|
on History and Philosophy of Economics |
| By: | Massimo Cervesato (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne) |
| Abstract: | This article contrasts the ontological foundations of two major strands of the public choice tradition: the Virginia school, led by James M. Buchanan, and the Bloomington school, represented by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom. While their early collaboration was grounded in a shared ambition to apply economic reasoning to political analysis, the Bloomington school remained long marginalized. Its renewed visibility following Elinor Ostrom's Nobel Prize in 2009 has prompted efforts to reconcile the two schools. This article argues, however, that such reconciliations are only possible at the cost of simplification, which overlooks an ontological divide concerning the nature of collective action and the so-called 'constitutional moment'. Buchanan's framework, centered on exchange among rational individuals and the principle of unanimity, stands in sharp contrast to the Ostroms' institutionalist approach, which emphasizes reciprocity and the formation of "communities of shared understanding" as the foundation of collective action. These ontological differences underpin distinct methodological commitments and ultimately entail important nuances in their practical approaches to public sector governance. In highlighting this contrast, the article also advances the relevance of social ontology as a conceptual lens for the history of economic thought |
| Keywords: | Constitutional Choice; Ostrom (Elinor); Ostrom (Vincent); Buchanan (James, M); Social Ontology; Rules; Methodological Individualism |
| JEL: | B25 B31 B41 B52 |
| Date: | 2025–07 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mse:cesdoc:25017 |
| By: | Charlier, Niels; Tideman, Nicolaus |
| Abstract: | We begin this essay with an analysis of the criticism of orthodox economics from a philosophy of science and methodological point of view. Rather than idealized models, a careless definition of ”capital” appears to be the problem. We owe this careless definition to John Bates Clark (1847–1938). Clark introduced a new paradigm that proposed that land is not a separate factor of production, but only a form of capital. His theory was a reaction to the American economist and philosopher Henry George (1839–1879) who sold millions of books and was exceptionally popular. George advocated a substantial land value tax and influenced political debate for several decades in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere. We sketch George’s ideas in their historical context and give an overview of his unappreciated impact on global scientific, political and cultural history. Finally, we also show George’s relevance in today’s world and provide a scientific and social critique of the Clark paradigm. |
| Date: | 2025–08–17 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:ep2a6_v1 |
| By: | Alexandros Koskinas (Department of Economics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece); Nikolaos Chatzarakis (Department of Economics, New School For Social Research, USA) |
| Abstract: | In the third volume of Capital (1894), Marx attempts to explain capitalist prices as a redistribution of an already created ‘wealth’ from the production process, along with profitability portraited as the ‘economic result’ of the exploitation of labor. To do so, he presented an algorithm for transforming the labor values into prices of production, which are defined in such a way as to follow the capitalist laws of exchange. Marx’s method was deemed inadequate, and attempts were made to ‘correct’ it, resulting to the well-known result of the impossibility of simultaneously satisfying the Marxian Equivalences (Bortkiewicz 1907). This shortcoming has led to a rich literature on the ‘transformation problem’, as well as to many different proposals for its solution; however, none of them has so far succeeded in being promoted as the undisputed solution to the ‘transformation problem’. In this paper, we argue that this limitation is not, as argued in the literature, a result of the futility of Labor Theory of Value to capture the exchange processes, but that of the identification of the (Sraffian) exchange prices with the (Marxian) prices of production. Moreover, we propose yet another solution to the ‘transformation problem’ by providing a new definition of prices of production, distinct from that of exchange prices, which consistently indicates a specific redistribution of the labor values in the process of circulation; under this definition, both equivalences posed by Marx are satisfied. Finally, we also present the main methods proposed to solve the (static) ‘transformation problem’ that are found in the literature, according to the interpretation they attribute to the transformation, and a numerical example, so as to distinguish them from the solution proposed in the paper. |
| Keywords: | Labor theory of value, transformation problem, prices of production |
| JEL: | B14 B24 B51 D46 |
| Date: | 2025–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:new:wpaper:2513 |
| By: | Hendriks, Martijn; Cnossen, Femke |
| Abstract: | Meaningful work plays a central role in many people's lives, and the topic attracts interest across a range of social science disciplines. What is the economists' view on meaningful work? This chapter presents a scoping review on the economics of meaningful work. We identified 43 relevant English-language articles in top-quartile economics journals through a systematic search in EconLit and citation tracking. We synthesize how these studies conceptualize, perceive, and operationalize meaningful work, along with their insights into individuals' preferences for meaningful work, how meaningful people consider their work to be, the antecedents and outcomes of meaningful work, and the broader conclusions, implications, and recommendations. |
| Keywords: | Purpose, bullshit jobs, useful job, meaning at work, task significance, literature review |
| JEL: | J22 J24 J28 J31 J81 |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:glodps:1657 |
| By: | Naomi R. Lamoreaux; John Joseph Wallis |
| Abstract: | In previous work we have highlighted the importance of revisions to state constitutions that mandated that laws be general and uniform throughout the state. Indiana (in 1851) was the first state to adopt a general-law mandate, but most other states followed suit by the end of the century—most of them in the 1870s. This paper focuses on Pennsylvania, one of the states that made the change in the 1870s. We show that the movement to revise the state constitution was led by Republican party bosses seeking to suppress factional strife they thought was threatening their party’s dominance and perhaps even its existence. Their effort succeeded. We argue that it was the shift to general laws in Pennsylvania and other states that led to the emergence of a party system in the United States dominated by two durable political organizations. |
| JEL: | N0 N4 N42 P0 P10 |
| Date: | 2025–08 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:34171 |