Search

Neoclassical economics has become the predominant school of economic thought, influencing scholarship on management, organizations, and business ethics. However, many feminist economists challenge the individualist and positivist foundations of neoclassical economic epistemology, arguing instead that purportedly gender-neutral and value-free methods routinely and systematically leave out and undervalue women. Extending this proposition, this article introduces the epistemic foundations of feminist economics and illustrates how they can produce novel insights relevant for business ethics. In particular, by examining economic phenomena from the point of view of the people they affect, feminist economic epistemology is able to elucidate the ways in which power asymmetries and gender norms that constitute the social world can be reflected in business practices. I apply this methodological insight to three case studies of global supply chains to challenge the neoclassical assertion that including women in labor markets necessarily catalyzes gender equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

He was highly critical of the ideological structure behind capitalism with liberalism putting property over people (Losurdo [35]; Henry [27]) and neoclassical economics being one, among other, frauds used to justify the capitalist socio-economic order (Henry [12]). I Erik Olsen i Recollections of John F. Henry I first encountered John in an Economics of Racism class at California State University-Sacramento in the summer of 1976. If one bases their analysis on social foundations, John argues, an ensuing theory cannot be natural, normal, and universal (which are the characteristics of neoclassical economics that John considered the "illusion" of our epoch). A festschrift in Dr. Henry's honor, I Marx, Veblen, and the Foundations of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of John F. Henry i , was published in 2015 (Jo and Lee [31]). In particular, I'm thinking of John's essay on Keynes as a Neoliberal (Henry [30]) and a piece on Frank Knight, "Ethics and Economic Theory" (Henry, unpublished manuscript). [Extracted from the article]

Transaction cost economics, neoclassical economics, and the firm capabilities literatures propose theories of the firm that typically depict firm boundaries determined by a dichotomous choice: the make or buy decision. However, none of these theories presents a satisfying explanation as to why firms would concurrently source, i.e., simultaneously make and buy the same good. This study combines these organizational economics theories and compares when firms make, buy, and concurrently source through surveying small manufacturing firms. Support was shown for aspects of all three theories, with evidence indicating that concurrent sourcing is a distinctly different choice, rather existing along a make/buy continuum. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is an attempt to systematise and evaluate the achievements of the American Nobel laureate in economic sciences and co-founder of 'neoclassical synthesis' -- P.A. Samuelson. Motivation: This economist greatly developed the methodology and theory of economics. Preferring the mathematical method in scientific inquiry and introducing new graphic solutions, he contributed to the mathematisation of economics. He enriched the theory of consumption by revealed preferences, devised the 45° line to determine the Keynesian short-term equilibrium in the goods market, as well as the consumer demand, investment demand, and savings function curves, and he also defined collective goods. He completed the theory of division with the modified Lorenz curve, presented the problem of the allocation of scarce resources by the curve of production possibilities, and generalised -- together with R.M. Solow -- the Phillips curve. In addition, he created a model of the interdependence of the multiplier and accelerator, and developed the theory of foreign trade by the 'Stolper-Samuelson effect' and the statement of the impact of prices of production factors on the allocation of resources. Results: Caring for affordability of the exposition of basic economic knowledge contained in his textbook Economics, he made a revolution in the teaching of economics. Owing to these achievements, P.A. Samuelson earned his inclusion in the circle of the greatest economists of the twentieth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is this school called neoclassical economics? Does it exist? Should it? Where does the term ‘neoclassical economics’ come from, and is there any connection between any of the current interpretations of the term and its original meaning? How do we make sense of competing current interpretations? Is there a sustainable formulation? These and related questions are raised and answered in an attempt to bring clarity to ongoing economic discussion and debate, thereby to under-labour for a more relevant academic economics discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The body of macroeconomic theory known as the neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis, hereafter mainstream macroeconomics, has dominated the practice of economics since the middle of the twentieth century and is largely unchallenged in institutions that teach economics. Not only does mainstream macroeconomics underlie monetary and fiscal policies intended to promote economic growth, full employment, and price stability, but it also provides the lens through which economic activity is measured and performance is evaluated. Most importantly, it has spawned a generally accepted ideology or conventional wisdom that frames economic issues and 'acceptable' policy responses to them. Woe to the economist or politician who strays beyond the constraints imposed by the beliefs emanating from this body of theory. Mainstream economic theory has always had its critics, but the failure of mainstream economists to predict the collapse of 2008 and the failure of the policy responses to the crisis have stimulated a new round of criticism. This paper surveys a range of criticisms made by economists and non-economists alike and finds that grounds exist for the rejection of mainstream macroeconomic theory. It is mathematically incoherent and irrelevant insofar as the assumptions upon which it is based are not supportable; its concepts are abstract and not measurable, and not capable of addressing the real questions of sustainability, economic stability, power, justice, and equity that affect the human condition. The conclusions reached are: 1) mainstream economic theory took a profoundly wrong path in the mid-twentieth century 2) foundations for a new synthesis of economic thinking are needed capable of addressing the issues that emerged in the late 20th century and integrating findings from other sub-disciplines of economics and other sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do ecological and heterodox economists differ, if at all, from each other and from neoclassical economists addressing environmental problems? In 2009 we probed this question by conducting an international survey across these communities, namely at conferences of the European Society for Ecological Economics, the Association for Heterodox Economics, and the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. The research was designed to gain insight into the extent to which ecological economics can be described as heterodox and a distinct field from orthodox environmental and resource economics. Conflicting visions of ecological economics have led to a prevalence of neoclassical articles and thought mixed in amongst more heterodox work. We introduce a novel classification of work in the field of environmental policy in order to test for the existence of differences in terms of methodological and ideological approaches. How heterodox economists understand environmental issues is also an important question to answer if there is to be more collaboration between them and ecological economists. The findings have implications for cooperation and the future direction of both ecological and heterodox economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the comments of social economists regarding his paper about economic education. He states that they are in trouble if the distortions and fundamental misunderstandings manifest the responses of the economists to his article. He also argues that the premises tend to become prescriptive as well as the potential social norms.

The author reflects on the article about economic education. He states that the article's statement of normative economic assumptions is provocative, however, it was badly informed and damaging to the social studies. In connection, he suggests that readers should consider three tests when analyzing the paper.

The author reflects on the article about economic education. She states that there is no doubt that the dominant neoclassical economic norms is popular and have contributed to the narrow way which humans view the land. She also notes that the article has attributed to weak theory and close with some ideas for rethinking economics.