Search results

The year 1848 is considered by historians as a political and economic turning point in France: a major political crisis took place in the form of the February Revolution, accompanied by extensive financial troubles for the French government. The economists of that time actively debated the economic causes and consequences of the crisis. This chapter is devoted to the analysis of these financial controversies in French economic thought around 1848. If the political and philosophical debates of 1848 between the liberals and the socialists are quite well known by historians of economic thought, their financial side has been relatively neglected. According to the authors of this chapter, it is nevertheless of great interest to examine the liberal and socialist ideas of that time. This chapter aims to investigate this little-studied question by raising three main issues: the first one consists of presenting the different diagnoses of the 1848 financial crisis from socialist and liberal viewpoints. Second, it proposes an analysis of the content of theoretical controversies about ways to overcome the financial troubles, particularly regarding the trade-off between taxation and debt. Lastly, it emphasizes the role of this period for the subsequent constitution of a financial orthodoxy in France.

Today, there is no academic or sociocultural context in which Austrian Economics (AE) is described as being dominant. AE is and remains, for better or for worse, a heterodox current. In the United States, however, but probably nowhere else in the world, AE is heterodox without being invisible or inconsequential. American scholars for whom AE is their preferred paradigm have been able to participate actively in the sort of “discussions” that Arjo Klamer (2007, p. 4) wishes to encourage. They are taken seriously by fellow economists. The vitality of American AE has no equivalent in the rest of the world.¹ Obvious constraints of time and space prevent us from offering supporting evidence for this sweeping statement, but in this paper we propose to take a close look at the French case. AE has made few inroads in France. There was a brief period in the 1980s when it was the object of some short-lived enthusiasm; since then interest has waned, although there are indications that the tide might yet again be turning, and in fact, as compared to many other western European countries, France may turn out to be, all things being relative, a less infertile ground than might a priori be thought.

Over the last three quarters of a century, the discourse on economic and social policy has oscillated between two polar opposites: an interventionist approach and a free market-oriented one. The former led to the establishment of the Keynesian welfare state and was dominant in the post-war years, but the latter gained much ground beginning in the 1980s, forcing defenders of the welfare state to retreat into a more defensive position. In the wake of the ‘Great Recession’, however, these two visions are once again sustaining vigorous debates in the global public arena. Economists in their role as policy advisers and public intellectuals, in other words as ‘experts’, have participated actively in such debates; the gains made by (what its critics call) ‘neo-liberalism’ were due, in no small measure, to the growing prestige and influence of Austrian economics. The experts’ discourse tends to be a historical and arguments are often phrased in terms of supposedly ‘cutting edge’ theoretical and empirical advances.¹ Yesterday's theories are judged obsolete and irrelevant. I argue that a more historically informed perspective can actually be more rewarding.

Aversion to liberalism and socialism was indeed a trademark of Catholic economic thought from Rerum Novarum onwards and therefore many Catholic economists are to be found among those looking for a third way. François Perroux and Maurice Byé were among the most prominent of them. They partook a closeness to the Catholic church and a good knowledge of Brazil through their missions in this country. But they differed in their methodology and in their approach to the European Union. Byé remained firmly rooted in the methodological individualism whereas Perroux’ approach seem too fuzzy to be characterized. These differences are obvious in their treatment of the European issues where Perroux’ stance for a Europe without shores contrasts with Byé’s successful recommendations for a step-by-step construction of the Little Europe. After six decades it is time to bring Byé out of the shadows.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

This paper seeks to outline the element of a liberal management education that would attend to the full human development of undergraduate management students enabling them to exercise the responsibility and leadership that the profession and practice of business and management require. It places such an education in the context of the global university today, and points to the shortcomings in management education as it is currently taught, the challenges facing implementation, and finishes with the example of Singapore Management University.

This is a discursive discussion piece drawing on philosophical texts, contemporary debates on management education, historical perspectives on the University, and the authors’ combined experience in management education and business school leadership. It was written as an argument to be debated by future interlocutors.

The article concludes that liberal management education faces obstacles to implementation. These obstacles are recast as shortcomings in management education itself. It concludes that in part by recognising and overcoming these shortcomings liberal management education holds prospects for improving the full human development of undergraduate management students, and in so doing creating business leaders who have the maturity to take responsible and visionary decisions.

The article points to the need to elaborate a concrete curriculum across the spectrum of courses and subjects in management education.

The article invites other business schools to enter into a conversation about liberal management education and share experiences of implementing reforms in management education.

Liberal management education aims to produce citizen‐leaders who have the maturity and enlightened perspective to lead in organisations and in society. The intention of the article is to encourage debate and adoption in some form of a liberal management education philosophy and curriculum at other business schools beyond Singapore Management University, with the hope of shifting the emphasis in management education to preparing students as mature citizens as well as business leaders.

Many have discussed the problems of the contemporary global university, but few have considered undergraduate management education as a crucible for working out the conflicts and challenges facing today's university.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.