Search

In this article the author honors professor Peter Gerhart's legacy to the legal academy by his books on unified theory of several different areas of law including "Tort Law and Social Morality," "Property Law and Social Morality," and "Contract Law and Social Morality." Topics discussed include tension between scholarship in the tradition of neoclassical economics and its progressive counterpart, dyad that characterizes most contemporary property scholarship and contemporary property theory.

In this article I respond to Tony Lawson's 'What is this 'School' called neoclassical economics?' Lawson's paper is provocative because it reformulates neoclassical economics, based on Veblen's original intent, as a mismatch created by recognising the value of an evolutionary approach to the economy whilst remaining over-reliant on elements of a 'taxonomic' approach. For Lawson many heterodox economists may be neoclassical under this description. I argue that there is clearly a case to be heard but that the reformulation of the neoclassical raises a number of issues. There are issues concerning the specific critique of the current usage of the term 'neoclassical'--regarding genealogy and meaning. There are specific issues regarding the further development of the new (old Veblen) definition of the neoclassical: how clear is the definition in a practical context as a way to identify a 'neoclassical group', based on the commitments of the critique and the definition, what does it mean to be 'more realistic', and what is the strategic value of such a provocation for heterodoxy? I argue that the combination of these are reasons for more consideration of issues of social ontology not less insofar as the terms of the argument are incomplete, and this invites both Lawson and those he is criticising to progress the argument, particularly on method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My Ph.D. dissertation, "Visualizing the Invisible Hand: From Market to Mode of Exchange,'' sought at once to criticize the neoclassical conceptualization of the market and to propose an alternative framework for the study of "market,' exchange (Lie, 1988). Although I published a series of articles (e.g. Lie, 1992, 1993, 1997), my project did n o t generate much discussion or debate. One might have thought that it died stillborn from the press. Hence, it is gratifying to know that some scholars have found my work to be of some interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Virtue ethics is an important strand of moral philosophy, and a significant body of philosophical work in virtue ethics is associated with a radical critique of the market economy and of economics. Expressed crudely, the charge sheet is this: The market depends on instrumental rationality and extrinsic motivation; market interactions therefore fail to respect the internal value of human practices and the intrinsic motivations of human actors; by using market exchange as its central model, economics normalizes extrinsic motivation, not only in markets but also in social life more generally; therefore economics is complicit in an assault on virtue and on human flourishing. We will argue that this critique is flawed, both as a description of how markets actually work and as a representation of how classical and neoclassical economists have understood the market. We show how the market and economics can be defended against the critique from virtue ethics, and crucially, this defense is constructed using the language and logic of virtue ethics. Using the methods of virtue ethics and with reference to the writings of some major economists, we propose an understanding of the purpose (telos) of markets as cooperation for mutual benefit, and identify traits that thereby count as virtues for market participants. We conclude that the market need not be seen as a virtue-free zone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Catholic social thought (CST) looks at economic development from the broader framework of authentic human development. It is only by viewing both man's dignity and his social nature that we include the full nature of the human being. In CST wealth is understood based on its role in promoting authentic human development. Wealth is a gift from God, with humans participating in its creation, and its creation, distribution, and its use must be carried out in a manner that respects God's law (justice and charity). Furthermore, man should never place wealth above God or above humans. Those who control wealth have special responsibilities with regards to their use of it; thus the right of private property is always restricted by the social responsibility to use it towards the common good. The goal must be the development of the whole person and all people. Wealth is socially created and thus must be distributed, at least partially, among the entire community. Economic development needs to be grounded in social justice and its two co-principles, charity and justice. Grounding economic development in the authentic development of the person means placing the people of the poor countries at the center of their development drama, both as the leading actors and as the directors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that classical-Marxian models of economic growth are similar to neoclassical models in neglecting the role of aggregate demand, either by omitting aggregate demand issues altogether or by relegating the role of aggregate demand to the short run. By reviewing the writings of classical-Marxian authors and by examining recent contributions to the classical-Marxian literature, it discusses the implicit assumptions that allow these theories to neglect the role of aggregate demand by examining alternative growth theories in which aggregate demand has a major role to play. It also assesses to what extent classical-Marxian economists are justified in neglecting aggregate demand as a determinant of long-run growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Has neoclassical economics gone too far? This economist says yes. She provides some telling examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors offers a post-Keynesian economic analysis of the genesis of power. They argue that power arises from two elements: the presence of hierarchy among economic agents and a world in which the future is uncertain. Uncertainty about changes in demand in the near future causes agents at all levels to attempt to exert more control over their environments to try to obtain a greater share of income. Uncertainty leads to the formalization of conventions, such as laws governing the economic system, in an effort to guard against uncertainty. During periods of radical uncertainly, such as globalization, new powers emerge before conventions--and subsequent regulations--have developed. The authors compare their approach with those of classical and neoclassical economists, and mention game theorists.

This article explores the ideas that have encouraged neoclassical economic purists to begin using their tools to explore the inner workings of firms. One of the first and most important ideas that neoclassical economists have developed was the idea that a firm should be thought of as a nexus of contracts. Another idea that came from neoclassical economists was Gary Becker's (1964) notion of human capital as a way to describe and talk about how some units of labour might be different from other units of labour. Another idea developed by neoclassical scholars is the idea that some types of productive activity can only take place when people work in teams. Armen Alchian and Harold Demsetz provided the first analysis of team production from a neoclassical framework. The framework laid out by neoclassical economists to construct a theory of the firm that is consistent with a number of basic organizational arrangements observed in modern economies. As laid out, it is pure theory, and much of it has yet to be tested against facts either over time, or across economies.

This paper has two goals. First, it seeks to show a logical inconsistency in Sraffian theory. The theory, it is argued, is conceived as a long-period approach but is unable to identify a long-period position. Second, the paper tries to show that even if we drop some of the building blocks of Sraffian theory, it is still possible to build a coherent alternative to neoclassical theory using (some of) the ideas of the classical economists. It suggests that we put the indefensible long-period method to one side, and build short-period equilibrium models with probabilistic prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The reader of Alfred Marshall writings confronts a variety of businessmen portraits that coexist along his epoch. The purpose of this paper is to describe Marshall's understanding of the capitalist-owner concept, the way in which access to capital determined the emerging role played by entrepreneurs, the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in order to expose the characteristics that defined managerial activities. Design/methodology/approach – A chronological review of Marshall writings revealed that the evolution of his ideas about entrepreneurship is associated to the role played by businessmen as capital owner, risk bearer, innovator, or administrator. Findings – Marshall's analysis is useful to explain: the problem that arises in the firm when property (capital owner) and control (manager) are separated (the principal-agent relationship); why directors of today's firms are required to embody qualities as administrators (passive superintendents) and innovators (active entrepreneurs); and how to sort out the conflict that occurs in many family firms when the founder (entrepreneur) is unable to cope with the managerial complexities associated to growth (the Marshallian "cycle life" of business and entrepreneurs). Originality/value – Schumpeter is widely regarded in the economic literature as the one that developed the modern vision of businessmen as a risk bearer. We contend that this vision was already described by Marshall, as well as the distinction between the innovator (entrepreneur) and the orderly administrator of business (manager). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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" neo-classical 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". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For several decades, business has operated according to the tenets of neoclassical economic theory, where the primary obligation of corporations is to maximize profit for shareholders. However, the larger social mandate for business has changed, represented by the rise of language such as "sustainable development", "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) and "stakeholder groups." Nevertheless, the theoretical shift implied by the use of such language has not occurred. Issues of sustainable development and CSR continue to be justified in the terms of neoclassical economic theory through the rationalization of "doing well by doing good". Within this economic paradigm, CSR cannot move beyond enlightened self-interest (acting in socially responsible ways in order to further one's own ends) because all behavior must be justified economically. This implies that corporate socially responsible behavior will simply cease when it becomes uneconomic, regardless of the impact on interrelated systems which in turn will re-impact the business realm. Faced with bitter realities arising from complex interactions among social, political, cultural, economic and natural environments, we may better comprehend and negotiate these problems by moving out of a neoclassical economic justification of the stakeholder model of the corporation to an inter-systems model, shifting from a narrow comprehension of a single economic independent system analyzed apart from its larger context to a fuller understanding of business as one of a number of interrelated systems. Operational differences between the old and new mandates are described, and two ways to practically shift towards the new mandate are identified as a modified version of scenario planning and the introduction of the voice of the critic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses highly formalized models of union behavior within neoclassical economics. Argument that most goals pursued by the unions can be reduced to a wage-employment trade-off; Fact that these goals are not supported by extensive empirical evidence; Results of the survey and how they present convincing evidence that standard neoclassical models do not adequately capture union bargaining behavior or union goals.

The article focuses on economic analysis oriented towards understanding the workings of economies. Attempts have been made to promote an evolutionary approach towards economics. Basic questions related to the coordination of economic activity depend upon a central authority guiding and commanding action. The questions concerned with the processes driving economic progress, pulls the theorizing of economics, towards an evolutionary orientation. The question of economic development has waxed and waned in centrality to the discipline, as has the importance of evolutionary theorizing. It became the standard view that microeconomic theory was about equilibrium conditions. Many neoclassical economists seem to hold the view that an evolutionary theory of firm and industry behavior and a neoclassical one really amount to the same thing. The problem of variety is that for the selection process to arrive at a neoclassical destination, the existing firms must represent a wide enough variety of strategies and actions that the profit-maximizing neoclassical behavior is represented.

The article focuses on perfect competition and the creativity of the market. Competition is a central idea in economies, its idealization as perfect competition underlies much of traditional analysis. Every effort should he made to preserve its centrality even if that means revising the way one thinks about the concept in light of recent challenges. An important part of the story is an account of the development of perfect competition and the general equilibrium theory with which it is intimately associated. The historical part helps explain how perfect competition acquired its current formulation with the implicit presumption that it could have been otherwise. The article takes as starting point the contributions of economists William S. Jevons, Carl Menger and Lé Walras, which marked the break between classical and neoclassical economics. When compared to classical economist David Ricardo, the common marginalist elements in their work are an instance of simultaneous discovery. However, when viewed on their own, the styles and contents of their contributions are quite different.

This article examines the arguments for and potential of environmental tax reform (ETR) from the standpoint of red-green politics. ETR has been criticised in relation to ethics, democracy and social justice. However, the ethical and democratic critiques can be countered through a critical examination of the potential of ETR as they take the fallacious neo-classical perspective as their reference point. In relation to social justice, the potential regressive consequences of some environmental taxes will, however, require mitigation and compensation. Despite the unsatisfactory nature of the recent reforms implemented in a number of European countries, ETR has much to offer, both in terms of the effectiveness of environmental regulation and in reducing unemployment. In the longer term it could contribute to the creation of more favourable conditions for radical change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on N. Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomic paradigm, this paper reconsiders the neoclassical economic paradigm which endorses continuous global economic growth through stimulated trade. We suggest that, in view of sustainability, it is fundamental to acknowledge: (1) the importance of preserving the identity and integrity of economic systems in different regions of the world through enlarging as much as possible self-sufficiency and equity assessed at national and regional levels; and (2) the importance of including respect for biospheric equilibria as one criterion to be used to regulate world economic activity and trade. We examine differences and similarities of the past and present patterns of ecological degradation. We also present two types of efficiency to assess technological changes and the drive toward unsustainability. Then we discuss an entropy-based theory of North-South trade issues and three points for promotion of sustainability. Finally, we show that the true origin of current ecological crisis lies in a deep change in the perception of the relation between humans and nature that affects the mode of technological development of modern society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is increasingly recognized that Tobin's conjecture that investment is a function of marginal q is equivalent to the firm's optimal capital accumulation problem with adjustment costs. This paper formalizes this idea in a very general fashion and derives the optimal rate of investment as a function of marginal q adjusted for tax parameters. An exact relationship between marginal q and average q is also derived. Marginal q adjusted for tax parameters is then calculated from data on average q assuming the actual U.S. tax system concerning corporate tax rate and depreciation allowances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers directions for the continuing dialogue between business ethicists and environmental philosophers. I argue that a theory of corporate social responsibility must be consistent with, if not derived from, a model of sustainable economics rather than the prevailing neoclassical model of market economics. I use environmental examples to critique both classical and neoclassical models of corporate social responsibility and sketch the alternative model of sustainable development. After describing some implications of this model at the level of individual firms and industries, I offer an ethical justification of the sustainability alternative that is derived from the same values that underlie traditional market economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the theories of economic growth. The authors argued that there is a sharp inconsistency between the two bodies of research surveyed in this article, the macro growth literature and the macro literature on technological change, which calls into question the basic tenets of neoclassical theory. In the first section, the authors discuss neoclassical growth theory, and the nature of its inconsistency with the micro studies of technological change. They also consider the apparent attractiveness of the Schumpeterian alternative to neoclassical theory. The basic elements of an evolutionary growth theory are discussed in section two. It is proposed that this theory provides the framework for a rigorous and rich analysis of the processes of technical change and dynamic competition, encompassing several of the Schumpeterian ideas. Section three describes a particular evolutionary model and discusses some simulation results. Acceptance of the view that growth is an evolutionary, not a neoclassical, process involves a number of important changes in perspective and interpretation, and these are discussed in the final section.

Discusses the neoclassical dichotomization of economic theory. Comparison of the classical school with the neoclassical school of economics; Substantive alteration of the classical monetary theory; Interpretation of the quantity theory in neoclassical terms.

This article demonstrates that pure marginalism has shortcomings in accounting. Much of what is happening in academic accounting today has its roots in an evolving area that calls itself financial economies. This sub-branch of the mother discipline sprang from the ideas of certain microeconomists who recognized that the traditional marginalist models were incomplete since they either ignored the finance function or assumed the firm could get all the finance it needed without constraint. The original neoclassical microfinancial theorists thus engaged themselves in an effort to include finance in an equilibrium integration of the production, investment, and financing decisions. In the process, they carried the profit maximization assumption of classical economics one step further and introduced what has become the cardinal postulate of neoclassical economic theory, i.e. that the central objective of the business corporation is to maximize the wealth position of its shareholders. Coterminous with the above developments, theoretical concepts were being derived to delineate efficient security portfolios. A portfolio was said to be efficient if it is impossible to obtain a greater average return without incurring greater standard deviation [risk] or if it is impossible to obtain smaller standard deviation [risk] without giving up return.

The article focuses on the Marshallian School of Economics. The period from the mid-1880s to the First World War was "emphatically the Marshallian Age" in British economics, the position of the Marshallian School was not in fact finally undermined until the Keynesian Revolution. According to economist Narmadeshwar Jha, economist Alfred Marshall's ideas provided a theoretical basis for increasing State intervention in the economic life of the community in Great Britain, and thus helped the Liberal Government of Great Britain to lay the foundations of the Welfare State. Marshall was the most prominent architect of the Great Theory of Economics that so well suited the decades immediately before 1914 which the free market was dominant and legally entrenched, perfect competition if not a fact was not yet a gross and obvious absurdity, resources were allocated by a market where the value of the currency was stable, and one could seriously think in terms of a long run including further decades of family and business prosperity when the harvest sown with labour and thrift would be gathered in due course.

This article examines the prospect of economic growth and evaluates the scope of such growth potential, contrasting a view of finite growth potential with a view of presumably infinite growth potential. Neoclassical economists adhere to the belief that it is desirable for a nation's economy to be ever growing larger; however, the author references the work of classical economists such as J. S. Mill, who discussed the nongrowing economy. The nature of gross domestic product (GDP) is considered, and numerous elements of environmental economics are discussed.