Search

In Memoriam While Larry Moss was interested in a wide range of subjects in economics and economic thought, the connection between us was through the study of Joseph Schumpeter. Together with Mark Perlman and Richard Swedberg, Larry was kind enough to contribute advance praise for my book on Schumpeter. Unfortunately, after the book was reprinted in paperback without the jacket, his words disappeared from sight. With thanks and admiration for Larry, here is his elaborate wording: Shionoya's book offers a meticulous historical reconstruction of the great Central European's deepest thoughts about social science in general and economics in particular. (Shionoya 1997: cover jacket) I Austrian Subjectivism as Background DEVELOPING SCHUMPETER'S philosophical potentiality in light of the thought of another Central European, Martin Heidegger, demonstrates that Schumpeter did indeed have "deepest thoughts about social science in general," as Larry correctly pointed out. The idea of linking the two eminent scholars, which has never been attempted, is suggested by Austrian subjectivism, their common--though remote--background. The purpose of this paper is to discover the possibility of economic philosophy, especially of economic ontology, as an extension of Austrian subjectivism. The key to the construction of economic ontology is to appropriate Schumpeter's social-scientific substance for Heidegger's philosophical form. Since I have discussed Schumpeter's thought from the ontological viewpoint elsewhere (Shionoya 2009), here I concentrate largely on Heidegger's formal framework of "fundamental ontology" in which Schumpeter's idea will be located, so that we can derive what might be called "the Heidegger = Schumpeter theses" on "economic ontology." Thus this paper is the sequel to my previous one. Austrian subjectivism originated in Franz Brentano's psychologism and broadly influenced the fields of economics, philosophy, and psychology through arresting debates about his work (Smith 1994). Simultaneous to the rise of the Brentano school of Austrian subjective philosophy, including work by Edmund Husserl, Sigmund Freud, and others, the earliest achievement of subjectivism in economics was the subjective theory of value by Carl Menger, the father of the Austrian school of economics. Later Austrian economists such as Friedrich Hayek emphasized that the market process is one of the discovery and coordination of subjective knowledge, contrasting the Austrian concept of market process with the mainstream concept of market equilibrium. Husserl, the pupil of Brentano, criticized his teacher's psychologism and developed phenomenology, as an approach to philosophy, to extract the essence from the intuitive experience of phenomena. However, he accepted Brentano's notion of intentionality, the notion that the characteristic of consciousness is always intentional and subjective. Heidegger developed Husserl's phenomenology, which was no more than the study of consciousness, to ontology, the study of beings or their Being. He was concerned about the Being behind all beings or entities, which could be grasped by the self-understanding of Dasein (human being). Schumpeter, from the Austrian school of economics, criticized the static nature of mainstream economics and took a unique approach to dynamic economics based on the concept of innovation and development. However, his economic theory is part of his concept of a universal social science: he had a much broader vision of society based on a typology of Dasein, though he did not use this ontological term. He distinguished between the hedonistic, adaptive, and static person on the one hand, and the energetic, creative, and dynamic person on the other, and plotted out a research program to analyze the interaction between the two types of human agents in various social areas. It is possible to interpret and develop Schumpeter's thought on a broad perspective of society as a whole in light of Heidegger's ontological hermeneutics. …

This paper critically evaluates the current decline of the relationship between economics and the history of economics, and proposes a framework called the panorama-cum-scenario model for the practice of the history of economics. Starting with the Hegelian thesis that the history of economics is economics itself, the paper argues that such a relationship is necessary but not sufficient because the history of economics is a metatheory addressed to economic theory. The history of economics needs a panoramic view of the subject and a scenario for the construction, interpretation, and evaluation of the system of economics. The panorama-cum-scenario model enables us to work on the history of economics not only by historical and rational reconstruction but also by global reconstruction. Nietzsche's anti-Hegelian viewpoint and Heidegger's hermeneutical standpoint are useful for identifying the role of historical research in developing economic knowledge based on the panorama-cum-scenario model. Several ...

Under global as well as multicultural conditions, it is one thing to admit that an international scientific community uses a common language such as English (mathematics being also a language) as a means of communication, but it is another to accept that a scientific community deals only with materials expressed by such a language. The former is conventionally desirable, while the latter is essentially undesirable. The gap between the two aspects is usually made up either by translating materials into a common language or by learning other languages relevant to materials. Joseph Alois Schumpeter is an interesting and unfortunate case. The Schumpeter studies are dominated by the use of English in communications as well as in materials. Since not all of his major German writings in the first half of his academic career have been translated into English, it is easy to suppose that there is a gap in a proper understanding of Schumpeter. In the English-speaking world of economics, Schumpeter’s classic work on economic development is taken as The Theory of Economic Development (1934), translated by Redvers Opie (TED hereafter). Although TED is considered as the translation of the second edition (1926) of Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, it is correct to call it an abridged translation of the original text. Simply in terms of the volume of text, 369 pages of Entwicklung were reduced to 255 pages of TED. It is probable that some of Schumpeter’s stimulating rhetorical passages were lost in the English translation. Although the translating work was left to the young English man Opie, Schumpeter worked in collaboration with him at Bonn in 1931–1932 and the manuscript was finished just before his move to the United States. 1 If the translation was done under his supervision, he must have had the idea that verbal translation was unnecessary or even harmful for the English, particularly American readers. If so, what does it mean?

This paper analyzes the ethics of market competition with reference to sport games. The metaphor of games suggests that different games represent three elements or models that are related to man and society: record, struggle, and cooperation. Record-type games pursue excellence or virtue; struggle-type games determine winners in zero-sum games; and the idea of cooperation or teamwork demands the just rules of competition based on solidarity. Moral criticism of market competition is sometimes in confusion with regard to the targets of criticism. Distinction should be made between the aims, rules, and motives of competition. A free society based on self-interest should be maintained by improving the aims and rules of competition, which are often defective and degraded. Thus the ethics of competition should consist of the ethics of virtue, of justice, and of freedom.

In this examination of Schumpeter’s life and scientific contibutions, let us start with his position in the broad context of the history of ideas. This will permit us to analyze not only his work in isolation but also his wide-ranging response to the intellectual challenge from theory and history.

This unique and original work contends that, despite the differences between Marshallian and Schumpeterian thinking, they both present formidable challenges to a broad type of social science beyond economics, particularly under the influence of the German historical school. In a departure from the received view on the nature of the works of Marshall and Schumpeter, the contributors explore their themes in terms of an evolutionary vision and method of evolution; social science and evolution; conceptions of evolution; and evolution and capitalism.

This unique and original work contends that, despite the differences between Marshallian and Schumpeterian thinking, they both present formidable challenges to a broad type of social science beyond economics, particularly under the influence of the German historical school. In a departure from the received view on the nature of the works of Marshall and Schumpeter, the contributors explore their themes in terms of an evolutionary vision and method of evolution; social science and evolution; conceptions of evolution; and evolution and capitalism.

“The question which leads us beyond the grave of our own generation is not ‘how will human beings feel in the future’ but ‘how will they be.’ In fact this question underlies all work in political economy. We do not want to train up feelings of well-being in people, but rather those characteristics we think constitute the greatness and nobility of our human nature. The doctrines of political economy have alternately placed in the forefront or naively identified as standards of value either the technical economic problem of the production of commodities or the problem of their distribution, in other words ‘social justice.’ Yet again and again a different perception, in part unconscious, but nevertheless all-dominating, has raised itself above both these standards of value: the perception that a human science, and that is what political economy is, investigates above all else the quality of the human beings who are brought up in those economic and social conditions of existence.”1

Economy and Morality is a remarkable contribution to economic ethics exploring key philosophical issues including efficiency versus justice and liberty versus excellence. Its unique emphasis is the economics of virtue, which is concerned with the virtuous utilization of economic resources for human development, and applied to the reform of the welfare state.

This paper attempts to reconcile the current controversy between liberalism and communitarianism in moral and political philosophy, referring to the lessons of the Methodenstreit (controversy on method) between theoretical and historical economists at the end of the 19th century in Austria and Germany. The Methodenstreit was a confrontation between Carl Menger and Gustav von Schmoller, or between the Austrian School of Economics and the German Historical School of Economics; it was alleged as a controversy about the relative superiority of a theoretical-deductive individualistic approach versus an historical-inductive-holistic approach.

This paper addresses the nature and significance of trust in terms of ethics generally and economic ethics in particular. The concept of trust between human beings, often used loosely and imprecisely, has not occupied a crucial place in philosophy and social science.1 To provide a perspective in which trust can properly be treated, I first outline a few of the more prominent issues raised by the resurgence of virtue ethics in recent decades. Since, in my view, trust is best regarded as a kind of virtue, the approach of virtue ethics should be clarified at the outset. Furthermore, I compare virtue ethics and contractarian ethics with special reference to the views of Alasdair Maclntyre and John Rawls respectively and consider the relationship between virtue and right, the basic concepts of the two theories. This leads me to the meaning of trust and its relevance to the concept of community, a central notion of communitarianism that is a modern version of virtue ethics. Next, I examine the positive and negative aspects of competition as an ideal type in economics and political philosophy with regard to trust. Lastly, I examine the relationship between trust and community from the viewpoints of the institutional evolution thesis of Coase-Hayek and of the moral development thesis of Kohlberg-Piaget-Rawls in order to determine the locus of trust in economic ethics.

This paper discusses the relationship between Joseph Schumpeter and the German Historical School with regard to the theory and methodology of economics. Schumpeter was influenced by the approach of the German Historical School, especially that of the younger Historical School led by Gustav von Schmoller. The Historical School, however, was not the sole source of influence on Schumpeter’s thought; Leon Walras and Karl Marx influenced him to a greater extent. Thus, the historical economics, neoclassical economics, and Marxian economics were the intellectual field to which Schumpeter was positively committed. From this heterogeneous complex he developed his own system of social science.1