Search results

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

Argues that Joan Robinson′s interest in teaching and her students was inherently connected to her views on the nature, scope and methodology of economics. More specifically, like the classical economists, she defined economics broadly as the study of the causes of material wealth and growth rather than the more narrow science of allocation of scarce resources. Like J.S. Mill, A. Marshall and J.M. Keynes, she viewed economics as a moral science rather than excluding ethics and politics from economic considerations. Most ⊃4importantly, she believed in the central role of history and thus uncertainty in economic analysis. This emphasis on history in turn implied that she did not consider the tools of economic analysis to be universally applicable across time and space. It is argued here that these beliefs directly affected her views on teaching economics.

In this article we shall argue that the Keynesian revolution was a revolution in the sense of Kuhn and that Kuhn's conceptual framework provides a better understanding of the convulsive changes that took place in macro‐economics in the twenties and thirties than alternative growth of knowledge theories that are being discussed in the economics literature at the present time. In the last ten years or so economists have become increasingly interested in the various growth of knowledge theories that have been developed by philosophers of science such as Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos and others. This heightened interest on the part of economists is to be explained by the fact that these new theories are based on the actual behaviour of scientists. The new philosophers of science devote their attention not to “correct scientific method” but to the actual behaviour of scientists. It is because of this revolution in the historiography of science that economists have been able to relate these new theories to their own work and to the development of economic theories in the past.

This paper has the aim of revisiting the works of Beatrice and Sidney Webb in the field of industrial relations and assessing their intellectual contributions to the study of the labour market, unions and collective bargaining in Britain.

The paper discusses the Webbs' studies of trade union history and union organisation, policy and methods that were first published at the end of the nineteenth century.

In refuting critiques of unions in the market economy by English classical and neo‐classical economists, and drawing on the ideas of the German school of historical economics, the Webbs incorporated organised labour into mainstream economic and political thought. Their major theoretical propositions were to set out an “agency model” of trade unions and an advanced system of democracy, in politics and at work, which unions would play a major part in promoting. In justifying the collectivisation of the employment relationship, the Webbs provided the intellectual foundations of the pluralist‐institutional model of industrial relations, which was built upon by other scholars following the end of the World War II. Their prediction that collective bargaining would decline in importance, as democracy matured, and be replaced by legal regulation, has taken place for reasons unforeseen by themselves.

The value of this paper is its reassessment of the Webbs' contribution to theory in the field and to the British collectivist tradition of industrial relations.

The objective of this paper is to focus on the evolution of development economics, both as an academic discipline and as a subject taught at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, at the University of Manchester, from approximately the early‐1950s onwards. It is not a history or survey of development economics per se but concentrates rather on the richness and variety of the contributions made by a number of eminent economists while they were in the Department of Economics (since 1993, the School of Economic Studies), to both the development of theory and to empirical analysis and to policy prescription, and to the teaching of development economics. Only a limited account is given of the work of these economists once they were no longer in Manchester.

Justice requires that public institutions treat each person as an equal. A complete theory of justice should provide an account of those principles which both best organize and defend our various sentiments about justice and tell us which institutional arrangements and public policies will, in a given set of circumstances, best serve to ensure that our society is or becomes a just one. In the pluralistic liberal democracies of developed western societies we all accept the notion that governments, if they are to be just governments, must not play favorites. Governments have a duty to treat each person with equal concern and respect, or as a free and equal moral person, and to organize their activities so that, so far as possible, they are neutral between various competing conceptions of how one ought to live one's life. In accepting this we all agree that political discourse is to be limited to those options which can be seriously defended from an egalitarian plateau. We reject any position which can be shown to count some for more than one, or others for less than one. This agreed upon egalitarian plateau has come to be called the neutrality principle.

This article seeks to explain the mechanism of adapting enterprises to the requirements of sustainable development. It aims to base this analysis on the concept of new institutional economics.

The theoretical basis of new institutional economics is used to understand and explain the behaviour of enterprises in relation to the natural environment.

The article finds that new institutional economics, compared to rather formalised and abstract mainstream economics, may be quite successfully used in answering why economic entities undertake actions for environmental protection.

New institutional economics may be used as a tool for understanding e.g. why some instruments aiming at environmental protection are more effective and efficient than other instruments. It may provide useful knowledge about the institutional environment while creating new environmental protection instruments. More empirical studies on a greater number of enterprises (not only individual case studies) are necessary to find out which institutions and mechanisms mentioned in the paper are crucial, and which should be supported in order to achieve environmental goals.

There are a great number of empirical papers containing case studies, but only few theoretical attempts to generate a synthesis. This paper fills this gap.

This article aims to explain why geography is a prime discipline for analysing globalisation and a multicultural view of Global Studies. The generic approach of human geography to first select an appropriate methodology is taken as a key approach.

Concepts from aggregate disciplines such as history, economics, and geography are scanned through during a short description of the historical genesis of these sciences and the paradigmatic shifts they have encountered.

There are four main theses: (1) values are created by appreciation; (2) development is growing jointly with responsibility; (3) accumulation of material value is seen as expenditure to achieve non‐material values; and (4) spatial relations are interrelated with social relations.

Conceptual considerations have to be further corroborated by quantitative analyses using suitable metrics of “development”.

“Social and cultural geography” should contribute to any curriculum of “Global Studies”.

Dialogue and discourse between world views is the essential, ideology‐free approach for understanding globalisation.

Unlike other scientific articles focusing on “facts”, this article focuses on perspectives. Thus, it explains “multi‐perspectivity” and a multi‐paradigmatic approach.

The purpose of the study is to explore contributions made in Islamic economics methodology, particularly in the use of mathematical models used to build Islamic economic theories.

The methodology adopted is a survey by means of literature review.

Overuse of mathematical models in economics has it apparent weakness in simplifying complex realities and use of impracticable assumptions. But, that notwithstanding, they have a role to play in the development of Islamic economics. Empirical analysis in Islamic economics has weaknesses, including the very fact that moral phenomenon in Islamic economics is difficult to quantify, but its contribution, just like mathematics, is needed to develop the field. Islamic economics adopt mathematical models that do not cause obstacles in achieving the aim of Islamic economics, which is Falah. Where it is harmful, it is discarded. Islamic economics has yet to have a universally accepted research methodology; instead, numerous methodologies are used today. The poor use of mathematics in Islamic economics by new researchers, among other factors, may be due to young researchers’ poor background in mathematics.

The paper is unique in looking at the topic of Islamic economic methodology from the angle of application of mathematical models.

Looks at the shift in emphasis in Australia, from a historical perspective and examines the growing fears in the community that citizens may become disenfranchised as a result. Argues that a slavish adherence to efficiency through technological advance risks undervaluing the complementarity of information in the community. Concludes that focusing on efficiency and quantification moves away from noting the constitutional and democratic scope of telecommunications.