Search results

The paper argues in favor of reestablishing sociological or social economics as a legitimate discipline of economic science. Conspires toward undertaking analyses of the social co‐determination of economic behaviors, variables and systems. Suggests the need for incorporation of sociological/social economics in the existing semi‐official (JEL) taxonomy of economic fields and subjects. The argument for sociological economics can be made on two grounds: ontological or empirical‐historical and epistemological or theoretical‐methodological ones. The article bases the argument for sociological economics on the former, i.e., the empirical‐historical social co‐determination of the economy. The relations of sociological economics to sociology of economics are specified and the implications of sociological/social economics for modern economic science are also discussed.

This register of current research in social economics has been compiled by the International Institute of Social Economics. The register does not claim to be comprehensive but is merely an aid for research workers and institutions interested in social economics. The register will be updated and made more comprehensive in the future but this is largely dependent on the inflow of information from researchers in social economics. In order to facilitate this process a standardised form is to be found on the last page of this register. Completed forms, with attached sheets as necessary, should be returned to the compiler: Dr Barrie O. Pettman, Director, International Institute of Social Economics, Enholmes Hall, Patrington, Hull, N. Humberside, England, HU12 OPR. Any other comments on the register will also be welcome.

The term “social economics” has been in currency ever since J.S. Mill coined the phrase to cover the inductive study of the groups and social unions that man forms, guided by the principle of social altruism, to conduct his economic relationships. Although Mill rejected this approach in favour of deductive, self‐interested political economy, others, notably Wieser, J.M. Clark and Weber, have all tried to enact their versions of social economics in the centre stage. Even though Weber's theories became prominent in sociology, and both Clark and Wieser have their disciples, the study and theoretical development of social economics has remained at the periphery, making little impact upon the unswaying hold of the neo‐classical microeconomic orthodoxy.

The critical dimension and the one that can unify knowledge through systemic interrelationships, is unification of the purely a priori with the purely a posteriori parts of total reality into a congruous whole. This is a circular cause and effect interrelationship between premises. The emerging kind of world view may also be substantively called the epistemic‐ontic circular causation and continuity model of unified reality. The essence of this order is to ground philosophy of science in both the natural and social sciences, in a perpetually interactive and integrative mould of deriving, evolving and enhancing or revising change. Knowledge is then defined as the output of every such interaction. Interaction arises first from purely epistemological roots to form ontological reality. This is the passage from the a priori to the a posteriori realms in the traditions of Kant and Heidegger. Conversely, the passage from the a posteriori to a priori reality is the approach to knowledge in the natural sciences proferred by Cartesian meditations, David Hume, A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, as examples. Yet the continuity and renewal of knowledge by interaction and integration of these two premises are not rooted in the philosophy of western science. Husserl tried for it through his critique of western civilization and philosophical methods in the Crisis of Western Civilization. The unified field theory of Relativity‐Quantum physics is being tried for. A theory of everything has been imagined. Yet after all is done, scientific research program remains in a limbo. Unification of knowledge appears to be methodologically impossible in occidental philosophy of science.

In this contribution to the growing discussion of the meaning, method‐dology and rationale of the socio‐economic approach we shall not reiterate the historical development of Social Economics but will concentrate on trying to stimulate discussion of the following questions:

X = multiple interpretations

The global financial crisis (GFC) has undermined the legitimacy of orthodox neo-classical economic assumptions, which nevertheless continue to frame the philosophical assumptions of teaching in business schools. The purpose of this paper is to make a case in favour of an expansion of the business school curriculum to incorporate behavioural economics. The paper will also contend that behavioural economics can be connected to social economics, as they are both heterodox in this study and analyse economic phenomenon outside of a neo-classical framework. The aim is to contribute to arguments for an expanded curriculum, beyond the framing assumptions of neo-classical rationalism. This paper will also support its case by reviewing behavioural economics to make the case that this literature can be connected to social economics. This assertion is based on shared connections, including the importance of Kantianism in behavioural economics and in social economics. These connections will be discussed as a common point of reference points, or ties that can serve to broker links between these two economic paradigms. Practical implications (if applicable) the GFC presents an opportunity to re-shape the business school curriculum to acknowledge the centrality of socio-economics and behavioural economics, and consequently to offer an alternative to the dominant ontological assumptions – taken from the economic understanding of rationality – that have previously underpinned business school pedagogy.

The paper presents an inter-disciplinary teaching case, which incorporates socio-economic and behavioural economics perspectives. The teaching case concerned a socio-economic understanding of corruption and white-collar crime. It was also inter-disciplinary to include inputs from business history and criminology. The teaching case developed an appreciation among students that corruption, white-collar crime and entrepreneurship can be analysed within a social economics and behavioural economics lens.

The teaching case example discussed an alternative socio-economic and behavioural economics understanding to core areas of the MBA curriculum with the potential to be included in other academic disciplines. This enabled students to apply a behavioural economic approach to white-collar crime. The findings derived from this case study are that behavioural economics has the potential to enhance the teaching of socio-economics.

The originality of this paper is to apply behavioural economics to a socio-economic teaching case, in core subject areas of the MBA curriculum.

Conventional economic analysis is inadequate to the challenges posed by ecological economics. It is not denied that conventional economics contains much that is necessary and important to ecology. The contention here is only that conventional, economic analysis cannot foot the whole bill and must therefore be supplemented with an economics of a different scope and method. The concern is, in short, the adjustment at the margin of the allocation of the human capital resources of the economics profession.

A collection of essays by a social economist seeking to balance economics as a science of means with the values deemed necessary to man′s finding the good life and society enduring as a civilized instrumentality. Looks for authority to great men of the past and to today′s moral philosopher: man is an ethical animal. The 13 essays are: 1. Evolutionary Economics: The End of It All? which challenges the view that Darwinism destroyed belief in a universe of purpose and design; 2. Schmoller′s Political Economy: Its Psychic, Moral and Legal Foundations, which centres on the belief that time‐honoured ethical values prevail in an economy formed by ties of common sentiment, ideas, customs and laws; 3. Adam Smith by Gustav von Schmoller – Schmoller rejects Smith′s natural law and sees him as simply spreading the message of Calvinism; 4. Pierre‐Joseph Proudhon, Socialist – Karl Marx, Communist: A Comparison; 5. Marxism and the Instauration of Man, which raises the question for Marx: is the flowering of the new man in Communist society the ultimate end to the dialectical movement of history?; 6. Ethical Progress and Economic Growth in Western Civilization; 7. Ethical Principles in American Society: An Appraisal; 8. The Ugent Need for a Consensus on Moral Values, which focuses on the real dangers inherent in there being no consensus on moral values; 9. Human Resources and the Good Society – man is not to be treated as an economic resource; man′s moral and material wellbeing is the goal; 10. The Social Economist on the Modern Dilemma: Ethical Dwarfs and Nuclear Giants, which argues that it is imperative to distinguish good from evil and to act accordingly: existentialism, situation ethics and evolutionary ethics savour of nihilism; 11. Ethical Principles: The Economist′s Quandary, which is the difficulty of balancing the claims of disinterested science and of the urge to better the human condition; 12. The Role of Government in the Advancement of Cultural Values, which discusses censorship and the funding of art against the background of the US Helms Amendment; 13. Man at the Crossroads draws earlier themes together; the author makes the case for rejecting determinism and the “operant conditioning” of the Skinner school in favour of the moral progress of autonomous man through adherence to traditional ethical values.

Misbegotten, misnamed, antisocial homo oeconomicus is now contrasted with the more human personae of homo oeconomicus honorabilis, the “open”/ “Semi‐economic Man” of Pantaleoni and Marshall, the still arcane homo oeconomicus humanus of Nitsch and Malina, and (most recently) the positivistic (neo‐) homo socio‐economicus of Etzioni et al., which ‐‐in turn – harks back to Smith′s Theory of 1759‐90. Showing the essential identity of modern economics and Aristotle′s oikonomikē, and recognising the ozone layer as pre‐eminent among once‐free but now very scarce resources (chrēmata ) that have to be utilised efficiently and administered prudently, the author joins forces with Herman Daly et al. in proposing an Aristotelian/Biblical homo oeconomus as a “Good Steward” in the spirit of Frigerio′s L′Economo Prudente (1629) and qualitative improvement over the being who has masqueraded as homo oeconomicus. Uniting this prudent conservator and caretaker of our natural endowment with “Homo Faber, the Subject‐creator of Social Economy” of an earlier work yields the antithesis of the veritable homo oeconomicus impudens of Classical‐Neoclassical infamy.