Search results

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to investigate the conceptual foundations of methodological inquiry in Islamic economics. The paper aims to develop criteria of acceptance and rejection of a theory and providing rationalizations and guidelines in the process of theory appraisal and evaluation.

The literature on Islamic economics especially in the area of methodology of Islamic economics, both in English and Arabic, is reviewed critically and used in the attempt of constructing the criteria of theory appraisal in Islamic economics.

The paper explicates two criteria of theory appraisal in Islamic economics, namely the internal‐integrity (doctrinal integrity, logical integrity and factual integrity) and relational‐unity (of doctrine and practical realities, ideals/goals and factual experiences, values and facts, normative and positive dimensions, a priori and a posteriori).

The paper is based on conceptual explorations of literature in the area of methodology of Islamic economics. This is a conceptual paper, so it did not employ any empirical analysis.

The findings of this paper will give insights of the criteria to distinguish truth over false notions in theories, between valid theories and invalid ones as well as the acceptance or rejection of theory in Islamic economics theory appraisal. With those criteria of theory, a unified discipline of Islamic economics, which is based on doctrinal, logical on testable foundations in a real typical Muslim society can be produced.

The paper proposes criteria and purpose of theory appraisal in Islamic economics which is lacking in the discussion of methodology of Islamic economics literature. Those criteria and purpose in theory appraisal and evaluation in a methodological unity of Islamic economics suggest a new approach in dealing with revelation, intellectual reasoning and facts observation in order to produce a coherent Islamic economic theory.

This paper attempts to investigate the conceptual foundations of methodological inquiry in Islamic economics. The paper aims to develop criteria of acceptance and rejection of a theory and providing rationalizations and guidelines in the process of theory appraisal and evaluation.

The literature on Islamic economics especially in the area of methodology of Islamic economics, both in English and Arabic, is reviewed critically and used in the attempt of constructing the criteria of theory appraisal in Islamic economics.

The paper explicates two criteria of theory appraisal in Islamic economics, namely the internal‐integrity (doctrinal integrity, logical integrity and factual integrity) and relational‐unity (of doctrine and practical realities, ideals/goals and factual experiences, values and facts, normative and positive dimensions, a priori and a posteriori).

The paper is based on conceptual explorations of literature in the area of methodology of Islamic economics. This is a conceptual paper, so it did not employ any empirical analysis.

The findings of this paper will give insights of the criteria to distinguish truth over false notions in theories, between valid theories and invalid ones as well as the acceptance or rejection of theory in Islamic economics theory appraisal. With those criteria of theory, a unified discipline of Islamic economics, which is based on doctrinal, logical on testable foundations in a real typical Muslim society can be produced.

The paper proposes criteria and purpose of theory appraisal in Islamic economics which is lacking in the discussion of methodology of Islamic economics literature. Those criteria and purpose in theory appraisal and evaluation in a methodological unity of Islamic economics suggest a new approach in dealing with revelation, intellectual reasoning and facts observation in order to produce a coherent Islamic economic theory.

The paper aims to show that economic theory has become “desocialised” and separated from social theory through the adoption of individualistic methods and neglect of social relations and structures. It also seeks to assess the upshot of these trends, as well as the prospects for reversing them.

A historical overview traces how the social content of economic theory has diminished, considering the reasons why. This leads on to a wider evaluation of what desocialisation entails and whether economics could be done differently.

Desocialisation stems from the desire for boundaries between academic disciplines, which drove economics towards individualism and other social sciences towards structural methods. Such an artificial divide between economic theory and social theory is argued to be detrimental to all the disciplines concerned.

Restrictions imposed by desocialised theory have practical consequences for how we understand and model the economy. Some reforms that would loosen the restrictions so as to promote a resocialised economics are suggested.

The idea of desocialisation is defined and interpreted, drawing attention to the changing nature of economics, its isolation from other social sciences, and the possibilities for alternative modes of economic theorising.

Looks at the impact John Maynard Keynes and the movement (Keynesian) he started had on the theory and practice of economics in the 1930s and onwards. Identifies respective problems about capitalism and discusses them in depth. States that the monetary and fiscal policies recommended by Keynes have helped the West escape severe social consequences in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Goes on to show how economists after Keynes carried his work forward and upward in the 1940s and 1950s. Closes by stating there is a further, third revolution in economic thinking on the rise.

Emil Sax was an Austrian economist both in origin and theoretical background. He is often cited as one of the founders of modern theoretical public economics. An extensive account of his main ideas is given, along with some of the problems left unresolved in his theory.

This is the second part of a long investigation under the title of, Principia Oeconomica; the first having appeared in this journal in 1986. The substance of the argument in this contribution is in the form of a dialogue with Henri Guitton, member of l'Institut de France and author of a book in French, De l'Imperfection en Economie (1979). Guitton is leading a new French Economic School critical of a modern economy characterised by ‘Econosm” or “Economy of Counter‐sense”. Economism refers to the practice of conceiving problems of a modern society in strictly economic‐accounting terms and neglecting a host of social and human aspects. The second term means that the sole attention given to growth in production did not increase the happiness of man but on the contrary it created for him new problems (pollution, noise, atomic radiation and other hazards). To cope with these problems, the French school recommends wise policies which Guitton called “creative imperfection”. Guitton's presentation is followed step by step, with an interpretation in terms of stable equilibrium. The recommendation stresses structural reforms to solve the same problems but following a road of “creative perfection” leading to the same goal sought by Guitton: a better world of tomorrow.

The critical dimension and the one that can unify knowledge through systemic interrelationships, is unification of the purely a priori with the purely a posteriori parts of total reality into a congruous whole. This is a circular cause and effect interrelationship between premises. The emerging kind of world view may also be substantively called the epistemic‐ontic circular causation and continuity model of unified reality. The essence of this order is to ground philosophy of science in both the natural and social sciences, in a perpetually interactive and integrative mould of deriving, evolving and enhancing or revising change. Knowledge is then defined as the output of every such interaction. Interaction arises first from purely epistemological roots to form ontological reality. This is the passage from the a priori to the a posteriori realms in the traditions of Kant and Heidegger. Conversely, the passage from the a posteriori to a priori reality is the approach to knowledge in the natural sciences proferred by Cartesian meditations, David Hume, A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, as examples. Yet the continuity and renewal of knowledge by interaction and integration of these two premises are not rooted in the philosophy of western science. Husserl tried for it through his critique of western civilization and philosophical methods in the Crisis of Western Civilization. The unified field theory of Relativity‐Quantum physics is being tried for. A theory of everything has been imagined. Yet after all is done, scientific research program remains in a limbo. Unification of knowledge appears to be methodologically impossible in occidental philosophy of science.

Investigates two issues raised by D.C. Moore: the apparent failure of critical accounting theory to launch and sustain a critical programme and relative lack of critical accounting activity in the USA. These concerns are related in that radicalization and change of one′s own academic discipline would seem to be one of the highest‐priority political activities to be undertaken by critical theorists. Offers feminist economics as an example of a critical social theory that meets Moore′s four criteria for successful criteria endeavour and is applicable to accounting research. Compares the feminist economic critique with critiques of accounting by Cooper, and by Shearer and Arrington, based on the French feminist philosophers. The two approaches differ in goals and politics. Suggests that the experience of feminist economics in reforming economics also provides insights into the slow growth of critical accounting theory in the USA.

The first Principia Mathematica (1686) by Sir Isaac Newton with reference to natural philosophy and his system of the world has largely contributed to the first revolution in scientific thinking in modern times. It has created the conceptual basis of modern science in the classical tradition by providing the tools of analysis and the technique of reasoning in terms of stability—from—within or, as we would say today, the model of stable equilibrium conditions.

Western economics came into being with the rise of the capitalist market economy. It had a nature of duality beginning from its birth: the justificativeness of providing theoretical pillars for the capitalist market economy system and the scientificity of revealing the internal relations and operating rules of the capitalist market economy. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

However, after the 1830s, this justificativeness gradually evolved into vulgarity. Since the 1930s, modern western mainstream economics has mainly explored the general market economy on the assumption that the capitalist system remains unchanged, and many outcomes of such research are positive and beneficial.

Political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, at the present stage, is mainly a Chinese socialist market economics. It is guided by the Marxist political economy and rooted in the great practice of China’s reform and opening up and socialist modernization.

According to political complexion, western economic theories can be divided into political economic theory, mainstream economic theory and basic economic theory. By subjecting these theories to what we term “elimination,” “transformation” and “transplantation” surgeries, respectively, we can absorb and accommodate their beneficial elements in building a political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which in turn is conducive to the development and prosperity of such an economy.