Search results

Here Marx's philosophy is dissected from the angle of bourgeois capitalism which he, Marx, sought to overcome. His social, political and economic ideas are criticised. Although it is noted that Marx wanted to ameliorate human suffering, the result turned out to be Utopian, contrary to his own intentions. Contrary to Marx, it is individualism that makes the best sense and capitalism that holds out the best hope for coping with most of the problems he sought to solve. Marx's philosophy is alluring but flawed at a very basic level, namely, where it denies the individuality of each person and treats humanity as “an organic body”. Capitalism, while by no means out to guarantee a perfect society, is the best setting for the realisation of the diverse but often equally noble human goals of its membership.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that free market capitalism is neither efficient nor just. This is in spite of the claims made by its proponents who, utilizing Adam Smith's doctrine of invisible hand or the fundamental theorem of welfare economics, assume that it is efficient, just, smooth functioning, and self‐regulating.

The paper utilizes conceptual/theoretical research and arguments that have emerged in the literatures of public economics and welfare economics.

In addition to proving the above, the paper also finds that Adam Smith is actually a moral egalitarian, thus he could not have agreed with Nozick and Friedman regarding the nature of capitalism. To the extent that Smith supported free market capitalism, it was because he thought, in contrast to mercantilist policies, that free markets would lead to equity and justice.

The paper is an original/valuable contribution since it rescues Adam Smith from the extreme proponents of laissez‐faire capitalism who claim him.

There is significant debate regarding the necessity for and existence of moral exemplars in business. We believe it is both necessary and beneficial for free market economic systems to be viewed as a moral exemplar by business students, educators, practitioners, and ethicists. Since much of the world operates under some type of free market economic paradigm, it is important that there be a moral base for these operations.

Free market economic systems are usually defended on utilitarian grounds, that they produce better results than other systems. In this chapter we take a micro approach and show that free market economic systems support individual rights and dignity. This is important because business persons need moral exemplars based in their own discipline’s theory to recognize the vocational aspects of business. That is, business persons must understand why free market systems serve the greater good.

Free market systems are not a complete or perfect moral exemplar. Business persons need to know the limits of the economic system and find other moral exemplars for their role as citizens. We illustrate this with the discussion of monopoly and Option for the Poor.

Catholic Social Teaching (CST), the moral exemplar of the Roman Catholic Church, has been developed over many centuries. The purpose of this chapter is to show how free market economic outcomes are compatible with CST goals. Illustrating the consistency between CST and free market systems provides compelling evidence that such systems are indeed a moral exemplar for business persons.

This paper aims to compare Pareto optimality for altruistic and individualistic societies to show whether it is possible to have Pareto improvement through altruistic acts even after free market equilibrium.

The paper follows conceptual, axiomatic and theoretical approaches to show Pareto efficiency in altruistic versus individualistic societies. The paper first outlines the welfare axioms of Islamic economics compared to those of capitalism. Second, it defines Pareto efficiency within capitalist and Islamic economic systems. Third, it compares and contrasts the concept in the two systems based on their epistemological and anthropological worldviews. Fourth, it shows how – even under the efficient allocation of material goods – room for Pareto improvement still exists through the redistribution of resources. Finally, it demonstrates optimum income transfer for social welfare maximization.

The paper shows that Islamic economics relying on certain welfare axioms aim for an altruistic society. It then theoretically proves that social well-being would be greater in such an altruistic society in comparison to an individualistic society promoted by capitalism, holding everything else constant. The paper clearly shows that free market equilibrium does not maximize social utility. It theoretically demonstrates that even under efficient allocation of material goods, there is still room for Pareto improvement through redistribution of resources. It reveals that optimum income transfer might not be possible through voluntary altruistic behaviors unless people transcend self-interest and begin to value social interest as important as their own interest. Therefore, the paper suggests a role for the government to reach optimum-level income transfer for social welfare maximization.

The paper is purely theoretical. Its main limitation is not to be empirically tested. Future studies might shed light on the issue through empirical evidence

Pareto improvement provides important guidance or at least moral justification for welfare programs. The paper might directly affect welfare policy of Muslim countries.

The paper suggests income transfer through altruistic acts would provide higher social welfare. Therefore, it is in the best interest of nations to promote altruistic behaviors and support voluntary welfare programs for higher social utility.

The paper contributes to the Islamic moral economy doctrine by proving that altruistic behaviors encouraged by Islamic teaching could provide higher social welfare.

This chapter argues that if Austrian economics is to attain the influence, impact, and esteem enjoyed by comparable traditions, it cannot continue to produce research that only and always reaches free market conclusions. While the foundational principles of Austrian economics are incompatible with socialism, this does not settle every policy question in favor of laissez-faire. Factors such as historical circumstances and the particularities of local contexts should lead Austrians to take seriously some arguments in favor of government intervention. Freed from its ideological shackles, Austrian economics can provide a powerful toolkit for positive, scientific research addressing the most important questions in contemporary political economy.

This paper aims to study Catholic Social Theory (CST) and its implications for economic development. From the early days of CST through the papacy of Benedict XVI, the Church has been consistent about the promise and limits of markets. Markets offer the necessary foundation for human flourishing – but they must be ordered toward the common good and they carry the potential for spiritual loss. Pope Francis has changed course from over a century of CST, with a markedly different view of business, labor and free markets.

This paper summarizes 130 years of CST regarding the economy and describes the turn Pope Francis takes from this tradition. This paper discusses economic theory and analyzes the importance of markets for economic development and assesses Pope Francis’ economics in light of this theory.

This paper discusses the findings that – despite what we assume to be good intentions – the economics of Pope Francis would condemn billions to poverty. Others (Whaples, 2017a) have discussed the economics of Pope Francis.

Others (Whaples, 2017a) have discussed the economics of Pope Francis. This paper finds, however, that most of the critiques are too gentle, and do not recognize the full deleterious impact of the application of the new teachings.

The rise of the regulatory state during the Gilded Age was closely associated with the development of institutionalist ideas in American academia. In their analysis of the emergent regulatory environment, institutionalists like John Commons operated with a fundamentally marginalist theory of value and distribution. This engagement is a central explanation for the ultimate ascendancy of neoclassical economics, and the limitations of the regulatory environment that emerged in the Progressive Era. The eventual rise of the Chicago School and its deregulatory ambitions did constitute a rupture, but one achieved without rejecting preceding conceptions of competition and value. The substantial compatibility of the view of markets underlying both the regulatory and deregulatory periods is stressed, casting doubt about the transformative potential of the resurgent regulatory impulse in the New Gilded Age.

Mandeville's Fable of the Bees, ungenerously described by its author as a “rhapsody void of order and method”, actually developed several ideas about the functioning of markets that anticipate some of the concerns of contemporary subjectivist economics such as are expressed in the writings of the modern Austrian School. While it may be too much of an exaggeration to follow F.B. Kaye by declaring Mandeville a “founder” of laissez‐faire economics, it is also quite incorrect to reach the negative verdict of one recent author who concluded that Mandeville “did not advance free‐market economics on any issue”. Mandeville did advance economics in general (and free market economics, incidentally) when he emphasised how patterns of conduct that emerge from the clash of individual egos guided by the flattery of politicians often function to promote some degree of commodious social life that is especially enjoyed by those quick to condemn the conduct as “immoral”. This theme still has its adherents today. I shall group Mandeville's contributions among four overlapping subject headings as follows: