen.

---

---

We are greatly indebted to R. Niegl (Universitätsbibliothek Wien), D. Spenger (University of Regensburg), and H. Wurm (University of Vienna) for compiling and processing the data.The circulation of earlier drafts as well as the presentation of our study at WIFO and IHS has aroused various responses, comments, and suggestions, most of them very interesting and stimulating, but too numerous to thank each of our colleagues individually. We feel, however, especially indebted to Gunther Tichy and Alexander Van der Bellen for their extensive written comments. Finally, we would like to thank three anonymous referees and the editor for valuable suggestions.     

Behavioral political economy: A survey

In explaining individual behavior in politics, economists should rely on the same motivational assumptions they use to explain behavior in the market: that is what Political Economy, understood as the application of economics to the study of political processes, is all about. In its standard variant, individuals who play the game of politics should also be considered rational and self-interested, unlike the benevolent despot of traditional welfare economics. History repeats itself with the rise of behavioral economics: Assuming cognitive biases to be present in the market, but not in politics, behavioral economists often call for government to intervene in a “benevolent” way. Recently, however, political economists have started to apply behavioral economics insights to the study of political processes, thereby re-establishing a unified methodology. This paper surveys the current state of the emerging field of “behavioral political economy” and considers the scope for further research.     

The duty of the firm in selling to the poor: A question of the person, justice, and subsidiarity

Mainstream economists do not address the question of the duty of the firm in selling to the poor. To them the issue is normative, and they have taken pains to delimit economics as a positive discipline. They separate value and fact, and engage themselves in questions relating to what is and not what should be. Forensic economists hold a different view. Firms are liable for damages due not just to deception and fraud but to negligence as well, and governments have consumer protection agencies to examine cases involving the duty of the firm well beyond deception and fraud. Social economists reject the argument based on libertarianism and individualism that the firm has only one purpose: increasing shareholder value. Social economists view the firm as having several constituencies — shareholders, managers, workers, customers, suppliers, neighbors, partners — and duties associated with each one. Those duties are grounded in the virtue of justice: to render to another that which is owed. The firm has a duty to its customers, its suppliers, and its employees deriving from the principle of equivalence; to its shareholders and employees from the principle of distributive justice; to its competitors and neighbors from the principle of contributive justice. This article argues that the firm has a special duty in selling to the poor which is grounded in the person of the one who is poor, the three principles of economic justice, and the principle of subsidiarity. Mainstream economists address poverty apart from consumer behavior as if the two were unrelated. This article brings the two together and in so doing helps throw light on the question of the duty of the firm in selling to the poor. An earlier version was presented as a paper at the midwest Economics Association annual meetings in Kansas City in March 1997.     

A Convoluted Path

In the first part of this paper, I described the events that led me from psychology into economics, and how the Association for Social Economics provided the ideal setting for someone attracted to economics but who disagreed with the normative conclusions of the mainstream. In the second part, I suggest three areas that will be of increasing importance in the near future—addictive behaviors, rising inequality, and global warming—each of which social economists are particularly well-suited to tackle.     

Getting past “rational man/emotional woman”: comments on research programs in happiness economics and interpersonal relations

Orthodox neoclassical economics portrays reason as far more important than emotion, autonomy as more characteristic of economic life than social connection, and, more generally, things culturally and cognitively associated with masculinity as more central than things associated with femininity. Research from contemporary neuroscience suggests that such biases are related to certain automatic processes in the brain, and feminist scholarship suggests ways of getting beyond them. The “happiness” and “interpersonal relations” economics research programs have made substantial progress in overcoming a number of these biases, bringing into consideration by economists a wide range of phenomena which were previously neglected. Analysis from a feminist economics perspective suggests several fronts on which research could most profitably continue.     

The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science

When heterodox economists talk of pluralism they are generally talking about pluralism within the economics profession—they are asking: how can we have a more pluralistic economics profession? This paper argues that another, perhaps more useful, way to think of pluralism and economics is from the perspective of all the social sciences. When considered in reference to the social science profession rather than in reference to the economics profession, the amount of pluralism increases significantly, since different social sciences follow quite different methodologies. But looking at pluralism from the social science perspective reveals a different type of pluralism problem in social science. While there may be plenty of pluralism within social science as a whole, there is a serious question about whether it is appropriately distributed. This paper argues that heterodox economists' agenda should be a greater blending of all the social science departments. It summarizes proposals to do so on both the undergraduate level and graduate level, and explains why supporting variations of these proposals would be a strategy that would further the objectives of most heterodox economists more than would their current strategy of pushing for more pluralism in economics.     

Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

A Student Learning Inventory for Economics Based on the Students' Experience of Learning: A Preliminary Study

The authors present the initial development of a student learning inventory (SLI) that is specific to economics. This approach, which is based on the student experience of learning (SEL) literature, emphasizes aspects of prior knowledge in the learning history of entering first-year students. Preliminary insights from a first SLI suggest that on entry to university, students show considerable variation in their perceptions of what economics is and what economists do. From the SEL perspective, such variation affects student learning. It is argued that continued development of an economic-specific SLI may result in a better understanding of students' learning engagement with economics and ultimately assist instructors in better understanding student learning difficulties and increase student success in first-year economics.     

发展经济学结构转型分析方法的演进与评价

结构主义发展经济学家在探讨发展中国家的结构转型问题时,所使用的结构分析方法,被认为是持这一思路的发展经济学家对发展经济学做出的最重要的贡献之一。在结构分析方法的演进过程中,传统的统计方法和投入—产出法,由于存在无法刻画产业间关联或因假设产业间关联呈刚性等缺陷,而逐渐被可计算一般均衡模型所取代。鉴于可计算一般均衡模型拥有更加适合于分析那些实行市场导向改革的发展中国家等优势,因而该模型具有更为广泛的应用前景。     

‘Our daily bread’: Maurice Potron,from Catholicism to mathematical economics

Abstract

Maurice Potron (1872–1942) is a French Jesuit and mathematician whose main source of inspiration in economics is the encyclical Rerum Novarum. With virtually no knowledge in economic theory, he wrote down a linear model of production in which he formalized the notions of just prices and just wages. As early as 1911, he used the Perron–Frobenius theorem to prove the existence of a positive solution and established a duality result between the quantity side and the price side of the model. He returned to economics in the 1930s, but in both periods he failed to make a lasting impression upon economists.

JEL Classification Code: B3     

Crossing the Great Divide: Ostrom’s Coproduction and the Economics of Aged Care

As the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in economics, Elinor Ostrom has attracted the interest of many feminist economists. Best known for her work on common pool resources, Ostrom made numerous theoretical and methodological contributions to economics, many of which are useful for feminist economists. This paper explores Ostrom’s work on coproduction: the active participation of individuals who receive a good or service in the production process. A particular focus is on how Ostrom’s model of coproduction might be applied and extended to capture the characteristics and circumstances of aged care. Data from interviews with women employed in Australia’s aged-care sector are used to inform a discussion of coproduction in aged care and the institutional supports necessary for successful outcomes. Key issues include the skills and resourcing of aged-care workers, and their authority to negotiate care practice with care recipients under current governance arrangements.     

Nature in Economics

Nature has been ill-served by 20th century economics. When asked, economists acknowledge nature’s existence, but most would appear to deny that she is worth much. If ecologists worry about the contemporary nexus between population size (and growth), the standard of living, and the natural environment, we economists point to the accumulation of capital and technological progress and say Malthus got it wrong. In this paper I show by an appeal to theory that economics has been so badly misused, that it has deflected attention from deep problems at the nexus that are faced both regionally and globally. Text of the President’s introductory remarks at the proceedings of Section F (Economics) of the BA (British Association for the Advancement of Science) Festival of Science 2006, at the University of East Anglia, September 2006.     

Social Surplus Approach and Heterodox Economics

Given the emphasis on social provisioning in heterodox economics, two of its central theoretical organizing principles are the concepts of the total social product and the social surplus. This appears to link heterodox economics to the social surplus approach associated with the classical economists and currently with Sraffian economists. However, heterodox economics connects agency with the social surplus and the social product, which the Sraffians reject as they take the level and composition of the social product as given. Therefore the different theoretical approach regarding the social surplus taken in heterodox economics may generate a different but similar way of theorizing about a capitalist economy. To explore this difference is the aim of the article.     

Scientific misconduct and research ethics in economics: an introduction

Abstract

Since the screening of Inside Job in movie theatres around the world in 2010, research integrity in economics has been questioned by scholars and public intellectuals. Prestigious economists and policy makers are accused of conflicts of interest while prominent economists are charged with plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Some of these economists replied to accusations about themselves while many others have preferred not to respond at all. These days, economists hear the following question more often than before: “what is wrong with economics?”     

THE CITATION IMPACT OF FEMINIST ECONOMICS

Abstract

Feminist economics is a transformative project. However, transformation generates resistance. Feminist economics can be deliberately excluded, co-opted through an uncritical application of rational choice theory, or ignored. And feminist economics can be listened to: when the United Nations consults feminist economists; when feminist economists publish in widely read journals; when a student finds inspiration in a Feminist Economics article. All of these are ways feminist economics can, and has, influenced the profession. After ten years of discourse, it is possible to take stock and assess the impact of feminist economics. This article provides a partial assessment through a consideration of citations of the journal Feminist Economics, describing its impact on mainstream economics, heterodox economics, and other disciplines. While the overall project of feminist economics encompasses much more than just one journal, studying the citations for Feminist Economics is a first step toward assessing the influence of the entire corpus.