The Neoclassical approach to analysing personal choice is compared with an approach contained in a Biblical Christian mode of analysis. This paper compares the…
The Neoclassical approach to analysing personal choice is compared with an approach contained in a Biblical Christian mode of analysis. This paper compares the Neoclassical and Christian positions via analysis of characteristics of the Neoclassical rational choice model. The main characteristic examined is a basic assumption of the rational choice model that human choice is explained as the optimisation of utility via rational self‐interest. The two positions are compared in terms of how they treat self‐interest and rationality, the degree to which basic assumptions about human behaviour are specified, the importance they attach to the realism of assumptions underlying their models, and the explanatory and predictive purposes for which the models are used. The conclusion of the comparison is that the Biblical Christian perspective encompasses the variables regarded as important in Neoclassical explanation, but presents them in the context of a more embracing worldview perspective than the Neoclassical. This Christian belief perspective is applicable to human behaviour in both “economic” and “non‐economic” domains.
In the contemporary relation between economics and Judeo‐Christian thought, Smith identifies three positions. These are disciplinary autonomy for economics, disciplinary…
In the contemporary relation between economics and Judeo‐Christian thought, Smith identifies three positions. These are disciplinary autonomy for economics, disciplinary interdependence between economics and Christian thought, and distinctively Christian economic analysis. Little evaluation has been made of these positions. Two representatives, as Smith classifies them, of the disciplinary autonomy and interdependence positions are evaluated from the distinctively Christian economic analysis viewpoint. Unlike Smith's classification, both J. David Richardson and Anthony Waterman are assessed as belonging to the disciplinary autonomy group, in which mainstream orthodox economic science is allegedly able to proceed independent of religious input. This position is criticized insofar, as Richardson's major and influential paper in the area (1988) is found to disregard any appraisal of the contribution of modern orthodox economic theory to the explanation of real world processes, and to overlook the contribution Christian thought might make to economic explanation. Both Richardson and Waterman assume an understanding of the “science” in economic science that is problematic, while Waterman utilizes arguments from the philosopher Leslek Kolakowski, and the economist Frank Knight, that are contestable from a Christian perspective.
Distributional issues have re‐emerged as an important issue in economics, social science, and philosophy in the last few decades. In the same period, the relevance of…
Distributional issues have re‐emerged as an important issue in economics, social science, and philosophy in the last few decades. In the same period, the relevance of derivative Judeo‐Christian socio‐economic principles to the contemporary world has been (re)asserted, developing an incipient Judeo‐Christian economics. Methodologically, this undertaking is comparable to that underlying the evolution of Islamic and other forms of religious economics. The methodology employed in the Judeo‐Christian undertaking is described via a worked example. The example shows how normative principles can be derived from Judeo‐Christian thought allegedly relevant to shaping the contemporary distribution of wealth and income. The principles are deduced from a particular sub‐set of Judeo‐Christian source material, and have the effect of generating greater equity in economic distribution. The deductions are compared with selected ideas canvassed in recent economics' discussion about inequitable distribution concerning appropriate criteria for guiding redistributional policy, ideas of “equal opportunity” vs “equal outcomes”, and the relation between distribution and economic growth.
The purpose of this paper is to develop a Biblical basis for localization as against globalization. This paper argues that the normative direction of Biblical thought is toward the localization of socio‐economic activity. A case study is made for the developing world today relevant to localization.
An evaluation is made of normative Biblical teaching that might have bearing on the localization of socio‐economic activity. How this teaching could apply to the contemporary developing world is assessed.
Normative Biblical teaching is oriented toward localization. This emphasis is capable of being applied in the developing world.
The case that normative Biblical teaching is in favour of localization rather then dispersal (and thereby globalization) has not been made previously. For those who believe that normative Biblical teaching has relevance today, the localization bias challenges the widespread acceptance of globalization.