Search

This paper reconsiders classical and neoclassical economics' significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory. The paper identifies certain types or elements of classical and neoclassical economics that are potentially significant or convergent with sociological theory: pure market economics, the economics of society cum the 'rational choice model', and social or sociological economics. First, it argues that as pure economics economic theory's significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is low because the first is inconsistent with or divergent from the latter, notably theoretical economic sociology. Second, the paper suggests that as the economics of society economic theory's significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory is non-existent or minimal, because the 'rational choice model' is missing or an exception within conventional economics. Third, the paper proposes and demonstrates that classical and neoclassical economics' main significance for or affinity and convergence with sociological theory lies in social economics as its second ingredient, alongside market economics. The paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between economic and sociological theory and economics and sociology overall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intangible flow theory explains that flows of economic material elements (such as physical goods; or cash) are consummated by human related intangible flows (such as work flows; service flows; information flows; or communicational flows) that cannot be precisely appraised at an actual or approximate value, and have properties precluding them from being classified as assets or capitals. Thus, although mathematical/quantitative research methodologies are very relevant for science, they are insufficient to study economy and society. Due to its prejudice against non-mathematical/quantitative scientific reasoning, neoclassical economics could not be technologically prepared to reach the intangible flow dynamics of economic phenomena. Furthermore, the neoclassical solution to call people human capital or assets, besides being ethically very questionable, offers performative non-scientific metaphors that intervene in the production of the reality they claim to represent; and sabotages the study of well delimited research questions by scientific approaches outside the realm of neoclassical economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The deficiencies of economic science are examined against its historical development: the utilitarian concentration upon individual choice conflates preferences and values and the hedonistic calculus is inoperable in the presence of incommensurability. In restricting explanations of behavioral patterns to changes in prices, incomes, and other“economic” variables, neoclassical analysis was destined to draw implausible conclusions. While the uniqueness of man rests in a highly developed self-consciousness, his rationality need not imply conscious reason. Decisions and actions that are made in response to inputs from all of the sensory modalities are led by conventions and traditions that give structure to every response. Biological, psychological, social, and ethical constraints so limit purposeful action, that a complete economist (paceG. L. S. Shackle) is one who has mastered mathematics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, history, geography, and political science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]