Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The paper mobilizes Adam Smith's treatment of the division of labour in relation to the production, consumption and exchange of knowledge. One aspect of this mobilization deals with the epistemic demands that exchange makes on its participants. The other deals with increasing returns in the provision of knowledge itself, treating knowledge creation as just another example of specialization and exchange. These two aspects come together in relation to the epistemic demands associated with assessing knowledge quality. These demands differ according to whether the knowledge is embodied in products or whether the knowledge is an object for its own sake. It is argued that disciplines play a critical role as institutions for meeting the epistemic demands that the division of labour creates in the 'knowledge' case.

One way of responding to the question of what PPE is involves mobilizing the tools that PPE involves. That is the exercise attempted in this article. The object is to use PPE as a method to analyze PPE as a subject matter. PPE is, whatever else, an interdisciplinary enterprise; so the point of departure involves analyzing the role and properties of disciplines within the institutional organization of enquiry. The basic idea is that enquiry is governed by a 'division of epistemic labour' in Adam Smith's sense, and that that division of labour depends for its working on institutions for the reliable certification of claims. Disciplines are such 'institutions'. As such, they are indispensable. But they impose centripetal forces within the organization of enquiry that stand against interdisciplinary work. Understanding these forces offers some hope of securing an 'optimal' compromise between the benefits and costs that disciplines entail. Examples are offered from each of the disciplines involved in PPE separately, and some observations are offered about the architecture of the three disciplines' interrelationships.

One way of responding to the question of what PPE is involves mobilizing the tools that PPE involves. That is the exercise attempted in this article. The object is to use PPE as a method to analyze PPE as a subject matter. PPE is, whatever else, an interdisciplinary enterprise- so the point of departure involves analyzing the role and properties of disciplines within the institutional organization of enquiry. The basic idea is that enquiry is governed by a 'division of epistemic labour' in Adam Smith's sense, and that that division of labour depends for its working on institutions for the reliable certification of claims. Disciplines are such 'institutions'. As such, they are indispensable. But they impose centripetal forces within the organization of enquiry that stand against interdisciplinary work. Understanding these forces offers some hope of securing an 'optimal' compromise between the benefits and costs that disciplines entail. Examples are offered from each of the disciplines involved in PPE separately, and some observations are offered about the architecture of the three disciplines' interrelationships. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

The question of `discounting the future' is one on which philosophers and economists have divergent professional views. There is a lot of talking at cross-purposes across the disciplinary divide here; but there is a fair bit of confusion (I think) within disciplines as well. My aim here is essentially clarificatory. I draw several distinctions that I see as significant: • between inter-temporal and intergenerational questions • between price (discount rate) and quantity (inter-temporal and intergenerational allocations) as the ethically relevant magnitude, and • between price change and preference change as the primary instrument of change. I show that discounting does not violate the principle of inter-temporal and intergenerational neutrality, but I also cast some doubt on whether making adequate allowance for future generations has really been the problem that economists and philosophers seem to have taken it to be.

ABSTRACT.  The public choice approach can be used to analyze a wide variety of social phenomena, of which academic activity is one possible example. The object of this paper is to see if the public choice approach can throw useful light on its own rise as a potent body of ideas in contemporary social sciences. The particular focus is a set of reminiscences about the life of the Public Choice Center over the period 1969 to 1983 (and especially 1976 to 1983, when I was myself part of the Center). Reflecting on that period, I attempt to isolate those features of the Center's life that seem to me to have been most important to its success; and then ask broader questions about how much of that success public choice methods might illuminate. The aspect of public choice theory that I focus on in this connection is its account of agent motivation. I assert that the desire for esteem played a greater role in motivating the agents than the desire for "interests," more narrowly construed. The paper concludes with some general thoughts about esteem as a motivating factor in academic circles and more generally.