Search results

I first met Professor Rugina in 1974 at the annual meeting of the History of Economics Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On that occasion, he proposed that one session of future meetings be devoted to the problem of values and value‐judgements in economics. I supported that proposition, and a lasting friendship was struck.

1. Reason as the Source of Knowledge For medieval men, the existence of a personal and acting God was beyond any doubt. They were convinced that God intervenes into and interferes with the course of the world. The acting of God was a main factor for the explanation of natural phenomena. But with the passing of time, the understanding of nature improved and more and more phenomena could be explained by appeal to reason only and without recourse to actions of God. It became the general opinion that natural phenomena are subject to invariable natural laws. This clear departure from the God‐related understanding of nature happened when modern philosophy emerged in the 17th and 18th century. This modern philosophy saw nature as a mechanic construction. One of the leading philosophers of that period, Rene Descartes, argued that the laws of mechanics are the laws of nature. Descartes, the founder of rationalistic philosophy, was no atheist, but when he referred to God, it was only to become sure that what is clear (and rational) is also true.

In a recent essay entitled “Value‐relevant Sociology”, David Gray (1983:405–416) argues that if sociology has to be socially relevant, “it is essential that sociology becomes consciously value‐relevant, not value‐free.” He maintains that sociologists cannot analyse the consequences of social structure, forces, and change in a value‐free context if their works are to be relevant for social policies. He then goes on to say, “Between the extremes of value‐free, non‐relevant, sometimes trivial, sociology on the one hand, and immediate response to pressing socioeconomic problems and prevailing political winds on the other, where does the significant sociology lie?” (1983:406). For Gray, both extremes are inappropriate for a worthy academic discipline.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

This paper explores the moral and ethical dimension of indeterminacy in educational administration within the context of the managerialisation of education. Drawing on Max Weber’s seminal work on rationalisation, disenchantment, and the ethic of responsibility and the ethic of conviction, the author discusses the conflict between accountability and educational autonomy. While this conflict constitutes a key dilemma of educational leadership, educational theorists all too often attempt to resolve the conflict in favour of accountability over commitment consistent with managerial principles. By contrast, it is argued that mature educational leadership is characterised by an appreciation that conflicting ethical orientations are irreconcilable and that sound educational policy and practice must reflect practical realities and demands without sacrificing educational ideals.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on links between former “Heilbronn Symposia” on social, economic and political changes, and evolutionary concepts of the nineteenth and early twentieth century to solve the “Social Question” (“S. Qu.”) in Germany.

The approach is based on references to authors of German historical schools, social policy, labor economics and liberal economic policy. The paper supplies a literature review in the area of social policy. It starts from different earlier definitions of the S. Qu. An overview is provided of selected studies of formerly leading German authors, who basically investigated economic and social policies conditioned by the existing economic system. The contents demonstrate different perspectives of the considered authors: Wilhelm Roscher's long‐term, even “modern” view of the development of property and wealth; Gustav Schmoller's broad view of economic and social development, demanding a strong state, efficient organizations of entrepreneurs and trade unions; Lujo Brentano's demand of basic institutional changes concerning labor markets and social security by trade unions; authors of different social‐economic studies written at the twentieth century, like Leopold von Wiese, Walter Eucken, Gerhard Weisser and Hans Peter Widmaier.

The findings point out: not all of the considered authors applied the same long‐term view; all of the authors demonstrated negative social effects of industrialization; authors of the twentieth century pointed out a broader concern of S. Qu. and social policy than former authors.

Areas of future research include: a broadening perspective of long‐term studies, and an increasing demand for analyses of social disturbances and of effects of social policy on the distribution of life conditions.

The comparison of selected authors focusing on their views of the S. Qu. in Germany during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries allows for special conclusions related to the causes, performance and measures to solve or at least reduce the burden of the S. Qu. in the considered economy.

The aim of this paper is to show that there is need for revitalization of the normative branch of political economy. The first part of this paper will deal with some methodological reservations against a participation of economists in a rational discussion of normative issues. The second and third parts will outline the approaches and problems of two unconventional schools of thought in present‐day economics which make attempts to strive for a reconciliation of positive and normative economics.

In the tradition of Spencer Brown's Laws of Form, observation was defined in Luhmann's social systems theory as the designation of a distinction. In the sociological design, however, the designation specifies only a category for the observation. The distinction between observation and expectation enables the sociologist to appreciate the processing of meaning in social systems. Seeks to address this issue.

The specification of “the observer” in the tradition of systems theory is analyzed in historical detail. Inconsistencies and differences in perspectives are explicated, and the specificity of human language is further specified. The processing of meaning in social systems adds another layer to the communication.

Reflexivity about the different perspectives of participant observers and an external observer is fundamental to the sociological discourse. The ranges of possible observations from different perspectives can be considered as second‐order observations or, equivalently, as the specification of an uncertainty in the observations. This specification of an uncertainty provides an expectation. The expectation can be provided with (one or more) values by observations. The significance of observations can be tested when the expectations are properly specified.

The expectations (second‐order observations) are structured and therefore systemic attributes to the discourse. However, the metaphor of a (meta‐)biological observer has disturbed the translation of social systems theory into sociological discourse. Different discourses specify other expectations about possible observations. By specifying second‐order observations as expectations, social systems theory and sociocybernetics can combine the constructivist with an empirical approach.