Search results

The Neoclassical approach to analysing personal choice is compared with an approach contained in a Biblical Christian mode of analysis. This paper compares the Neoclassical and Christian positions via analysis of characteristics of the Neoclassical rational choice model. The main characteristic examined is a basic assumption of the rational choice model that human choice is explained as the optimisation of utility via rational self‐interest. The two positions are compared in terms of how they treat self‐interest and rationality, the degree to which basic assumptions about human behaviour are specified, the importance they attach to the realism of assumptions underlying their models, and the explanatory and predictive purposes for which the models are used. The conclusion of the comparison is that the Biblical Christian perspective encompasses the variables regarded as important in Neoclassical explanation, but presents them in the context of a more embracing worldview perspective than the Neoclassical. This Christian belief perspective is applicable to human behaviour in both “economic” and “non‐economic” domains.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the provisions of both the neoclassical economics and new institutional economics theses and assesses the implications of their methodologies for property market analysis.

This research is based on secondary literature review and desk-based study.

It is argued that new institutional economics, grounded on firmer foundations of human behaviour, offers an analytical approach to the study of the property market which emphasizes the institutionally contingent nature of real estate exchange, thus placing real estate within its socio-economic context.

In-depth examination and juxtaposition of the provisions, assumptions, philosophical orientations and limitations of these main traditions of economic thought towards the achievement of a representative study of the workings of the property market.

The conflict between institutionalism and neoclassicism in the 20th century has been investigated by scholars over the years. Many of them believe that in the postwar period, neoclassicism triumphed while institutionalism largely disappeared. The present chapter takes a very different view. The late 20th century represents a broad synthesis of neoclassical and institutional themes in a methodology we call pragmatic empiricism. That approach combines the mathematical model building and theoretical formalism of neoclassical economics with the institutional economist’s data-driven statistical analysis and concern for developing institutional forms. We use as a case study the history of American locational economics from the 1930s to the present. The mixing of institutional and neoclassical themes is quite evident in the work of three young scholars at Harvard who effectively initiated American locational economics. In the postwar period, we find a series of outstanding, well-published papers that capture the spirit of the “founders.” These papers do use more modeling, but they also focus on major institutional developments. A broader review of locational works is consistent with the pragmatic empiricism label. The history of locational economics supports the claim that institutionalism, far from disappearing, continues to provide fundamental questions and techniques for modern pragmatic empiricism.

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.

Explains the exogenous and endogenous types of relationships between ethics and economics in neoclassical and non‐neoclassical framework. Studies market consequentialism, deontological preferences and polity‐market (ecology) interactions in recent developments in economic theory and political philosophy. A review of literature is covered. From these studies, bordering ethics and economics, is evolved the contrasting methodology and world view of an endogenous theory underlying the interface between ethics and economics. The underlying principle of ethical endogeneity of this new paradigm is treated with an institution‐economy interface by addressing the issue of sustainability. A simple mathematical formulation is done to show how ethics can be methodologically endogenized in a scientific framework for theory, policy development and institutionalism. Examines Canada′s Green Plan in light of the exogenous and endogenous ethical relationships. The critique is developed and ethico‐economic policy‐theory alternatives are proposed.

This article attempts to provide an institutionalist analysis and diagnosis of the current crisis of orthodox economics. We shall, first, characterise the predominant opinion in economics—the neoclassical synthesis. Next, we examine the anomalies which are currently vexing orthodox opinion and their power to provoke a period of crisis and extraordinary science. In the final section, we diagnose the source of the anomalies of the neoclassical synthesis.

This study aims to investigate the viewpoints of heterodox economic thoughts and Islamic economic thought concerning the concept of waste. Additionally, it explores the shared criticisms that both perspectives hold against mainstream economic thought in relation to waste.

First of all, the concept of waste is examined and the global effects of waste are investigated. Criticisms directed in the context of waste in mainstream economics in the context of heterodox school thoughts are examined. Likewise, criticisms directed in the context of waste in mainstream economics in the context of Islamic economic thoughts are examined. Finally, the common and different aspects of heterodox and Islamic economic thoughts were discussed, and the common criticisms of mainstream economic thought’s point of view toward waste were examined. This study is a theoretical, qualitative study.

Although both ideas have different aspects, heterodox and Islamic economic thoughts believe that the mainstream economy, which is based on capitalism and materialism, creates waste by ignoring the long-term social and environmental consequences of economic activity. They argue that the pursuit of profits and growth, without considering the impact on society and the environment, leads to an inefficient and unsustainable use of resources.

The best author’s knowledge, by emphasizing the common and different aspects of Islamic economics and heterodox thoughts, this study is the first to examine the concept of waste in the context of the common aspects of these ideas.

After a clarification of definitions important in methodological discussions, a brief history of early methodological thought in economics and political economy is presented. The development of “orthodox” methodology is traced, and the fundamental assumptions underlying neoclassical economic methodology are enumerated. Philosophical positions – both critical of and sympathetic to the orthodox assumptions – are presented. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of various heterodox positions are surveyed. Throughout the paper, methodological justifications for the emphasis on primarily deductive, complex mathematical models in contemporary economics as practiced in the USA – especially in light of the relevance and importance of primarily verbal, interpretive methodologies in the realm of applied and policy‐oriented economics – are examined.

The paper examines the dependence of the positivist and welfarist preference satisfaction paradigm of neoclassical economics upon an implicit functionalist philosophy of mind. Functionalism is the doctrine that mental states are strictly materialistic and understandable in cause‐effect terms. An important aspect of functionalism is the multiple realizability thesis, namely, that mental states can be realized in any type of hardware, whether human brain or computer.

The approach used involves investigating the fact‐value distinction after Robbins in terms of the positivist meta‐ethical view known as emotivism, and then explaining emotivism as inherently functionalist. Functionalist thinking itself is explained in terms of contemporary philosophy of mind.

An important finding is that the preference satisfaction paradigm can be shown to be as suitable to artificial intelligence systems as to human beings. A consequence of this is that normative concerns are increasingly difficult to address in connection with the neoclassical thinking about economic agents.

The paper does not investigate more recent research programs in economics (such as behavioural economics) that depart from basic neoclassical assumptions.

A practical implication of the paper is that it shifts attention to previously un‐emphasized aspects of neoclassical thinking.

The paper's value to explain the relation of economics to ethics in neoclassical economics in connection with functionalist philosophy of mind.

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.