Search results

This paper revisits old questions of the proper subject and bounds of economics: does economics study “provisioning”? or markets? or a method of reasoning, self‐interested rational optimization?

A variety of scholars and others in many fields make use of a taxonomy of society consisting of three “spheres”: markets, governments, and communities. It is argued here that this tripartite taxonomy of society is fundamental and exhaustive. A variety of ways of understanding this taxonomy are explored, especially Fiske's (1991, 2004) “Relational models theory.” Then – after communities and their products, social goods, are defined more thoroughly – a visual model of interactions among the three spheres is presented.

The model is first used briefly to understand the historical development of markets. The model is then applied to understanding how economic thinking and market ideology, including the notion of social capital, can be destructive of communities and their production of social goods (and their production of social capital as well).

It is not possible to measure these effects monetarily, so calculating precisely “how this affects results” in a standard economic model is impossible.

Nevertheless we could better prepare students for real‐world analysis, and better serve our clients, including the public, if – whenever relevant, such as in textbook introductions and in benefit/cost analyses – we made them aware of the limitations of economic analysis with respect to communities and social goods.

The three‐spheres model offered here, based on Fiske's “Relational models theory,” facilitates this awareness.

Scientists are constructing knowledge about global warming by adapting evidence-based disciplines to reflect the Precautionary Principle. It is equally important to communicate the complexities and uncertainties underpinning global warming because inappropriate vehicles for giving accounts could result in defensive decisions that perpetuate the business-as-usual mindset: the method of communication affects how the risk associated with global warming is socialised. Appropriately constructed accounts should facilitate reflective communicative action. Here Beck's theorisation of risk society, Luhmann's sociological theory of risk and Gandhi's vehicle of communicative action (or satyagraha) are used to construct a risk-based accountability mechanism, whilst providing insight into Schumacher's concept of total accountability. These accountability constructs will be illustrated through the lived experiences of South Australian citrus horticulturists in the context of a richly layered narrative of competing discourses about global warming. The reiterative process of theory informing practice is used to construct a couple of dialogical vehicles of accountability.

This paper explores through Schumacher's perspective on ‘the proper use of land’: the reasons for, and the means and consequences of, monitoring soil condition in managing agricultural landscapes sustainably. This particular perspective illustrates its argument with soil monitoring initiatives operating at various scales within the global agricultural context. Schumacher's land management goals are health, beauty and permanence, yet productivity is the goal most land managers focus on. The chosen indicators for soil monitoring need to reflect these goals. Hence, the indicators of choice for monitoring soil condition are attributes that can be: easily measured, improve soil productivity or protect the soil. Often attributes that have intrinsic ‘beauty’ (value), maintain ‘health’ (function) in ecosystems and are difficult to measure are ignored as soil condition indicators. The usefulness of information gained through monitoring soil condition is to make decisions that will be relevant for varied audiences and at different points in the decision-making process.

Under the new European regulatory communications framework coming into effect in summer 2003, market analyses will be subject to a different and much wider analytical scope. Whereas traditional market analysis has been primarily based on critical market share values, the relevant articles of the framework directive explicitly call for a more holistic and economically based perspective in carrying out competition analyses in predefined communications markets. This article discusses institutional aspects and provides an organizational framework for conducting market analyses that is applicable to all relevant communication markets. The resulting reference model is shown to be embedded in traditional competition concepts.

The Pacific Alliance (PA) arose from a project for economic integration and strategic cooperation between the four member countries – Mexico, Chile, Peru, and Colombia – with the hope of driving competitiveness in the region through specialized production and exportation of assets, and to an extent consolidating them, which would have a strong impact on the process of regional integration within Latin America. Considering this, the purpose of this chapter is to review the current economic scene for regional integration that promotes competition in the countries of the PA. A documentary and statistical investigation are carried out and presented to show the primary advances of the PA in different economic and strategic areas that propel competition among its member countries. The primary findings show that there are economic and commercial indicators that encourage the achievement of a unified perspective and stability between these member countries, which allows for more competitiveness with regard to economic and commercial development in other blocks or alliances. Today, the PA shows itself as an innovative process that seeks and promises to change the economic relations of both the countries involved in it and the region in general, which is the reason for the dynamism shown in decision making and the interest in the international community. It is concluded that the PA responds to the shared interests of the four member countries while being more competitive to take advantage of any opportunities that appear from the opening and incursion of new international markets.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the efficiency and effectiveness of industrial policies by focusing on the peculiar experience of South Korea. It analyzes Korean structural change from a historical and empirical standpoint, highlighting industrial policy interventions involved in this process. The analysis presented offers important insights to inform the debate on the contemporary industrial policy, identifying specific elements and circumstances that can contribute to mitigate government failures and to improve the effectiveness of public action.

The paper adopts a historical and empirical perspective. Concerning the empirical analysis, a composite indicator to assess the process of structural change of economies is presented. This methodology provides annual rankings based on the different economic relevance of the manufacturing sectors over the period 1963–2012.

The paper shows that industrial policy has been extensively involved in South Korean structural development but public intervention interacted with several other factors, including gradual markets liberalization, education, societal and cultural characteristics and low level of income inequalities. As a result, economic development is conceived as systemic process, namely as the outcome of a balance in the roles played by government, markets and civil society. In this framework, government failures, as inability of the government to respond effectively and efficiently to the general interest of the society, are intimately inherent to the mechanisms that rule the relevant relationships within the system.

In the post-crisis debate, very little attention has been devoted in academic and political debate to the ways to mitigate government failures. By analyzing the historical and recent Korean experience with industrial policy, the paper addresses an issue insufficiently analyzed offering an innovative contribution.

Schumacher recognized that we separate the economic system from natural and social systems at our peril. Following Schumacher's alternative “economics,” my purpose is to understand economics differently by engaging alternative ways of perceiving and knowing. Can we conceive of an economics that embodies the requisite social and environmental values, and can the associated accountings hold the responsible actors justly accountable? I compare the premises and characteristics of Schumacher's Buddhist economics with the prevailing neoclassical formulations, illustrating the narrowness of the current perspective and highlighting the critical issues. I consider the Social and Environmental Accounting project and the extent to which it has been, and potentially will be, able to move accounting, business, and society toward a more holistic conceptualization of accounting and accountability. Assimilating the two economic perspectives in developing a more holistic and integrated accounting is offered as a path to consider on our journey toward an accounting “as if people mattered.”

In a seeming attempt to legitimate or otherwise dignify social economics (Économie sociale, etc.), “named” economists (Adam Smith, Karl Marx et al.) have been dubbed social economists and/or regarded as having made significant but unrecognised contributions thereto. Conspicuously absent from that roster of celebrities are Léon Walras, économiste social par excellence, et al., who have distinguished themselves in the mainstream but also have done social economy(ics) explicitly, i.e. by that designation. Included in that illustrious et al. list are François Quesnay, J.B. Say, Friedrich von Wieser and Knut Wicksell (inter alios). Their due recognition, as per the present essay, cannot help but measurably further legitimise/dignify social economics.

In this conceptual discussion paper the author seeks to suggest that marketing as a technology of the market has contributed to the foreshortening of educational horizons within which we act or observe but can only hold for declining durations. To satisfy this demand for more in time, marketing has contributed to the commoditisation of consumption patterns in time and foreshortened the acceptable temporal range over which consumption can be achieved.

This paper is philosophical in nature.

Marketing has, it is proposed, contributed to change in essence of educational provision. Moreover the clash of temporalities of marketing and liberal education creates a tension that directly effects the provision of education. This can be seen in lifelong education which it is suggested is functionally a series of short bite‐sized exposures to learning, readily consumable often one after the other with the rubric of linear time.

The paper raises issues that managers and marketers of higher education need to be aware of in order not to use the tools of marketing carelessly.

The value of the paper is in the debate it might encourage about the dialectic relationship between marketing and education in a time of managerialism and consumerism.

Economics and political philosophy tend to lead separate existences in separate university departments. This paper argues that there are gains to be had in the understanding of the teaching of economics if the intellectual divide between these disciplines is bridged. The history of economic thought owes its evolution in part to responses at particular points in time to the enduring questions of political philosophy. A more deep‐seated understanding of economics and of HET is therefore available if considered in conscious alliance with the history of political philosophy (HPP). In short, the argument of this paper ‐ which considers five dimensions of the interdependence of HET and HPP ‐ is the reverse of Scott Gordon’s conclusion that economists have little or nothing to learn from philosophers.