Social Organization of Economics

James Stacey Taylor’s book – Markets with Limits: How the Commodification of Academia Derails Debate (New York: Routledge, 2022) – is excellent. He explores the errors that have derailed the discussion of the limits of markets, attempts to rerail the discussion through a clarifying taxonomy, and explains why the derailment occurred. He also argues that academic research should be governed by academic rather than market norms. The first part of his project succeeds. It is less clear whether the second and (...) third parts succeed. (shrink)

Ha-Joon Chang, Research Professor of Economics at SOAS University of London, is a vocal advocate of pluralism in economics. He has also campaigned for public understanding of economics and cautioned against an excessive role of economists in policymaking. In this comprehensive interview, Chang talks about his views on economics, pluralism, the role of economists in democracy, as well as his formative years as an economics student. The interview concludes with Chang's advice for young scholars - both economists interested in non-mainstream (...) approaches and non-economists interested in engaging with economists. (shrink)

After the financial crisis of 2008, many economists expressed dissatisfaction with the state of macroeconomics. They criticised deficiencies in the dominant dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modelling approach and conceptions of good macroeconomic research behind that dominance. This paper argues that there is a deeper problem in macroeconomics, which remains unaddressed. I connect existing literature critical of the institutions of macroeconomics and of economics in general to the institutional preconditions of effective criticism outlined by the philosopher Helen Longino. I find that (...) as an epistemic community, macroeconomics does not function in a way that adequately supports critical evaluation of established beliefs, norms and practices. This failure may partly explain why many views on macroeconomic modelling, the tenability of which economists questioned after the crisis, were able to persist for so long. My analysis gives additional support to several recent proposals for institutional reforms in economics. (shrink)

This dissertation examines the recent demands for diversifying economics, often advanced under the rubric of pluralism. The dissertation aims at illuminating questions that are foundational to this debate and thereby promoting the resolution of the disagreements. The focus is on the question of whether economics should be open to a wide range of methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, schools of thought, and so on, in a way that would make the current relatively uniform mainstream approach to economics one among others. The (...) question is considered from the perspective of empirically informed philosophy of science. This approach combines the traditional tools of philosophy, such as critical examination of arguments and concepts, with a multifaceted understanding of science achieved by drawing on sociological, historical and economic research on science. -/- The dissertation consists of four research articles and an introductory essay. Three of these articles examine three corresponding epistemic benefits that increased diversity of approaches and perspectives may be expected to produce. These benefits are the stimulation of inquiry, the reliability of knowledge produced, and the comprehensiveness of attainable knowledge. Each benefit may be used as a premise in arguing that economics should be more diverse than it currently is. Of these three articles, two use Helen Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism as the theoretical framework. The fourth article examines the flipside of the benefits, namely, the various costs that securing the benefits may require or that may emerge as side-effects of diversity. -/- This study finds that all the arguments for pluralism examined face challenges. The most pressing challenge is that these arguments often presuppose views about the goals of economics without explicitly arguing for them. While plurality may have certain effects on the knowledge produced by economics, whether these effects are desirable depends on the kinds of epistemic outputs one thinks economics should deliver. However, there is no universal agreement on this. There is no uncontested Common Good against which to measure what changes are improvements. Arguments which do not confront this reality are unlikely to gain wide support. Thus this study highlights the urgency of openly discussing the research agenda and overall aims of the discipline, and helps articulate the views involved in such a discussion by developing suitable conceptual tools. -/- Nevertheless, the most substantial challenges are only faced by views according to which fundamental reform in economics is needed; economics would plausibly benefit from a moderate shift towards openness to non-mainstream approaches and perspectives. At the end, the desirability of a shift towards more intellectual diversity in economics is a matter of costs and benefits. The more modest variations of pluralism one considers, the more likely it is that the benefits outweigh the costs. (shrink)

The literature on pluralism in economics has focused on the benefits expected from the plurality of theories, methods, and frameworks. This overlooks half of the picture: the costs. Neither have the multifarious costs been systematically analyzed in philosophy of science. We begin rectifying this neglect. We discuss how the benefits of plurality and diversity in science presuppose distinct types of plurality and how various benefit and plurality types are associated with different types of costs. Finally, we ponder how the general (...) mechanisms that give rise to the costs of plurality and diversity are aggravated by various disciplinary characteristics of economics. (shrink)

Due to the innovative possibilities of digital technologies, the issue of increasing automation is once again on the agenda – and not only in the industry, but also in other branches and sectors of contemporary societies. Although public and scientific discussions about automation seem to raise relevant questions of the “old” debate, such as the replacement of human labor by introducing new technologies, the authors focus here on the new contextual quality of these questions. The debate should rethink the relationship (...) between technology and work with regard to quantitative and qualitative changes in work. In this article, our example will be the introduction of automation in industry, which has been reflected in the widely recognized study by Frey and Osborne in 2013. They estimated the expected impacts of future computerization on US labor market outcomes as very high, specifically regarding the number of jobs at risk. Surprisingly, this study was the starting point of an intensive international debate on the impact of technologies on the future of work and the role of technological change in working environments. Thus, according to the authors, “old” questions remain important, but they should be reinterpreted for “new” societal demands and expectations of future models of work. (shrink)

We report general and consensus results of a survey administered to a defined population of economic science academics in Mexico. Our results include insights on economic opinions, scientific aspects of economics, scientific activities, countries' economic performances and methodological orientation. Our outcomes show areas of consensus which, at least partially, are consistent with findings in previous studies. Comparisons between our results and those of other studies suggest that consensus could be constant over time and that economics academics in Mexico seems to (...) show similar levels of skepticism about the importance of rationality assumption as those in other latitudes. (shrink)

Volume 27, Issue 2, June 2020, Page 179-184.

Erklärungsansätze für die Existenz der ›firm-like Organization‹ werden nicht selten monokausal ausgeführt. Entweder ist der Sachverhalt zu komplex, um ihn mit einer Argumentationsfigur zusammenhängend - und seiner Vielseitigkeit angemessen - einzukreisen oder es fehlte bislang ein adäquates Modell, es systematisch tun zu können. Unter Rückgriff auf die Ursachenlehre nach Aristoteles nähert sich der vorliegende Artikel dieser Lücke theorieintegrativ. Mit den vier Erstursachen, der causa materialis (den Bestandteilen, hier in sozioökonomischer Lesart), der causa formalis (der Form), der causa finalis (dem eigentlichen (...) Zweck einer Sache) und der causa efficiens (dem in Gang Setzenden) werden unternehmenstheoretische Erkenntnisse jahrzehntelanger Management- und Organisationsforschung in eine konsistente Argumentationsfigur überführt. Schließlich wird die neu entwickelte unternehmenstheoretische Konzeption auf ihre Kompatibilität zu gegenwärtigen betriebspraktischen Entwicklungstendenzen überprüft - konkret der zunehmenden Maschinisierung der Arbeitswelt. (shrink)

The agencies of the government of the United States of America, such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency, intervene in American society through the collection, processing, and diffusion of information. The Presidency of Barack Obama was notable for updating and redesigning the US government’s information infrastructure. The White House enhanced mass consultation through open government and big data initiatives to evaluate policy effectiveness, and it launched new ways of communicating with the citizenry. In this essay (...) we argue that these programs spelled out an emergent epistemology based on two assumptions: dispersed knowledge and a critique of judgment. These programs have redefined the evidence required to justify and design regulatory policy and conferred authority to a new kind of expert, which we call epistemic consultants. (shrink)

Games are meant to be fun, yet economists have successfully developed games that are less fun and less understood by participants especially in developing countries. This paper surveys failures in...

Economics plays a significant role in decision-making in contemporary western societies, but its role is increasingly questioned. A recurring topic among the challenges raised by critics is that economics as a discipline lacks sufficient pluralism. That is, it fails to enable, encourage, and respect the use of different ontologies, methodologies, theories, and/or schools of thought to study economic reality. Has this been a productive critique? Does talk about pluralism help identify genuine problems in the discipline? Pluralism in economics could draw (...) support from the current consensus in philosophy that pluralism in science is a good thing. I argue, however, that the claim that economic research is insufficiently pluralist is unlikely to convince economists who believe economics is already pluralist enough and that it does not offer unambiguous recommendations for change. This is because there are too many legitimate ways to interpret how pluralism maps to practice. There are numerous variables that pluralist ideals might focus on—the things that they seek multiple rather than one of—and different interpretations of how many of those variables economics has in practice. Yet, as I go on to argue, this does not mean that talk of pluralism is entirely beside the point, since the reasons pluralists offer for their ideals do help to identify genuine problems in economics. The social epistemic strategies that arguments for pluralism recommend point us to three concrete issues in the way economic research is organised: gender imbalances, a steep internal hierarchy, and a dismissive attitude to outsiders. I show that economic research could be more progressive, representative of the interests of those in society, accepted, and legitimate and less likely to fall into bias if the discipline alleviated its gender imbalances, if it were less hierarchical, and if it had a healthier relationship with outsiders. -/- In chapter 1, I outline the debate about pluralism in economics and explain how my thesis utilises a novel approach to social epistemology to offer a way out of the impasse in which that the debate presently resides. In chapter 2, I explain the different philosophical arguments for pluralism in science and categorise them using the variables they focus on and the reasons they give for pluralism. In chapter 3, I argue that interpreting pluralism as a particular arrangement of variables for economics to attain does not lead to unambiguous recommendations for change because it leaves too much open. Yet, I go on to argue, in chapter 4, that drawing on the reasons for pluralism can provide a set of heuristics for piecemeal evaluations of the social epistemic practices in economics. In chapters 5, 6, and 7, I apply these heuristics to economics. I provide evidence that [a] women are outnumbered in economics and face an adverse environment in the discipline, that [b] economics is steeply hierarchical, and that [c] economists form an in-group that assumes superiority and frequently dismisses outside voices. I argue that these three features of economic research block avenues for productive forms of feedback (mechanisms that help to challenge, justify, and refine scientific knowledge), block the interests of certain perspectives being heard, and block public scrutiny of the decisions made by economists. (shrink)

Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology (RHETM) is a journal/book series dedicated to an interdisciplinary approach to a broad range of topics related to the history and methodology of economics. Volumes are divided into four parts: a monothematic section dedicated to research articles focused on a particular issue in the journal’s core fields of interest, a section including research articles of a more general nature, a section of newly-discovered archival materials, and a section of review essays on (...) new works in the history and methodology of economics. Founded by Warren Samuels in 1982, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology is one of the oldest publication outlets in the fields of economic methodology and the history of economic thought. (shrink)

Проблеми взаємовпливу та взаємозв'язку економіки і культури складні й різноманітні, тому є теоретично й практично актуальними: без глибокого вивчення і методологічного та інституціонального визначення їх ролі неможливо зрозуміти сутність сучасних тенденцій в глобалізованому економічному процесі і нові тенденції суспільного середовища. В сучасному розумінні роль культури в економічному аспекті слід розглядати як функціонально пов’язану з усім суспільним виробництвом, головним чином – у відтворенні робочої сили та «інтелектуальному оснащенні» працівника. Сьогодні інновації та знання пронизують не тільки всі сфери певної національної економіки, вони (...) «розсіюються» у світовому просторі, перетинаючи державні кордони. У цьому випадку мова йде про міжнародний перелив або трансфер знань, який формується під впливом економічної культури суспільства. (shrink)

In the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008, the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression, the cover story of the July 18th 2009 issue of The Economist, entitled “What went wrong with economics,” opened with an unequivocally incriminating statement: “Of all the economic bubbles that have been pricked, few have burst more spectacularly than the reputation of economics itself.” In the months surrounding this indictment, many influential economists, including several Nobel laureates, were drawn to the same embarrassing (...) conclusion. Despite the existence of a handful of Cassandras, economists, as a group, had failed to foresee the crash. This short essay reviews the criticisms addressed to modern economic theory in the immediate aftermath of the crash. Overall, the main issues raised by critics were that (a) economists versed in the dominant models in macroeconomics and finance have been blinded to the possibility that we live in an uncertain and complex world; and (b) that the content of current economics education has sidelined many of the relevant insights to be found in the history of the discipline. This has led the critics to call for changes in the institutional structure of discipline, with a particular emphasis on the promotion of interdisciplinarity, and theoretical and methodological pluralism. (shrink)

لقد صار من غير الممكن أبدا نفي الضرورة الملحة لدراسة التحولات الاجتماعية والديناميات المجالية التي يعرفها المجتمع المغربي المعاصر. فقد عرف المغرب الظاهرة الكولونيالية، كما انخرط في الحداثة التقنية والتنظيمية، مثلما اندمج في سوق الاقتصاد العالمي، ونظام العولمة بتحدياته المختلفة. كما دخل هذا المجتمع في عصر سمته الأساسية هي الحركية، سواء كانت هذه الحركية أفقية داخل المجال، أو حركية عمودية في السلم الاجتماعي، وفي مختلف مناحي الحياة الاجتماعية والثقافية. -/- وبسبب هذا الوضع، كان على الدراسات الاجتماعية، أن تواكب الواضعة الراهنة (...) للمجتمع، بتكثيف وتجديد مقارباتها، حتى تكون قادرة على فهم وتحليل مختلف الظواهر التي يطفح بها المشهد الاجتماعي المغربي، بمختلف مكوناته ومجالاته المختلفة، سواء في مجال القرى والواحات، أو في مجالات المدن وأحوازها. وإذ نؤكد هذا المعطى الذي لا يمكن أن تغفله العين السوسيولوجية، فإن هدفنا من خلال هذا العمل هو محاولة دراسة وتحليل المجتمع المغربي في قلب التحولات، لهذا تلامس المقالات المدرجة ضمن هذا العمل مجالات وجوانب عديدة من عمليات التحول التي يشهدها المجتمع المغربي، بمقاربات وطرائق مختلفة ومتقاطعة في آن واحد. وسيجد القارئ أن العنوان الذي اخترناه لهذا العمل يعبر إلى حد بعيد عن طبيعة مسعانا. فرؤيتنا هذه نابعة من قناعتنا الراسخة بأهمية المعرفة والبحث العلمي المتكامل، خاصة إذا تعلق الأمر بموضوع الديناميات والتحولات المختلفة التي لا يمكن الإمساك بها إلا من زاوية التعدد والتكامل المعرفي، على الرغم من التحديات والثغرات التي قد تواجه مثل هذا الطموح. -/- توجه هذا العمل تساؤلات كثيرة تستدعي نفسها، من قبيل: هل انتهت الفلاحة العائلية بالمجالات الرطبة؟ وما الذي تبقى من السكن التقليدي بالواحات؟ وما هي مختلف الديناميات التي شهدها المجتمع القروي المغربي؟ وإلى أي حد ساهم الاستعمار كلحظة "مثاقفة كبيرة" وكل عمليات التحديث وسياسات التنمية الوطنية مند الاستقلال، في تغيير البنيات الفكرية والقيّم الثقافية للمجتمع المغربي التقليدي؟ وهل ساهمت المدرسة في الحدّ من التراتبية الاجتماعية القائمة على التمييز الجنسي والاثني؟ وكيف أثرت هذه الديناميات على علاقة الفرد المغربي بالمجال والجسد وتراثه الأنثروبولوجي المتنوع؟ وهل يمكن القول بأن المجتمع المغربي يتجه أكثر فأكثر نحو قيم السوق والفردانية؟ -/- بناء على هذه الأسئلة وغيرها، تتنوع أعمال هذا الكتاب، بين الاهتمام بالفلاحة العائلية(د، بن محمد قسطاني)، وتحولات المجتمع القروي(الباحث: الصديق الصادقي العماري) الذي ساهمت فيه عوامل كثيرة، كالاستعمار والمدرسة التي سرعت وتيرة التغير على مستوى الحركية الاجتماعية للفئات التي كانت تنتمي إلى القاع الاجتماعي قبل الاستعمار(ذ، عبد الكريم الوزيري)، كما أن الديناميات السوسيو-مجالية لهاته المناطق، خاصة بمجال الواحات(د، محمد جاج)، إلى جانب الهجرة الداخلية والخارجية، وانفتاح المجتمعات المحلية على القيّم الحديثة، غيرت بشكل كبير نمط السكن التقليدي وأزاحته من موقعه(د عبد الفتاح الزهيدي)، كما لعبت دورًا كبيرا في التأثير على الأدوار الاجتماعية والممارسات الثقافية والرمزية المرتبطة بالجسد وتحولاته التي امتدت إلى الأنثى بالمجالات الواحية(د، ابراهيم حمداوي). -/- وقد حاول الباحث (محمد كركوب) من جهته، الوقوف عند التحولات التي شهدتها قيّم الزواج ومؤسسة الأسرة داخل المجتمع، أما الأستاذ (عبد القادر محمدي) فقد تناول أنثروبولوجيًا طقوس الليلة الكناوية وبعض ما شهدته من تحولات، كما حاول الباحث (عبد العزيز اجدي) تتبع بعض التحولات القيمية التي شهدتها ثقافة المجتمع المغربي، و من ضمنها ما ركز عليه الباحث (صلح نديم) بخصوص التحولات التي طالت الرصيد اللغوي للطفل. وإلى جانب هذه الديناميات، فإن المغرب لم يعد فقط، بلدا مصدرا للهجرة، أو محطة عبور فحسب، بل صار بلدا حاضنا للمهاجرين الأفارقة بشكل خاص، الأمر الذي طرح أمامه مجموعة من التحديات الاجتماعية والثقافية، من ذلك مثلا، تلك التحديات المتعلقة بسياسة إدماجهم داخل المجتمع وسوق الشغل، وهو ما تقصاه الباحث (عبد الله أزرار). إن هذه التغيرات والديناميات التي شهدها المجتمع المغربي على مستوى بنيات تفكيره ومؤسساته وروابطه، مند الاستعمار، لم يصحبه بالضرورة اختفاء الأطر الفكرية والمؤسسات التقليدية التي كانت تحكم المجتمع، لذلك لم يتأسس الرابط السياسي والمدني، بشكل يمكننا الحديث عن مجتمع حديث بالمعنى السوسيولوجي للكلمة. فالإجراءات التي أحدثها الاستعمار ثم الدولة الوطنية، إلى جانب التحضر النسبي للبنيات التحتية في المدن القديمة والناشئة على حد سواء، على الرغم من أنها عملت بالتدريج على تفكيك البنية القبلية وخلخلة البناء الاجتماعي التقليدي، بإدماج المجتمع القبلي في المؤسسات الجديدة عبر عمليات بناء الدولة وتبني نظم التحديث والتنمية التي اتخذت أشكالا سياسية واقتصادية واجتماعية متنوعة، إلا أن الباحث (رشيد الزعفران) قد سجل ضعف وهشاشة الرابط المدني والسياسي، في مقابل استمرار حضور الرابط الأسري الذي حافظ على قوته. -/- إننا، إذ نقدم هذا العمل لعموم الطلبة والأساتذة والباحثين، فإنه يسعدنا أن نتوجه بالشكر الجزيل لكل المشاركين من الأساتذة والباحثين، وكل أعضاء اللجنة العلمية الذين عملوا على مراجعة المقالات وتحكيمها. ولابد من الإشارة هنا إلى أن ترتيب المقالات ليس له أي علاقة بمكانة الباحث، بل يتعلق الأمر بالتوزيع الموضوعاتي للأعمال بما يتماشى وتنظيم أقسام وفصول هذا العمل، الذي نرجو أن يشكل إضافة نوعية للمكتبة المغربية. لجنة التنسيق: الصديق الصادقي العماري رشيد الزعفران. (shrink)

As Allaire and Firsirotu (1984) pointed out over a decade ago, the concept of culture seemed to be sliding inexorably into a superficial explanatory pool that promised everything and nothing. However, since then, some sophisticated and interesting theoretical developments have prevented drowning in the pool of superficiality and hence theoretical redundancy. The purpose of this article is to build upon such theoretical developments and to introduce an approach that maintains that culture can be theorized in the same way as structure, (...) possessing irreducible powers and properties that predispose organizational actors towards specific courses of action. The morphogenetic approach is the methodological complement of transcendental realism, providing explanatory leverage on the conditions that maintain for cultural change or stability. (shrink)