nep-hme New Economics Papers
on Heterodox Microeconomics
Issue of 2020‒11‒02
eleven papers chosen by
Carlo D’Ippoliti
Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”

  1. The Nature of Farming: Peasantness and entrepreneurship revisited through the lens of diverging survival strategies of farms within the same micro-territory, Wallonia, Belgium By Line Louah
  2. The Times They Are A-Changing? Exploring the potential shift away from the neoliberal political-economic paradigm By Laurie Laybourn-Langton; Laurie Macfarlane; Michael Jacobs
  3. Women Leaders and Social Performance: Evidence from Financial Cooperatives in Senegal By Anaïs Périlleux; Ariane Szafarz
  4. The New Role of Agricultural Cooperatives in Pooling and Distributing Tax Deductions By Kenkel, Phil; McKee, Greg; Boland, Mike; Jacobs, Keri
  5. The Performance of Consumers' Cooperatives in America By Pencavel, John
  6. Geographic Diversity in Economic Publishing By Simon D Angus; Kadir Atalay; Jonathan Newton; David Ubilava
  7. Das Wissenschaftsverständnis der Volkswirtschaftslehre in der Kritik: Implikationen für die Vision einer pluralen Ökonomik By Reinke, Rouven
  8. How Capitalism and Islamic Economics Supplement Each Other By Mamoon, Dawood
  9. La politique économique aujourd'hui face à la Nation, l'Etat et les rapports de classe By Jérôme Maucourant; Bruno Tinel
  10. Relationship configurations for procuring from social enterprises By Osama Meqdadi; Thomas Johnsen; Mark Pagell
  11. Neuroeconomics: reliable, scientifically legitimate and useful knowledge for economists? By Daniel Serra

  1. By: Line Louah
    Abstract: Considerable number of studies are produced to deal with one of the most important challenges of the 21th century, which is the triple challenge of: regenerating the life supporting services provided by the Earth system, achieving food and nutrition sovereignty that leaves no one behind, and ensuring that global food systems support socio-environmental justice. This triple challenge is intrinsically linked to the Gordian knot that characterizes present-day global agriculture, at once vital and threatening to human society. In the present study, this global Gordian knot is explored through the lens of the trajectories of a few dozen farming systems, all located in a micro-territory of Wallonia (Southern Belgium) at the heart of the old industrial Europe. The agroecosystems under study are all family farms, which are among the survivors of a socio-professional group that has shrunk dramatically in just a few decades. Our broad objective is to gain insight into the tenets of transition towards sustainable farming systems in Wallonia.An exploratory research phase contributes to set the scene of our 'core research'. The exploratory study shows that three types of discourses, and two opposite paradigms, split the conversation among Walloon stakeholders on the path to improve agriculture; moreover, it suggests that transition is mainly a matter of cognitive lock-in. Our core research builds upon these premises, while the 'Peasant Principle' (put forward by J.D. van der Ploeg) stands out as its main theoretical background. Our broad objective may therefore be reformulated as 'gaining insight into the tenets of repeasantization in Wallonia'. This is addressed through three research questions, namely: 'What makes a farming system more or less peasant?'; 'What is the link between farm survival strategies and the cognitive (un)locking process?'; and 'How to support repeasantization?'. Our approach is grounded into two deep-probing field studies. The first one is empirical, and essentially stems from a sample of 23 neighbouring farm families located in a homogeneous window of Wallonia, and whose trajectories have been explored through semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The second field study is the in-depth review of what we term 'Farming Assessment Normal Science' (FANS), which refers to usual (i.e. mainstream) farm productivity assessment, with or without sustainability concerns, and encompassing both agronomic and economic farm productive performance. Following an abductive and interdisciplinary approach, we make the realities of encountered farm families dialoguing with a set of theories and disciplines all along the four chapters of the core research – this set includes the Peasant Principle, agricultural accounting, orthodox economics, economic history, (agro)ecology, heterodox economic schools, thermodynamics and psychodynamics of work.The core research begins with the first proposal framework to build a situated tool assessing farm 'peasantness degree' (PD), and framed by the Peasant Principle. The application of this framework to our Walloon case study results in a 'PD tool' specifically designed to assess the relative peasantness of farms under study. By translating the broad dimensions of the Peasant Principle into 168 very tangible situated indicators, the resulting PD tool provides a fine-grained insight on what makes a farm more or less peasant in Wallonia. Economic and agronomic productivity indicators, usually used to compare farms, had to be left out from our comparative analysis. The reflexive process inherent to the PD tool construction has thus raised the following question: 'Why usual (economic and agronomic) productivity indicators turn out to be unfit to compare farming styles?'. This emerging question is first addressed by showing that FANS is rooted into orthodox economics, meaning that, with or without sustainability concerns, usual assessment views farms through the 'Firm model', and thus relies on input-output analysis to assess farm agronomic and economic performance. Through the lenses of both, (i) the diverging realities and peasantness degrees of investigated Walloon families, and (ii) the nature of the farming process, five categories of issues affecting the validity of FANS are put forward. The first category is about practical issues, and the other categories relate to conceptual issues. The three first categories only relate to farm economic assessment, whereas the fourth and fifth categories relate to both, agronomic and economic farm productivity assessment.Altogether, these issues not solely evidence that usual productivity indicators and usual sustainability assessment provide misleading insights on farm performance, but that they provide 'bias-asymmetry' insights, that is: the more a farming style depletes the (re)productive capacity of its agroecosystem, the more its productive performance is overestimated; in contrast, the more a style cares to replenish the (re)productive capacity of its agroecosystem, the more its productive performance is underestimated. Hence we evidence that FANS tailored, and keeps sustaining, 'the productivity myth' and. As this mainstream science has (and continue to) shape(d) agricultural prescriptions and development, we also show that these are oriented towards the loss of agroecosystems' (re)productive capacity.While unveiling the productivity myth and its real-life implications, a framework drawing on the 'Flow-Fund model' (put forward by the heterodox economist N. Georgescu-Roegen) emerged as a sound alternative to assess farm productivity performance. Through the lens of the flow-fund balance, we rely on the distinctly different ways Walloon farmers manage their agroecosystem, and on the metabolic nature of the farming process, to empirically and theoretically demonstrate that: the more a farming style complies with the peasant mode, the more the farming process (or flow-fund balance) is managed with art, and coproduces negentropy; conversely, the less a farming style entails peasantness, the more the farming process is denatured, and the more entropy is by-produced. Thus, at the same time, a metabolic interpretation of the Peasant Principle is drawn up.From all these empirical and theoretical insights, the following question emerges: 'How do surviving farm families cope with decennia of prescriptions oriented towards the depletion of the (re)productive capacity of agroecosystems, and thus towards of the depletion of their own capacity to remain farmers?'. Dealing with this emerging question merges with one last aspect that needed to be addressed, namely the social phe- nomena of suffering, deactivation and suicide that undermine the modern farming world of Wallonia and beyond. Assuming that these social phenomena are closely tied, we focus on the root causes of social suffering among surviving farmers, and give the floor to the statements of encountered farm families. After highlighting strong identity markers that set Walloon farmers as a singular socio-profes-sional group, the sensitive issue of suffering is addressed through collective narratives of encountered farmers on :the post- WW2 mutation of the Walloon farming work environment towards a modern environment with increased and plural hostility. Then we propose a typology of the strategies, deployed by the investigated farmers of Piccard Wallonia, to survive such hostility. By articulating our peasantness framework and the 'psychodynamic model of work-related suffering' (put forward by Ch. Dejours), five types of survival strategies are described, and labelled according to their corresponding category of farmers: the new peasants, the TMCE-ists (i.e. conservation agriculture farmers), the racing strugglers, the lost strugglers and the near-deactivated. These insights on farmers' narratives into the plurality of the hostility, on the contrasting degrees to which it undermines farmers' psychosocial health, and on farm diverging strategies, altogether challenge the commonly held vision that economic hardship is the root cause of agricultural pro- pensity to suffering, deactivation and suicide. Instead these empirical insights verify our interpretative hypothesis, i.e. the mechanical link between farmers' suffering and their relation to prescriptions. The loss of peasantness indeed appears as a root cause of the ill-being of the modern farming world.To conclude, this work evidences that the productivity myth has given rise to the (miscalled) 'productivist' paradigm and to a system of prescriptions oriented towards the depletion of the (re)productive capacity of agroecosystems – in turn undermining the Earth system's (re)production capacity. The psychosocial health of farmers clearly is a key fund element, and its depletion appears as the ultimate bend of the vicious downward spiral fueled by the productivity myth. We furthermore conclude that the peasant mode of production stands for managing the farming process in a coherent and sustainable manner, whereas non- peasant (so-called entrepreneurial and capitalistic) modes incoherently and unsustainably denature the farming process. Hence 'completed' repeasantization appears as a negentropic process of fund replenishment, ensuring wealth coproduction at all scales – from the farm to the Earth system. 'Completed' de-peasantization (or industrialisation), for its part, appears as an entropic process of fund depletion, causing illth at all scales.On this basis, we suggest an alternative representation of agricultural modes and processes, which comes down a metabolic reconfiguration of the triangle proposed by J.D. van der Ploeg, and takes the form of a multidimensional continuum opposing two poles.The main lesson learned from this research thesis is that, to unravel the Gordian knot bound to modern agriculture, we need to break free from the productivity myth. In the face of today's challenges, the usual yet fallacious statement that 'losing peasantness may enhance farm productive performance and sustainability', is no longer be an option. To support the transition towards sustainable farming worlds, transformative support systems are needed, and such systems require to design and rely on indicators assessing the real performance of farms and agriculture. Therefore, as a perspective for further research, we propose the 'Farm Metabolism (FM) framework', i.e. a conceptual and analytical proposal that basically implies to rely on agroecosystem's flow-fund analysis. The metabolic (or biophysical) assessment framework sketched out here therefore paves the way to a strong sustainability assessment of farm productive performance. In turn, it could contribute to support the necessary repeasantization of 'modernized' farmers, for the well-being of farmers and human society as a whole.
    Abstract: Un nombre considérable d'études sont réalisées pour répondre à l'un des plus importants défis du 21ème siècle, à savoir le triple défi de parvenir à la souveraineté alimentaire et nutritionnelle de tous, de régénérer les services vitaux fournis par le système Terre, et de veiller à ce que les systèmes alimentaires globaux contribuent à la justice socio-environnementale pour tous. Ce triple défi est foncièrement lié au nœud gordien qui caractérise l'agriculture moderne :une activité vitale et menaçante à la fois pour la société humaine. Dans la présente étude, ce nœud gordien à l'échelle globale est exploré à travers le prisme des trajectoires de quelques dizaines de systèmes agricoles situés dans un micro-territoire de la Wallonie (Belgique du Sud), soit au cœur de la vieille Europe industrielle. Les agroécosystèmes étudiés sont tous des fermes familiales, et les fermiers rencontrés comptent parmis les survivants d'un groupe socioprofessionnel qui s'est considérablement réduit en quelques décennies seulement. Notre objectif général consiste à com- prendre les tenants et aboutissants de la transition vers des systèmes agricoles durables en Wallonie.Une phase de recherche exploratoire contribue à poser le contexte empirique du cœur de notre recherche. Cette étude exploratoire montre que trois types de discours, et deux paradigmes opposés, divisent la 'conversation' des acteurs wallons sur la manière d'améliorer l'agriculture; de plus, ce premier apercu empirique suggère que la transition est avant tout une question de verrou cognitif. Le cœur de notre recherche se fonde sur ces prémisses, et le 'Principe Paysan' (proposé par J.D. van der Ploeg) s'impose comme le cadre théorique principale. Notre objectif général peut dès lors être reformulé comme suit :'comprendre les tenants et aboutissants de la repaysannisation wallonne. Pour ce faire, trois questions de recherche sont posées :'En quoi un système agricole wallon est-il plus ou moins paysan qu'un autre ?', 'Quel est le lien entre les stratégies de survie des familles agricoles et le processus de (dé)verrouillage cognitif ?', et 'Comment favoriser le processus de repaysannisation ?'. Notre approche est fondée sur deux études de cas approfondies. La première est empirique, et concerne essentiellement un échantillon de 23 familles agricoles voisines, situées dans une fenêtre homogène de Wallonie ;leurs trajectoires ont été explorées par des entretiens semi-structurés et de l'observation participante. Notre deuxième étude de cas est un examen approfondi de ce que nous appelons la 'science normale de l'évaluation des fermes' (FANS, en anglais), c’est-à-dire l'évaluation scientifique usuelle de la productivité des fermes, dans le cadre ou non d'une évaluation de durabilité, et qui concerne à la fois la performance agronomique et économique des fermes. De par l'abductivité et l'interdisciplinarité qui caractérisent notre approche, nous faisons dialoguer les réalités des familles agricoles rencontrées avec un ensemble de théories et de disciplines tout au long des quatre chapitres qui forment le coeur de notre recherche – cet ensemble inclut le Principe Paysan, la comptabilité agricole, l'économie orthodoxe, l'histoire économique, l'(agro)écologie, des écoles économiques hétérodoxes, la thermodynamique et la psychodynamique du travail.Le cœur de la recherche débute avec la proposition d'une démarche analytique fondée sur le Principe Paysan, et visant à construire un outil comparatif du 'degré de paysanneté' (DP) de fermes. L'application de cette démarche donne lieu à un 'outil DP' adapté au contexte spécifique de notre étude de cas wallon. Cet outil traduit les dimensions générales du Pincipe Paysan en 168 indicateurs 'situés' très concrets, permettant ainsi de fournir un aperçu finement détaillé de ce qui rend une ferme wallonne plus ou moins paysanne qu'une autre. Les indicateurs de productivité agronomique et économique usuellement utilisés pour comparer les fermes, n'ont pas pu être inclus dans notre analyse comparative. Le processus réflexif inhérent à la construction de l'outil DP a ainsi soulevé la question suivante :'Pourquoi les indicateurs usuels de productivité agricole se sont-ils révélés inadaptés à la comparaison des styles agricoles ?'.Cette question émergeante est d'abord abordée en montrant que FANS est ancré dans l'économie orthodoxe. Cela implique que la manière usuelle d'évaluer les fermes – qu'il s'agisse ou non d'une évaluation de durabilité – utilise le 'modèle de la Firme' et, dès lors, se fonde sur des analyses intrants-extrants pour comparer les performances agronomiques et économiques des fermes et de l'agriculture. A travers les prismes, (i) des réalités et des degrés de paysanneté contrastés des familles agricoles enquêtées et (ii) de la nature du processus agricole, nous mettons en évidence cinq catégories de problèmes qui contestent la validité de FANS. La première catégorie se rapporte à des problèmes pratiques, et les quatre suivantes soulèvent des problèmes conceptuels. Non seulement l'ensemble de ces problèmes démontre que les indicateurs usuels de productivité (économique et agronomique) agricole, et les évaluations usuelles de durabilité agricole, donnent lieu à des arguments scientifiques erronés. Mais de plus, il est démontré que ces arguments comportent le biais-asymmétrique suivant :au plus un style agricole épuise la capacité (re)productive de l'agroécosystème, au plus sa performance productive est sur-estimée ;au contraire, au plus un style agricole veille à régénérer la capacité (re)productive de l'agroécosystème, au plus sa performance productive est sous-estimée. Nous montrons ainsi que FANS a conçu, et continue à entretenir, le 'mythe de la productivité'. Or ce mythe a façonné les prescriptions et le développement agricoles qui, par conséquent, sont orientés vers la perte de la capacité (re)productive des agroécosystèmes.Parallèlement à la mise en lumière du mythe de la productivité et de ses implications réelles, un cadre s'inspirant du 'modèle Flow-Fund' (formalisé par N. Georgescu-Roegen) laisse entrevoir une alternative prometteuse pour évaluer la productivité (agronomique et économique) réelle des fermes. A travers le prisme de la balance flow-fund, nous nous fondons sur les manières distinctement différentes dont les fermiers wallons gèrent leur agroécosystème, et sur la nature métabolique du processus agricole, pour démontrer empiriquement et théoriquement l'argument suivant :au plus un style agricole est proche du mode paysan, au plus le processus agricole (ou la balance flow-fund) est géré(e) avec art et co-produit de la néguentropie ;à l'inverse, au moins le style est paysan, au plus le processus agricole est dénaturé et au plus de l'entropie est coproduite. Ainsi, dans le même temps, nous établissons une interprétation métabolique du Principe Paysan.De tous ces constats empiriques et théoriques, la question suivante émerge :'Comment les familles agricoles qui ont survécu font-elles face aux décennies de prescriptions orientées vers l'épuisement de la capacité (re)productive de leurs agroécosystèmes, et donc vers l'épuisement de leur capacité à demeurer fermiers ?'. Cette question rejoint un dernier aspect qu'il était nécessaire d'aborder, à savoir les phénomènes sociaux de souffrance, de désactivation et de suicide qui minent le monde agricole moderne de Wallonie et d'ailleurs. Partant du postulat que ces phénomènes sociaux sont étroitement liés, nous nous concentrons sur les causes profondes de la souffrance sociale des fermiers subsistants, en veillant tout particulèrement à laisser la parole aux familles et fermiers que nous avons côtoyés. Nous commençons par souligner des marqueurs identitaires forts qui montrent que les agriculteurs wallons, au delà de leur hétérogénéité, forment un groupe socio-professionnel singulier. La question épineuse de la souffrance est abordée à travers le récit collectif des fermiers sur la mutation d'après-guerre, de l'environnement de travail agricole vers un environnement moderne caractérisé par une hostilité accrue et plurielle. Nous proposons alors une typologie des stratégies, déployées par les fermiers enquêtés de Wallonie picarde, pour subsister face à une telle hostilité. L'exercice typologique se fonde sur l'articulation de notre cadre de paysanneté et sur le 'modèle dynamique de la souffrance psychique au travail' (proposé par Ch. Dejours), mettant en évidence cinq types de stratégies de survie. Celles-ci sont désignées par la catégorie de fermiers qui leur est associée :les nouveaux paysans, les TMCE-istes (soit les fermiers en agriculture de conservation), les fonceurs à leur perte, et les désorientés. Cet aperçu empirique sur des récits et des stratégies de fermiers, réfute la vision communément véhiculée selon laquelle les difficultés économiques sont la cause profonde de la propension agricole à la souffrance, à la désactivation et au suicide. En revanche, cet aperçu confirme notre hypothèse interprétative, à savoir :l'existence d'un lien mécanique entre souffrance des fermiers et leur rapport aux prescriptions. La perte de paysanneté apparaît en effet comme une cause profonde du mal-être du monde agricole moderne. Pour conclure, ce travail démontre que le mythe de la productivité a engendré le paradigme (appelé à tort) 'productiviste' et le système de prescriptions agricoles qui dominent le monde agricole et l'orientent vers l'érosion de la capacité reproductive des agroécosystèmes – contribuant ainsi à l'érosion de la capacité reproductive du système Terre. La santé psychosociale des fermiers émerge clairement comme un des élément-clé du fund des agroécosystèmes, et son érosion apparaît comme le stade ultime de la spirale délétère alimentée par le mythe de la productivité. Nous parvenons également à la conclusion que le mode de production paysan signifie gérer le processus agricole de manière cohérente et durable; les modes non paysans (dits entrepreneuriaux et capitalistiques) eux dénaturent le processus agricole de manière incohérente et non durable. La repaysannisation 'aboutie' apparaît ainsi comme un processus néguentropique, producteur de richesse à tous les niveaux – du système agricole à celui de la Terre. La dépaysannisation (ou industrialisation) avancée des agroécosystèmes apparaît comme un processus entropique d'épuisement du fund, hautement producteur de coûts et de maux ('illth' en anglais) à tous les niveaux. C'est sur cette base, que nous proposons une représentation alternative des modes et processus agricoles. Essentiellement, cette représentation est une reconfiguration métabolique du triangle proposé par J.D. van der Ploeg, et se présent sous la forme d'un continuum multidimensionnel opposant deux pôles.La principale leçon tirée de cette thèse se résume ainsi :pour trancher le nœud gordien de l'agriculture moderne, il faut rompre avec le mythe de la productivité. Face aux défis actuels, l'argument usuel selon lequel 'la perte de paysanneté permet d'accroître les performances productives et la durabilité des fermes', n'est plus une option. Pour favoriser la transition vers des mondes agricoles durables, des systèmes de soutien transformateurs sont nécessaires, et ces systèmes requièrent de s'appuyer sur des indicateurs aptes à évaluer la performance réelle des styles agricoles et de l'agriculture. Nous proposons, en tant que perspective de recherche, le cadre 'Métabolisme de Ferme'. Cette proposition conceptuelle et analytique implique de se fonder sur des analyses flow-fund au niveau des agroécosystèmes, ouvrant ainsi la voie à une évaluation de la performance productive réelle des styles agricoles, et ce dans une perspective de durabilité forte. Le cadre 'Métabolisme de Ferme' pourrait dès lors contribuer à soutenir la repaysannisation des agroécosystèmes 'modernisés', nécessaire au bien-être des fermiers et à celui de l'ensemble de la société humaine.
    Keywords: Peasant Principle; Agriculture transition; Psychodynamics of farming work; Wallonia; Q methodology; Agricultural accounting; Peasantness assessment; Agricultural productivity assessment; Weak sustainability; Agricultural suffering; Farm metabolism; Agroecology; Farm Assessment Normal Science; Orthodox economics; Productivity myth; Flow-fund model
    Date: 2020–09–10
  2. By: Laurie Laybourn-Langton (Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), University College London (UCL)); Laurie Macfarlane (Institute for Innovation and Public Policy (IIPP), University College London (UCL)); Michael Jacobs (Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI), University of Sheffield)
    Abstract: Modern economic history can be roughly split into different eras in which certain sets of ideas dominate politics and policy-making. This paper seeks to understand if a shift in the ‘political economic paradigm’ is currently under way by inspecting the state of debates across a range of economic policy areas. It introduces the concept of ‘orthodox’, ‘modified’ and ‘alternative’ paradigms, corresponding to the status quo, its modification in the face of disruption or changed political goals, and a fundamental break from that status quo, respectively. Its central conclusion is that a significant shift is under way in many economic policy areas in many mainstream economic institutions. This shift has mainly occurred from ‘orthodox’ paradigm approaches – those that might broadly be described as based on neoclassical principles – to a ‘modified’ approach that alters the neoclassical approach in many ways but maintains its fundamental basis. Little to no movement towards what might be described as truly ‘alternative’ paradigm approaches is yet under way, though some mainstream institutions are exhibiting openness to these ideas. As such, an overall paradigm shift away from the dominant neoliberal paradigm is not yet underway.
    Keywords: political-economic paradigm; neoliberalism; heterodox economics
    JEL: B20 B25 E00 H10 P16 P50
    Date: 2019–06
  3. By: Anaïs Périlleux; Ariane Szafarz
    Abstract: How do women leaders such as board members and top managers influence the social performance of organizations? This paper addresses the question by exploiting a unique database from a Senegalese network of 36 financial cooperatives. We scrutinize the loan-granting decisions, made jointly by the locally elected board and the top manager assigned by the central union of the network. Our findings are threefold. First, female-dominated boards favor social orientation. Second, female managers tend to align their strategy with local boards' preferences. Third, the central union tends to assign male managers to female-dominated boards, probably to curb the boards’ social orientation.
    Keywords: Gender; Leadership; Governance; Microfinance; Africa; Senegal
    JEL: G20 J54 O16 G34 O55 L31
    Date: 2020–10–06
  4. By: Kenkel, Phil; McKee, Greg; Boland, Mike; Jacobs, Keri
    Abstract: U.S. agricultural cooperatives create unique benefits for their producer members (USDA- RBCS, 1990). Cooperatives create economies of scale and scope in procuring inputs and marketing and processing commodities (Sexton 1990). Those scale economies also help to provide access to markets. Cooperatives provide an unseen and often unappreciated benefit in offsetting market power and maintaining the competitive environment. Agricultural cooperatives are unique in that they are an extension of the farm or ranch. Producer members can benefit at the farm level through prices and availability of services or at the cooperative level through patronage refunds. When many agricultural cooperatives first formed, they were able to pass along volume discounts for buying inputs at greater bargaining power or pass along volume premiums through greater negotiating ability. Over time, Congress passed various laws and the Internal Revenue Service codified cooperative taxation principles (Frederick 2013). Beginning in 2004, a new member benefit emerged from Congress, which was revised in the tax reform legislation of 2018 and again in 2019. Agricultural marketing cooperatives have been able to receive a federal income tax deduction and can retain that deduction at the cooperative level or pass some or all of the deduction on to their producer members.
    Date: 2019–10–01
  5. By: Pencavel, John (Stanford University)
    Abstract: A series of observations on various types of cooperatives is constructed from intermittent surveys between 1920 and 1950 and, where possible, these are extended to recent years. These observations allow several questions to be taken up: how well have organizations that resemble consumers' cooperatives fared in the U.S. economy over the last century? ; are consumers' cooperatives viable organizations in an economy dominated by capital-owned firms? ; where have cooperatives made their mark?; what role has government played in the patterns of cooperative development? Suggestions for further research on cooperatives are proposed.
    Keywords: cooperatives, mutual organizations, utilities, medical care, agriculture
    JEL: P13 P17 N82
    Date: 2020–10
  6. By: Simon D Angus (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University); Kadir Atalay (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University); Jonathan Newton (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University); David Ubilava (SoDa Laboratories, Monash University)
    Abstract: Is the representation of editors at prestigious economics journals geographically diverse? Using data on the affiliations of academics working in an editorial capacity at such journals, we map the locations of editorial power within the economics profession. This allows us to rank institutions, countries and continents according to this measure of power. In addition, by considering the average distance of a journal’s editorial affiliations from a geographic mean, we rank journals by geographic diversity. The magnitudes of the geographic differences we find are striking. Over half the journals we consider have over two thirds of their editorial power located in the USA. A large majority of journals have a tiny editorial contribution from academics located outside of North America and Europe. Any one of the states of California, Massachusetts and Illinois has more power than the four continents of Asia, South America, Africa and Australasia combined.
    Keywords: editorial power, geography, diversity, economics
    JEL: A10 A14
    Date: 2020–09
  7. By: Reinke, Rouven
    Abstract: [Einleitung] Kritik an der Volkswirtschaftslehre (VWL) scheint beginnend mit Karl Marx und John Maynard Keynes zu einem konstanten Begleiter der ökonomischen Disziplin zu gehören. Während diese Kritik im deutschsprachigen Raum im Zuge der gesellschaftspolitischen Öffnung der Universitäten durch heterodoxe Besetzungen von Lehrstühlen zumindest temporär Widerhall gefunden hat, ist seitdem eine in immer stärker werdende Dominanz des Mainstreams in Forschung und Lehre und eine gleichzeitige Marginalisierung kritischer Ansätze zu beobachten (Vgl. hier z.B. Heise et al. 2017) Zwar sind mit der Arbeitsgruppe Alternative Wirtschaftspolitik ("Memo-Gruppe") und dem Arbeitskreis "Politische Ökonomie" (AK PolÖK) institutionelle Sprachrohre einer heterodoxen Ökonomik entstanden, ein sicht- und hörbares Gegengewicht zum Mainstream1 konnte sich dadurch allerdings nicht etablieren. Erst durch die "post-autistische" Bewegung französischer Studierender und Nachwuchswissenschaftler zu Beginn der 2000er-Jahre scheint die Debatte um den Zustand der VWL neuen Schwung erhalten zu haben. Auch im deutschsprachigen Raum hat die kritische Auseinandersetzung mit dem ökonomischen Mainstream in Form des "Netzwerk Plurale Ökonomik" einen neuen institutionellen Raum gefunden. Dabei richtet sich die Kritik des Netzwerkes insbesondere gegen die Dominanz des neoklassischen Mainstreams. Damit ist allerdings auch eine dezidierte Forderung nach einer Neugestaltung der Disziplin verbunden. So wird neben einem theoretischen und methodischen Pluralismus auch eine stärke Integration interdisziplinärer Ansätze in die Lehre sowie eine didaktische Modernisierung mit reflexiven und wissenschaftstheoretischen Elementen gefordert (Vgl. International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics 2014; Netzwerk Plurale Ökonomik 2012, 2020). Von heterodoxen Ökonomen ist in der kritischen Debatte zur Verfasstheit der ökonomischen Disziplin auf der einen Seite eine grundsätzliche Ablehnung der gesamten Standardökonomik sowie die damit einhergehende Notwendigkeit einer wissenschaftlichen Revolution im Sinne Thomas Kuhns (Vgl. Davidson 2004) zu vernehmen. Auf der anderen Seite wird die Forderung nach einem paradigmatischen Pluralismus vorgetragen, der die Konkurrenz inkompatibler und inkommensurabler Forschungsprogramme (Lakatos 1974a, 1974b) bzw. Denkstile (Fleck 1980) explizit beinhaltet (Vgl. Dobusch und Kapeller 2012; Heise 2018). [...]
    Date: 2020
  8. By: Mamoon, Dawood
    Abstract: N iterations of Prisoner’s dilemma would determine outcomes that favor humanity at large towards material welfare at a universal scale through scientific innovation but the motivation comes through examples of leadership within human societies that have opted for kindness, cooperation and collective welfare. The paper tries to unlock one of the most pressing questions in human history whether bringing peace to this polarized world when there is no armed conflict among countries and within countries is possible. The paper suggests that transforming historic grievances into practiced competition between nations is possible by providing fair and level playing fields where populations have equal access to information and opportunities and thus would not be exploited but would contribute to their own welfare. It is very important for each country to work on international commitments like SDGs to finally have a world bereft of violent conflict. The paper explains the path from income centric measures of human emancipation like in case of poverty line towards more sustainable and inclusive definitions of development that include qualitative definitions of progress like quality health and education representing capability approach by Amartya Sen while not excluding good governance practices adopted by the government. There is a difference between Capitalism that defines progress through monetary outcomes and Islamic economics that harness and define human emancipation on wider definitions of progress including values like trust, ethics, culture, and rights. In this context the article explains to its audience why Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan refers to the golden era of Islamic caliphate of Umer Bin Khatab who put the foundations of an economic system where human welfare was practiced through universal application of human progress based on economic, social, cultural and ethical emancipation. The paper explains that according to Islamic values monetary asset ownership that is a contract between the government and the people should have application for ethical dispensation and strong welfare purpose rather than driving greed in guise of incentive.
    Keywords: Peace, SDGs, Neo Classical Economics, Islamic Economics, Feminist Studies, Poverty, Welfare Economics
    JEL: N3 P1 P51
    Date: 2020–10
  9. By: Jérôme Maucourant (Université Jean-Monnet de Saint-Etienne et Triangle); Bruno Tinel (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne)
    Abstract: How can we characterize the contradictions between the state and the nation, while taking into account the fact that real society is divided into classes? This paper analyses these elements based on the implications of a full employment policy following Kalecki's analysis. We also find that to articulate the notions of state, nation and social classes it is relevant to examine the idea of a dual nature of the state, of which certain elements are found in Marx. Finally, we address the current challenges of economic policy taking into account the trends that tend to erode the role of the state and nations
    Keywords: State; nation; social classes; economic policy; full employment; sovereignty
    JEL: B51 E12 E62 H50 P34
    Date: 2020–10
  10. By: Osama Meqdadi (Audencia Business School); Thomas Johnsen (Audencia Business School); Mark Pagell (UCD - University College Dublin [Dublin])
    Abstract: Purpose: This paper explores how the procurement function initiates and develops relationships with social enterprises that are intended to induce social impact in the supply networks of for-profit firms. Design/methodology/approach: The paper utilises an in-depth case study involving a focal company, first-tier supplier, nongovernmental organisation and four social enterprises. Findings: Tension mitigation that arises between social and commercial logics occurs via individual relationships through building trust, dependency manipulation, monitoring and supplier development activities. Deeper insights are revealed when triadic relationships are viewed within a quadratic relationship configuration that enables better capturing the essence of supply networks. Research limitations/implications: The paper is based on a single case study, limiting empirical generalisability. Future research could consider multiple case studies to reveal different types of relationship configurations that induce social impact in supply networks. Practical implications: Societal goals can be met while maintaining supply network economic performance if procurement involves a trusted third party such as a nongovernmental organisation and helps to develop social enterprises as suppliers. Originality/value: The paper contributes to the sustainable supply chain management literature by reporting on a novel procurement approach for enhancing social sustainability through cooperation with social enterprises. The paper also contributes to supply network theory by demonstrating how quadratic relationship analysis can be used to reveal novel relationship configurations within supply networks.
    Keywords: Social procurement,Social impact,Social enterprises,Supply network,Quadratic relationship
    Date: 2020
  11. By: Daniel Serra (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - FRE2010 - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)
    Abstract: Thanks to the joint collaboration of economics, psychology, and neuroscience from the late 1990s, "neuroeconomics" sheds new light on decision-making analysis. As with any emerging discipline, however, neuroeconomics raises many practical and methodological questions resulting in debates and controversies that this article discusses by addressing three major issues concerning the contribution made so far to knowledge: Is it reliable? Is it scientifically legitimate? Is it useful for the economist? Without claiming to be exhaustive, this analytical framework enables understanding of the thrust of the major criticisms of neuroeconomics and at the same time the nature of the likely responses.
    Keywords: Decision-making processes,Neuroscience methods,Brain data,Design of experiments,Economic methodology,Philosophy of science,Computational models,Quantitative research
    Date: 2020–10–02

This nep-hme issue is ©2020 by Carlo D’Ippoliti. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.