Autumn 2017
Ten years after the global financial crisis there is hardly any evidence that the theories, teaching and policies of mainstream economics have changed. This paper is an attempt to contribute to the greater understanding of this persistence, but also to the discussion on what the requirements are to materialise a transformation in economics, given the dismal outcomes in the world economy. The analytical approach of the paper is to utilise relevant philosophical accounts that point out attributes of dominant discourses, and methodological requirements to supersede an already dominant discourse. The objective is to contribute to an improved understanding of factors that obstruct or construct transformations in a knowledge field such as economics; and thereby contribute to transformation efforts, preferably for a more pluralist and emancipatory economics. Given the complexities and the tensions between different philosophical positions, the conclusions of this appraisal are summarised into five criteria that appear essential to realise a successful transformation in economics: critical juncture; dissimilarity; scholar validation; sensibility; and external power. It is suggested to revise efforts to fulfil these criteria as much, and as soon as possible, given the importance and urgency of changing the trajectory of our economies and societies.
Comparing sociology with economics, psychology or history shows that borderlines between disciplines have become fluent and always newly oscillating. Economists, especially prominent positions awarded with Nobel prizes, are increasingly discussing items as motivation, rationality, norms or culture which belong to the domain of sociology. Sociology should acknowledge this kind of ‘imperialism’ and claim own competencies.
Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand, commonly attributed to The Wealth of Nations, is described in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. It is a ‘deception’ fed to the lower classes. Private initiative depends upon the presence of privileged classes in a conservative rather than liberal state. Only thus can the ‘invisible hand’ improve the nation's ‘wealth.’ Hence, the economic mainstream cannot easily claim Adam Smith as their ancestor. Nor can the Marxists associate him to the misdeeds of the mainstream. A Smithian ancestry is more plausible for Neoliberals.
Here are some loud thoughts that reflect upon the relationship that had long existed amidst philosophy, religion and economics in the so-called ‘grand’ civilizations (that had existed during 3100 BC to the beginning of Christian era). Historically, the visions of intellectuals, rulers, men of faiths, and business people have helped drive these civilizations to their zenith. The philosophies, religions, and economics of the time were deeply involved in this process of development, and seem to have acted in unison. Here is an attempt to provoke some fresh thinking on the subject by re-examining this triad relationship of the fundamental spheres of human life. The logic of this paper attempts to raise doubts, if the relationship was ideal and was based on ethical and moral values, as it was proclaimed by the philosophers, pontiffs, politicians and the business leaders of the time.
Human motivation offers energy, and circumstances offer possibilities. Only in combination, human motivation and circumstance yield action. Over time, desires and opportunities, to satisfy them closely, interact with one another. Orthodox economics analyzes economic motivation in interaction with scarce natural resources. It assumes that perfect rationality and non-sociality create a so-called economic world and analyzes the economic mechanism of allocation of scarce resources. Neoclassical economists use this world as a theoretical foundation for their empirical research. Heterodox economics rejects this strategy of isolating one motivation, a strategy that ignores the psychic and the social problem. However, the heterodox idea of human motivation, being variable and endogenous, is badly analyzed. This leads the author to construct a psychic and a social world that is completely comparable with the agent-structure model of the economic world. The three isolated worlds are integrated by analyzing the interactions between the three worlds. In the integrated world, the economic structure, the psychic structure and the social structure are one another's foundations. This human world gives familiar economic concepts such as utility, efficiency, rationality, price, value, cost and benefit, a different meaning. Similarly, psychic concepts such as Self, willpower and personality and social concepts such as status, power, culture and morality, are given different meanings. To […]