Journal of Socio-Economics
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Milan Zafirovski, Barry B. Levine Journal of Socio-Economics. 1999. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 309-334.
The task is to explore social underpinnings in economic exchanges. This oration is undertaken within the frame of reference of socio-economics that centers on the multifarious social and cultural variables of economic phenomena. In particular, the socio-economic perspective on the market, focusing on the social setting of market exchanges, is utilized. As such, this exploration probes under the surface of (seemingly) cost-benefit induced exchange processes and uncovers a far more complex social structure and dynamics underlying these processes. Hence, these processes are analyzed as constituting socio-economic categories of the market. The social-cultural contingency of economic exchange, especially of its market varieties, is the key hypothesis. This signifies that market exchange, just as production, distribution, and consumption, is a dependent variable on concrete social-historical conditions, rather than being a human universal. The approach proposed here provides an alternative to the purely economic conception, which treats exchange processes as strictly economic variables driven by an intrinsic logic and insulated from other social relations. The mainstream economic literature's lack of consistent applications of such an approach to market exchange contrasts with the richness of such applications in the field of socio-economics. An attempt is made to contribute toward further elaboration and application of socio-economics.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Gary D. Lynne Journal of Socio-Economics. 1999. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 267-288.
Microeconomics envisions a single decision-maker in a firm or household who is presumed to experience economic relationships only in markets. This theory is largely silent regarding the moral dimension, i.e., the nature of the invisible hand, and how it unconsciously affects the self acting in said markets. Amitai Etzioni, the founder of socioeconomics, offered the vision of the moral dimension as a component of the self. Metaeconomics operationalizes this vision by making explicit the Strict Father moral dimension in the invisible hand and recognizing interdependence of self when Nurturant Parent morality is operant. It builds upon a tripartite, multiple-self concept, with a mediating adult who balances the pleasures with the moral dimension in finding a satisfactory mix of self - and we-interests. By making this dimension explicit, metaeconomics reintegrates ethics and economics, includes values and community, and proposes the starting point for a common analytical engine for all socioeconomists.
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Herbert Kiesling Journal of Socio-Economics. 1999. Vol. 28. No. 6. P. 653-663.
Economics can be considered the science that deals with marketplace efficiency, or it can be viewed as a social science, which deals with human policy goals considered generally. The view Amartya Sen (1987) takes of the matter is that the broader view is the more correct. There is one large and important group of human goals that the mainstream professional economists systematically omit from their discipline: collective goals, especially other-regarding collective goals. How investigators can isolate lists of social goals that persons consider important is discussed. Using these it should not be difficult for social scientists to proceed to provide analysis, drawing upon all the relevant theoretical and imperical knowledge, and so making predictions for opportunity costs in terms of all the other goals of moving a unit closer to any goal (particularly a goal of central concern).
Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Paul Slovic, Melissa Finucane, Ellen Peters Journal of Socio-Economics. 2002. Vol. 31. No. 4. P. 329-342.
This paper describes two fundamental modes of thinking. The experiential mode, is intuitive, automatic, natural, and based upon images to which positive and negative affective feelings have been attached through learning and experience. The other mode is analytic, deliberative, and reason based. I describe recent empirical research illuminating "the affect heuristic" wherein people rapidly consult their affective feelings, when making judgments and decisions. This heuristic enables us to be rational actors in many situations. It works beautifully when experience enables us to anticipate accurately how we will like or dislike the consequences of our decisions. However, it fails miserably when the consequences turn out to be much different than we anticipated. In the latter circumstances, the rational actor may well become the rational fool.
The volunteer's folly and socio-economic man: Some thoughts on altruism, rationality, and community [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 15-12-2002Trevor M. Knox Journal of Socio-Economics. 1999. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 475-492.
Altruistic volunteers are either not truly altruistic or not rational, according to traditional economic analysis. They are not altruistic if they volunteer to receive a utility benefit, and they are not rational if they choose to volunteer when monetary contribution would be more efficient. Economic man is a fool to volunteer. However, socio-economic man is shrewder. Socio-economic man is moderately deontological, path-dependent, nonmonetary, nonrationally motivated, and community-minded. Corresponding elements of socio-economic rationality that allow for rational, altruistic volunteers are considerd. The five elements considered are: 1, nonconsequentialist reasons, 2. constitutive choices, 3. pricelessness, 4. nonrational motivation, and 5. community preference production.