Suchergebnisse

"Is There a Discipline of IR? A Heterodox Perspective" published on by Oxford University Press.

Dans cet article j'oppose deux objections à l'argument de Tony Lawson selon lequel la propriété distinctive de l'économie hétérodoxe par rapport à l'économie orthodoxe-mainstream consiste dans son orientation ontologique-réaliste. À cette fin, pour distinguer le sens possible des concepts, je me réfère aux concepts de mainstream, néoclassique, orthodoxe et hétérodoxe, dont la définition peut être "intensionnelle" ou "extensionnelle". Alors que la définition extensionnelle des termes est relativement arbitraire, une définition intensionnelle positive de ceux-ci peut en être propose, sauf pour le terme "hétérodoxe". Lawson tente d'en donner ne définition positive méthodologique : selon une acception implicite commune toutes les écoles hétérodoxes adoptent une orientation ontologique réaliste. Bien que l'argument de Lawson soit prometteur en première instance, il est en fait hautement problématique en raison de l'usage qu'il fait des concepts d'ontologie et de réalisme. Je montrerai que son usage de ces concepts est incohérent et contradictoire, au moins dans le contexte de sa distinction entre hétérodoxie et orthodoxie-mainstream. Classification JEL : B4.

AbstractWe explore the differences between mainstream and heterodox economists based on the responses to a questionnaire from a representative sample of Italian economists. Using different definitions for mainstream and heterodox economics, we compare the individual and academic characteristics of the economists belonging to these groups. We measure the within and between disagreement for each group and we test whether belonging to one or the other group predicts differences in economists' opinions on economic policy. Results show that: 1) mainstream and heterodox economists differ as to individual and academic characteristics and political views; 2) the disagreement within heterodox economics is lower than within mainstream economics; 3) some of commonly used ways of grouping heterodox and mainstream schools of thought have little explicative power in relation to individual opinions; 4) on critical economic policies, the opinions of heterodox and mainstream economists are significantly different even after controlling for a number of individual characteristics, including political opinions.

AbstractThis paper attempts to engage with the established debate on the nature of heterodox economics. However, it starts from the position that previous attempts to classify and identify heterodox economics have been biased towards a priori definition. The paper aims to inform the discussion of the nature of heterodoxy with some empirical analysis. The paper examines survey data collected from a small/medium‐sized sample of AHE members on the core concepts in economics. The paper applies factor analysis to the data. It also applies principles of biological taxonomy, and thence cluster analysis to the problem. The paper finds that within the self‐identified community of self‐identified heterodox economists there is little agreement as to whether members are pluralist, or what their attitude is to the mainstream. Indeed, there is little agreement on any core concepts or principles. The paper argues that there is little structure to heterodox economics beyond that provided by pre‐existing (or constituent) schools of thought. Based on this study, heterodox economics appears a complex web of interacting individuals and as a group is a fuzzy set. These results would lead us to question further strict distinctions between heterodox, mainstream and pluralist economists.

In this article we seek to show that there is a common framework to the various approaches known as heterodox. This framework is the "institutionalism", which take into account the concrete institutions in which the economic process proceeds. To argue our thesis we deploy two types of justification. We begin with an historical justification which borrows from the history of the thought and will find in emblematic authors (Ricardo, Marx, Keynes, Polanyi) (1) the definition of a common object for an institutionalist political economy (the study of a "Monetary economy of capitalistic production"); (2) a common general standard of the economy like "an institutionalized process between men and environment" (against the definition of Robbins). Our second justification is a more epistemological one. We develop the way in which the institutionalist approach mobilizes the concepts of action and of institution. The goal of this article is to contribute to the emergence of a positive paradigm, common to the heterodox, which is not defined any more in hollow or negative in opposition to the neoclassic "main stream".

International audience ; In this article we seek to show that there is a common framework to the various approaches known as heterodox. This framework is the "institutionalism", which take into account the concrete institutions in which the economic process proceeds. To argue our thesis we deploy two types of justification. We begin with an historical justification which borrows from the history of the thought and will find in emblematic authors (Ricardo, Marx, Keynes, Polanyi) (1) the definition of a common object for an institutionalist political economy (the study of a "Monetary economy of capitalistic production"); (2) a common general standard of the economy like "an institutionalized process between men and environment" (against the definition of Robbins). Our second justification is a more epistemological one. We develop the way in which the institutionalist approach mobilizes the concepts of action and of institution. The goal of this article is to contribute to the emergence of a positive paradigm, common to the heterodox, which is not defined any more in hollow or negative in opposition to the neoclassic "main stream".

In the post-World War II era, Sōka Gakkai has deployed the terminology and concept of "religion" (shūkyō 宗教) in a variety of contexts and to a variety of ends. Do these positions simply reflect a post-war strategic stance? Do they have deeper historical and philosophical roots? A careful reading of key texts by founding president Makiguchi Tsunesaburō 牧口常三郎 (1871–1944) suggests that, from its inception as the Value-Creating Education Society (Sōka Kyōiku Gakkai 創価教育学会) in the 1930s, the movement has occupied an ambiguous space, relative to the conceptualization and practice of "religion", as these were imported at the start of the Meiji Era (1868–1912), adopted and indigenized to respond to the cultural, social and political exigencies of modernizing Japan. Examples of Makiguchi's heterodoxy, relative to the established understanding of "religion" and its role, include: the rejection of specific ideas of "religion", in relation to education and science, as represented in the writings of such intellectuals as Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎 and Ishiwara Atsushi 石原純; refusal to accept the official definition of Shintō as non-religion; positing an essential continuity between faith/trust among human subjects and faith directed at ideas and objects typically considered "religious"; promoting the idea of worldly benefit, as a result of faith in and practice of "religion". A careful reading of Makiguchi's complex, and often heterodox, discourse, relative to the conceptual category of "religion", can frame a more nuanced interpretation of his ultimate heterodoxy—his rejection of the Ise Shrine amulet, an act for which he was arrested and confined to prison in July 1943. It can also clarify the basis for the Sōka Gakkai's post-war deployments of the concept of religion, and create a more flexible and expansive interpretative space for considering the organization's discourse and praxis in the post-war era.

1. Introduction -- 2. Basic definitions and theoretical conceptions of institutional economics -- 3. A theory of the emergence of institutions -- 4. A model of networks of institutions -- 5. Varieties of policy reactions to the recent financial and economic crises and national systems of policies -- 6. Summary, conclusions, and future directions.

The Transition in Asturias saw an intersection between regionalism and the minority parties of the left. Through personal and ideological connections, the regionalists extended their influence over the parties of the intelligentsia: Asturian Socialist Democracy, the Communist Movement of Asturias, and the Popular Socialist Party of Asturias. Although unsuccessful at the polls, the regionalists managed to influence both the definition of the new democracy in Asturias and the autonomy process through their election campaign and also through the merging of the PSPA regionalist block with the PSOE. From 1977 onwards, the PSOE became dominant but they did so only partially due to the incorporation and the cooption of other leftist trends. The Transition to democracy cannot just be understood by focusing on the elected winners; rather it is necessary to pay attention to the political environment of the time and the diversity of the groups that contributed to the articulation of the new concept of democracy. ; La Transición en Asturias pasó por una confluencia entre el regionalismo y los partidos minoritarios de la izquierda. A través de conexiones personales e ideológicas, los regionalistas extendieron su influencia sobre los partidos del ámbito intelectual: La Democracia Socialista Asturiana, el Movimiento Comunista de Asturias, y el Partido Socialista Popular de Asturias. Aunque nunca tuvieron éxito en las urnas, el entorno regionalista consiguió influir en la definición de la nueva democracia en Asturias en la misma medida que el proceso autonómico, a través de su campaña electoral y de la integración en el PSOE del bloque regionalista del PSPA. A partir de 1977, el PSOE se alzó como fuerza dominante, pero lo hizo solo parcialmente debido a la incorporación y cooptación de otras corrientes de la izquierda. No se puede entender la Transición centrándonos únicamente en los vencedores de las elecciones. Es necesario también tener en cuenta el ambiente político de la época y la diversidad de los grupos que ...

La Transición en Asturias pasó por una confluencia entre el regionalismo y los partidos minoritarios de la izquierda. A través de conexiones personales e ideológicas, los regionalistas extendieron su influencia sobre los partidos del ámbito intelectual: La Democracia Socialista Asturiana, el Movimiento Comunista de Asturias, y el Partido Socialista Popular de Asturias. Aunque nunca tuvieron éxito en las urnas, el entorno regionalista consiguió influir en la definición de la nueva democracia en Asturias en la misma medida que el proceso autonómico, a través de su campaña electoral y de la integración en el PSOE del bloque regionalista del PSPA. A partir de 1977, el PSOE se alzó como fuerza dominante, pero lo hizo solo parcialmente debido a la incorporación y cooptación de otras corrientes de la izquierda. No se puede entender la Transición centrándonos únicamente en los vencedores de las elecciones. Es necesario también tener en cuenta el ambiente político de la época y la diversidad de los grupos que contribuyeron a la articulación del nuevo concepto democrático. ; The Transition in Asturias saw an intersection between regionalism and the minority parties of the left. Through personal and ideological connections, the regionalists extended their influence over the parties of the intelligentsia: Asturian Socialist Democracy, the Communist Movement of Asturias, and the Popular Socialist Party of Asturias. Although unsuccessful at the polls, the regionalists managed to influence both the definition of the new democracy in Asturias and the autonomy process through their election campaign and also through the merging of the PSPA regionalist block with the PSOE. From 1977 onwards, the PSOE became dominant but they did so only partially due to the incorporation and the cooption of other leftist trends. The Transition to democracy cannot just be understood by focusing on the elected winners; rather it is necessary to pay attention to the political environment of the time and the diversity of the groups that contributed to the articulation of the new concept of democracy.

An Economic Philosophy of Production, Work and Consumption presents a new transhistorical framework of defining production, work and consumption. It shows that they all share the common feature of intentional physical transformation of something external to the agent, at some point in time. The book opens with a discussion of various theoretical traditions within economics, spanning mainstream and heterodox perspectives, and problems with production definitions in use today. Next, the author outlines various definitions in a more formal manner and provides a discussion on measurement and the production boundary. Unproductive work is redefined as socially reproductive, i.e. such that would not be performed on a Robinson Crusoe Island. Finally, the volume applies the new conceptual framework to various historical cases and discusses the future of production, work and consumption. This essential volume will be of interest to scholars of economic philosophy and methodology, the history of economic thought, economic history and national accounting.

The paper addresses the arguments made by Frederic Lee on heterodoxy and pluralism. It argues that the definitions of mainstream and heterodox, and consequently the differences between them, are highly problematic. Specifically it challenges Lee's characterizations of mainstream and heterodox economics as noncomparable. Attempts to contrast them starkly are part of a rhetoric of distinction which may be problematic. Thus, Lee's concept of intellectual pluralism may be weaker than it seems, because it is based on distinction and its tolerance, rather than an embrace of diversity. Further, both theoretical and intellectual pluralism may be based on wider epistemological and ontological grounds and thus Lee's distinction between them may also be problematic. Sheila Dow's structured pluralism may be a more productive way of embracing difference.JEL classification: B40, B5

"Human Nature in Modern Economics offers a precise definition of the concept of human nature in economics, something that is so far lacking in the theoretical and methodological literature. This book develops tools for the analysis of human nature through the construction of the author's meta-model - based on anthropological and psychological foundations - allowing for comparisons of anthropological assumptions made in economic theories. The model demonstrates that the normative functions of human nature may affect the economic reality. The chapters argue that the concept of human nature determines our thinking about the economy and economics, including fundamental methodologies, methods and theories. Thus, the differences between various economic schools may result from the different assumptions of these schools about human nature. Those evolving views of human nature proceed to explain the development of both orthodox (mainstream) and heterodox economics. The book marks a significant addition to the literature on the history of economic thought, heterodox economics, economic theory and economic methodology. For students, it is a supplement to standard textbooks as it explains the current state of economics, especially in its heterodox branches. It will allow scholars to discover the importance of what they assume about human nature and how it may influence their research process. Anna Horodecka is Associate Professor at the Warsaw School of Economics, Poland"--

"Human Nature in Modern Economics offers a precise definition of the concept of human nature in economics, something that is so far lacking in the theoretical and methodological literature. This book develops tools for the analysis of human nature through the construction of the author's meta-model - based on anthropological and psychological foundations - allowing for comparisons of anthropological assumptions made in economic theories. The model demonstrates that the normative functions of human nature may affect the economic reality. The chapters argue that the concept of human nature determines our thinking about the economy and economics, including fundamental methodologies, methods and theories. Thus, the differences between various economic schools may result from the different assumptions of these schools about human nature. Those evolving views of human nature proceed to explain the development of both orthodox (mainstream) and heterodox economics. The book marks a significant addition to the literature on the history of economic thought, heterodox economics, economic theory and economic methodology. For students, it is a supplement to standard textbooks as it explains the current state of economics, especially in its heterodox branches. It will allow scholars to discover the importance of what they assume about human nature and how it may influence their research process. Anna Horodecka is Associate Professor at the Warsaw School of Economics, Poland"--

The paper deals with the definition of the concept of cognitive capitalism as a new historical phase of capitalism. Two main features are very important for this definition: the cognitive and immaterial dimension of labour becoming the leading factor of value creation and the central role played by the control of the production of knowledge and their transformation into goods. We show that the cognitive capitalism dynamics lies on four major transformations occurred since fordism's crisis: the information revolution, the rise of the part of immaterial capital that, incorporated into men, is closely linked to the development of the institutions of welfare state, the cognitive division of labour founded on the knowledges of workforce and its versatility, the relocation of value towards upstream, that is towards the work of conception and elaboration of prototypes. ; L'article est centré sur la définition du concept de capitalisme cognitif comme nouvelle phase historique du capitalisme. Deux traits essentiels dominent cette définition : la dimension cognitive et immatérielle du travail qui devient l'élément-clé de la production de valeur et la place centrale du contrôle de la production et de la transformation marchande des connaissances. On montre que la dynamique du capitalisme cognitif s'appuie sur quatre transformations majeures intervenues depuis la crise du fordisme : la révolution informationnelle, la hausse de la part du capital immatériel qui, incorporé dans les hommes, est étroitement liée au développement des institution du salaire socialisé, la division cognitive du travail qui se fonde sur les savoirs et la polyvalence de la force de travail, le déplacement de la valeur vers l'amont, c'est-à-dire vers le travail de conception et d'élaboration des prototype.