Search results

Cropsey′s 1955 invitation to reassess the particular metaphysic or political philosophy which underpins modern economics remains under‐appreciated. Reviews Cropsey′s 1955 argument in order to apprehend just what charges are being laid at the door of modern welfare economics. Considers the way in which Benjamin Ward misconstrued that argument in his 1956 “rebuttal” and the same misunderstandings and dividing lines which still exist in economics today. Offers illustration from the contemporary economics literature (e.g. regarding the market for baby adoption) to gauge the plausibility of Cropsey′s 1955 prediction that certain social, political and moral consequences will follow for society in the longer run if more traditional metaphysical teachings and conceptions of social welfare are undermined by what Cropsey sees as the potentially destructive metaphysics embodied in orthodox welfare economics.

This paper draws upon the work of Georgescu‐Roegen to outline some theoretical alternatives to standard welfare theory, and to examine the policy implications of discarding the Walrasian core of neoclassical economics.

Current work in behavioral economics and game theory shows that economic behavior depends on social context, a point understood by social economists for a hundred years or more. This work is related to Georgescu's contributions to utility theory and bioeconomics.

Neoclassical welfare economics continues to dominate economic theory and policy even though its theoretical foundations, economic man and perfect competition, have been discredited by mainstream theorists. Economic processes take place in specific social contexts and also coevolve with the biophysical universe.

Although modern economics is incorporating many of Georgescu's insights about human preferences it has yet to come to grips with the fact that human economic activity is shaped by its biophysical context. It is believed this should be a major focus of future economic research.

Provides further insights into welfare theory and bioeconomics.

To explain a fiscal rule that functions in a different way from a constitutional ideal of a welfare state, as Japan's case, and to give a literary examination of that kind of thoughts in modern economics and theory of public finance.

Compares neo‐institutional economics and fiscal sociology about the role of a government, using recent fiscal data of developed countries.

For neo‐institutional economics it is difficult to explain “welfare state” that substitutes the role of a family because the approach can only explain a complementary relationship of organizations in higher levels with lower organizations.

Points out that neo‐institutional economics should be examined by a historical formation of each rule and a real legal system in each country.

Discusses institutional economics and fiscal sociology from an aspect of possibility of applying to the field of public finance and social welfare.

Since the first Volume of this Bibliography there has been an explosion of literature in all the main areas of business. The researcher and librarian have to be able to uncover specific articles devoted to certain topics. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume III, in addition to the annotated list of articles as the two previous volumes, contains further features to help the reader. Each entry within has been indexed according to the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus and thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid information retrieval. Each article has its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. The first Volume of the Bibliography covered seven journals published by MCB University Press. This Volume now indexes 25 journals, indicating the greater depth, coverage and expansion of the subject areas concerned.

Need has persisted as a central concept in health policy debate. Despite confusion over its meaning and derivation it seems to summarise a belief by many policy makers that the concerns of health policy go beyond the merely economic. Economists, on their side, frequently stop at the borders of economics, leaving the concept of need to others, preferring where possible the concepts of demand and supply. This state of affairs increases the risk that the relationship of health care need to economic theory will not be well understood by policy makers, and that economists will misunderstand why their policy advice, when given, is so frequently ignored.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

Thus far, we have treated critical thinking descriptively and analytically in previous chapters. In this, the epilogue, as a closing chapter, we intend to consider critical thinking normatively – what it should be, ideally and holistically. We do this in four stages. First, recapitulating the essential concepts, theories, and paradigms of social welfare, social well-being, and social progress, we suggest that critical thinking should ultimately understand and further social progress and social well-being for all humanity. Second, we submit that the great wealth of corporate and free-market capitalism should – as spiritual capital – benefit all, especially the poor and the marginalized. Third, in order to realize the first two objectives, we posit that critical thinking should be repositioned as the art of aesthetic reasoning and aesthetic rationality such that, fourth, it is best realized within the framework of social mindfulness. We discuss major theories grounding these four parts and reflect on their managerial implications and propose future directions for critical thinking research and development.

This study aims to present the perspectives of heterodox economics and Islamic economics on environmental economics, as an alternative to mainstream economics, which takes economic growth as its main objective and argues that environmental problems will largely disappear when economic growth is achieved.

In this study, there was no intention to conduct a detailed analysis of heterodox economic models and Islamic economics. Instead, the approaches to the “environment,” which can be considered as an urgent need of the planet, were evaluated, and the inadequate proposals of the mainstream economics’ environmental approach were theoretically criticized and heterodox economics and Islamic economics were proposed as an alternative model.

Heterodox and Islamic economics offer alternative models of development prioritizing social and ecological justice to address environmental problems, which is in contrast to mainstream economics’ narrow focus on market mechanisms and individual rationality. Thus, engaging in more dialogue in the context of the environment is inevitable for both schools, considering the vast geography inhabited by Muslims and the proposed heterodox economic policies, and moreover, these approaches are modeled for the first time.

This article presents a synthesis of Islamic economics and heterodox thinking in contrast to mainstream economic policy, highlighting their similarities and differences and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential solutions of environmental problems. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this approach has not been previously explored, making it an original contribution to the literature.