Search results

The New Economic Society was formed in 1973 to promote the aims of the School of Economic Synthesis. Economic synthesis, since its early formation in the 1930s, has sought to integrate historical economics with social and neo‐classical economics. As the academic movement toward economic synthesis broadened, a more formal organisation became necessary. The New Economic Society (International School of Economic Synthesis) is an interdisciplinary association open to economists and others who are interested in developing a more social and humanistic economics, and a more realistic and scientific understanding of modern developed and less developed societies. The membership includes persons from numerous academic disciplines in many countries; formal chapters of the Society exist in the United Kingdom, Germany, India and Israel. At present, the membership is developing on an informal basis and no dues are requested. Membership information may be obtained from the following persons.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

Two important methodologies having some common grounds, but based on differing contexts and paradigms are Physical System Theory (PST) and System Dynamics (SD). The developments in both the fields have taken place almost independently, and attempts have been made to integrate the two to complement their strengths and limitations. This paper provides an overview of PST in terms of its foundations, philosophy, fundamental postulates, recent developments on its simplification and enlargement, and applications to socio‐economic and managerial systems. A comparison of PST is made with SD on different fronts so as to understand their similarities and differences for carving out their place in modelling of managerial and socio‐economic systems and integrating the two more meaningfully and flexibly. The paper is concluded emphasizing the need for a ‘Flexible System Theory’ which can relate many such systems based approaches and techniques on the whole continuum from hard to soft systems thinking to cater the whole spectrum of problem situations effectively.

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:

In this contribution to the increasing literature on the international division of labour and the New International Economic Order (NIEO) we wish to concentrate on some of the labour aspects of socio‐economic growth. This will be approached in the first section by considering socio‐economic growth as one aspect of the socio‐economic system outlined previously but here slightly expanded conceptually: in section two we briefly examine the ideas of the NIEO; and in the final section we consider some of the labour aspects of the NIEO.

Proposes two concepts for the empirical analysis of society‐nature interrelations: first, socio‐economic metabolism – the material and energy flows between societies and their natural environment and second, the colonization of nature – the sum of deliberate interventions into natural systems aimed at their “improvement” with respect to socio‐economic goals. Discusses empirical examples for sustainability indicators, focusing on landscape processes, and relates land use to the analysis of material and energy flows.

As civilisations become more advanced and complex from an economic perspective, the need to integrate and co‐ordinate human behaviour and institutions becomes more acute. The chief co‐ordinating devices are not government laws or regulations enacted to compel conformity and dependability in socio‐economic relationships, but the standards sometimes embodied in laws, more often outside the legal framework of government and properly so. Such standards, arrived at by voluntary consensus or common consent, are far too numerous, too complex, too widely and diversely applied to be amenable to codification into statute law or centralised systems of administration.

Society is considered as a large system and, therefore, the inevitable planning of its development as a whole must be such that the focus is on the interaction: nature — man — society. The following topics will be discussed: The participation and coordination of natural and social sciences in the formation of the future of the human society, in general, and of various given social systems in particular; the most important reasons favouring the systems approach to socio‐economic planning; the consideration of the whole planning — action feedback cycle, i.e. the simultaneous planning of both large wholes and their parts alongside the continuous coordination of interests and goals at various levels of management in the economy as well as in the whole society (the so‐called convergence planning); three levels of the development plan of any economic system (the technical, the economic and the social plan of development and their unity. Technical, economic and social proportions in the process of development); the relationship of development policy planning and the technology of planning (development policy planning as a general social activity. Optimality of the planning system).

The purpose of this paper is to explore socio-economic implications of decentralized autonomous self-owned businesses.

The authors take the approach of a case study analysis.

Unlike dark scenarios according to which almost half of our jobs are at risk in the wake of new emerging technologies such as AI and Blockchain (Frey and Osborne, 2013), the authors envision a world of decentralized autonomous self-owned businesses, using the example of the taxi market. The authors, first, outline their characteristics and how they work. Second, they elaborate on the socio-economic implications of markets where this novel kind of business enters. Third and most important, the authors argue that so-called robo-economic systems would be tantamount to a post-capitalistic society that is enforced by applying capitalistic principles.

The presented scenario of this paper is very futuristic and furthermore reduces a complex system quite drastically to be able to focus on the two implications of interest. Therefore, we are confronted with the necessity to take assumptions on socio-technical feasibilities and individual preferences. Most of these assumptions can be challenged (see Section 6.3).

The scenario presented by the authors stands in contrast to the fear that increased automation inherently leads to increased inequality. There is a general debate going on whether automation and digitalization will lead to a massive loss of employment, because machines will replace humans in many fields of work. Frey and Osborne (2013) estimate that nearly every second job is at risk to disappear in the coming decades because of computerization. Hence, many people fear to be left behind because of this development and inequality will increase tremendously as only those who own the machines will benefit directly from the profit share. In the scenario, however, the profits are mostly distributed among the consumers via reduced prices.

The proposed scenario seems to reconcile socialism (less private property) with liberalism (a radicalization of markets) and shows an effective way to tackle market power, the problem that certain persons and firms would benefit almost exclusively from the increased profit margins promised by automation.

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.