The Life-Blind Structure of the Neoclassical Paradigm: A Critique of Bernard Hodgson's "Economics as a Moral Science" [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):377 - 389 (2003)
This paper achieves two general objectives. It first analyses Bernard Hodgson's "Economic As Moral Science" as a path-breaking internal critique of neo-classical economic theory, and it then demonstrates that the underlying neo-classical paradigm he presupposes suffers from a deeper-structural myopia than his standpoint recognizes. EMS mainly exposes the a priori moral prescriptions underlying orthodox consumer choice theory - namely, its classical utilitarian ground and four or, as argued here, five hidden universal categorical-ought prescriptions which the theory presupposes as instrumental imperatives: (1) comparability evaluations by all consumer judgements; (2) non-satiety of consumer desire; (3) consistency and transitivity of consumer preferences; (4) diminishing rate of marginal substitution by consumer choice; and (5) an unlimited aggregate growth of commodity production, or "the liberal growth ethic". The article argues that Hodgson's refutation of the neo-classical claims of "value neutral scientific method" is sound, that his bridging of the Humean reason-desire divide by the "rational review" of wants is resonantly demonstrated, and that his argument for conversion of an "a priori-cum-normative-cum-idealized" neoclassical theory into scientific status is logically plausible but morally abhorrent. The principal objection to Hodgson's magisterial exposé of neo-classical doctrine's moral a priorism is that the latter's normative presuppositions are profoundly deranged at a level that he himself assumes as given. In consequence, there is theoretical closure at three levels: (1) to the underlying "life economy" of non-priced and non-profit production and distribution of goods otherwise in short supply; (2) to the "civil commons" infrastructure sustaining these non-commodity systems of social and ecological production and distribution; and (3) to the systemic despoiling of both by monetized market mechanisms which are falsely assumed as the defining limits of "the economy".
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David Geoffrey Holdsworth (2012). Economics and the Limits of Optimization: Steps Towards Extending Bernard Hodgson's Moral Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):37-48.
Bernard Hodgson (2005). Thinking and Acting Outside the Neo-Classical Economic Box: Reply to McMurtry. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 56 (3):289 - 303.
John Douglas Bishop (2012). The Elephant in the Room: On the Absence of Corporations in Bernard Hodgson's Economics as a Moral Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):27-35.
Dennis Badeen (2012). Bernard Hodgson's Trojan Horse Critique of Neoclassical Economics and the Second Phase of the Empiricist Level of Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):15-25.
Peter J. Boettke (1990). Individuals and Institutions. Critical Review 4 (1-2):10-26.
Bernard J. Hodgson (2001). Can the Beast Be Tamed?: Reflections on John McMurtry's Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical System. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 33 (1):71 - 78.
Bernard Hodgson (1988). Economic Science and Ethical Neutrality II: The Intransigence of Evaluative Concepts. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 7 (5):321 - 335.
John McMurtry (2001). Life-Value Economics Vs. The Neo-Classical Paradigm: Reply to Hodgson. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 33 (1):79 - 86.
Milan Zafirovski (2000). The Rational Choice Generalization of Neoclassical Economics Reconsidered: Any Theoretical Legitimation for Economic Imperialism? Sociological Theory 18 (3):448-471.
Bernard Hodgson (1983). Economic Science and Ethical Neutrality: The Problem of Teleology. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 2 (4):237 - 253.
Diane Swanson (1992). A Critical Evaluation of Etzioni's Socioeconomic Theory: Implications for the Field of Business Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 11 (7):545 - 553.
Michael Moehler & Geoffrey Brennan (2010). Neoclassical Economics. In Mark Bevir (ed.), Encyclopedia of Political Theory. SAGE Publications.
John McMurtry (2012). Behind Global System Collapse: The Life-Blind Structure of Economic Rationality. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):49-60.
Spencer J. Pack (2008). Aristotle's Difficult Relationship With Modern Economic Theory. Foundations of Science 13 (3-4):265-280.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads7 ( #188,281 of 1,102,856 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #120,639 of 1,102,856 )
How can I increase my downloads?