Search

In this paper I consider various shifts in my research and understanding stimulated by seeking how to combat social ecological crises connected to modern economies. The discussion and critical reflections are structured around five papers that were submitted to Environmental Values in an open call to address my work. A common aspect is the move away from neoclassical environmental economics, and its reductionist monetary valuation, to a more realist theory and multiple methods. This relates to my work on environmental ethics, plural values, stated preference validity and deliberative monetary valuation. Expanding beyond the narrow confines of mainstream orthodoxy has involved exploring a range of other disciplines (e.g. applied philosophy, social psychology, human geography, political science, social anthropology, history of thought and philosophy of science) and learning from this literature to rethink economics and develop social ecological economics. A broad range of subjects are covered here, including: personal responsibility, social practice, psychology of the individual, participatory processes, value (intrinsic, instrumental and relational), Nature–society relationships and interdependencies, critical realism and the conduct of unifying interdisciplinary science. I end with a series of comments concerning the failings of orthodox economics and the conduct of scientific research for social ecological transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For example, the ratio between the observed flow of profits and the actual capital stock is too directly identified with the "rate of profit" that is addressed in economic theory. Like most contributions by Lance Taylor and his collaborators, this research is situated at the crossroads between economic theory, economic history, applied economics and policy. Equally striking is the extent of I increase i in inequality: over the three decades ending in 2014, the top class, already receiving a disproportionate share of incomes, enjoyed an 8 percentage-point boost in it and benefited in addition from most of the capital gains. [Extracted from the article]

"Pragmatic socioeconomics" seeks to provide a more solid interdisciplinary bridge between economics and sociology, by pragmatically setting aside incompatibles. Its key point, that social norms condition resource allocations also in housing markets, is important and matters for our analysis of affordability and financial and macroeconomic stability. It also extends to the role of housing in transitioning to socially and environmentally sustainable urban futures. However, there are also aspects of "pragmatic socioeconomics" that become entangled in conceptual fault lines between sociology and neoclassical economics and also within economics itself. Drawing on institutional economics (old and new), this commentary focuses on the upwards and downwards reconstituting effects of norms and institutions in decision-making and its implications for "pragmatic socioeconomics". A second and shorter commentary relates to discussion of price elasticities (demand, income and supply). Both these, in turn, relate to the effect of norms and institutions on housing markets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary examines the concept of "pragmatic socio-economics" and argues that it is unlikely to offer a major breakthrough in the search for a holistic approach to the study of housing. Although the authors outline the serious barriers to the integration of sociological insights into neo-classical economics, they seek to avoid these through the adoption of concepts, such as that of social norms, that could be acceptable to economists. The result does not challenge some of the fundamental assumptions of neo-classical economics that need to be amended if meaningful integration with sociology is to be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]