|
on History and Philosophy of Economics |
| By: | IM, HYUN-NAM |
| Abstract: | This paper challenges the fundamental assumptions of mainstream economics, particularly the concept of Homo Economicus (the rational economic man) and the mathematical illusion of general equilibrium. By integrating Giambattista Vico’s cyclical philosophy of history with established economic theory, this treatise proposes a new ontological framework for understanding modern capitalism. First, this paper redefines human economic behavior not as rational choice, but as the dynamic interaction of an ontological triad structured around libido, anxiety, and sin. Second, it diagnoses the 21st century as the ‘Era of Grand Analogy’, in which physical imitation and administrative bureaucracy have given rise to a state of collective amorality (Søren Kierkegaard’s Åndløshed). Third, it deconstructs the ‘equal sign (=)’ of macroeconomics as a mere decalcomanic illusion created by densely aggregated data. Furthermore, it traces how this illusion solidified into a natural theory in tandem with the exponential expansion of currency, population, and administration, thereby exposing it as a mechanism that conceals the ‘legalized plunder’ perpetrated by vested interests. In particular, this paper rejects the conventional, dry mathematical style of academic writing, instead adopting a metaphorical and literary mode of exposition that embeds Vico’s cyclical philosophy of history into the very structure of the text itself. Ultimately, this paper argues that economics must be understood as fundamentally distinct from Platonic political idealism; rather, it is the immanent law of the masses—a living embodiment of Vico’s principle verum ipsum factum (the truth is what is made). It concludes that the resolution to the modern structural crisis lies not in the mechanical adjustment of economic variables, but rather in the restoration of Aristotelian ethics and authentic education. |
| Keywords: | Giambattista Vico, Legalized Plunder, Era of Grand Analogy, Aristotelian Ethics, Ontological Triad. Heterodox Economics, Macroeconomic Theory. |
| JEL: | B41 E32 K00 |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:128737 |
| By: | Ewa Weychert (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences); Tomasz Kopczewski (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences) |
| Abstract: | Students of introductory economics courses pointed out that economic inequality the most significant challenge in the 21st century (Bowles & Carlin, 2020). However, there is limited research on how this issue is portrayed in introductory textbooks. Our study aims to investigate the presentation of economic inequality in economics textbooks compared to sociological ones. We conduct a mixed-method study to examine differences in how introductory economics and sociology textbooks portray economic inequality. By focusing on the comparison between economic and sociological textbooks, we aim to highlight the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to studying economic inequalities, as advocated by economist Thomas Piketty (Korom, 2019). Comparing textbooks across disciplines is essential for informing curriculum development, encouraging interdisciplinary learning, and enhancing the relevance of education to real-world issues. This comparison provides insights that help integrate diverse perspectives on economic inequality into educational practices in both disciplines. Our analysis includes twelve introductory economics textbooks and three introductory sociological textbooks. We find significant differences: top-selling economics textbooks focus on statistical measurements of inequality and the trade-off between equality and efficiency, while sociological textbooks consider economic inequality from historical, cultural, and philosophical perspectives. |
| Keywords: | income inequality, wealth inequality, textbook analysis, narrative economics, qualitative research |
| JEL: | A23 D63 |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:war:wpaper:2026-10 |
| By: | Severin Hornung (University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Innsbruck, Austria) |
| Abstract: | This contribution provides an update on developments within the social science discipline of applied psychology. Precisely, it offers an account of the emergence of a critical scholarly paradigm in work and organizational psychology. Introduced and advocated for in recent publications, this new direction has sparked intense debates about its necessity, scientific value, and legitimacy. Disciplinary roots, paradigmatic principles, and ontological, epistemological, and axiological premises of critical perspectives in applied psychology are recapitulated. This includes their critique of conventional or mainstream work and organizational psychology, as well as complex relationships with the previously institutionalized stream of critical management studies. Progress in critical applied psychology is mapped out, giving an overview of foundational academic events and activities as well as the growing body of publications, structured into distinct waves, including information on research topics and geographic strongholds. Academic criticisms of the critical paradigm by proponents of the mainstream are reviewed, focusing on its distinctiveness, scientific rigor, and communication style. Drawing on theorizing in philosophy of science and the history of critical movements in other fields of social science, possible future trajectories are speculated about, including paradigmatic consolidation, integration, and fragmentation. Despite the momentum of the current version of critical perspectives in applied psychology, the track record of critical movements in the social sciences is modest and includes the risk of becoming a victim of one’s own success. Pitfalls and possible ways to avoid them are discussed and recommendations for scholars seeking to ‘criticalize’ their research are developed. |
| Keywords: | Academic Movements, Critical Work, Organizational Psychology, Engaged Scholarship, Epistemological Critique, Higher Education, Research Paradigms, Philosophy of Science |
| Date: | 2026–03 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:smo:raiswp:0626 |
| By: | Alberto Baccini; Carlo Debernardi |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates the evolution of self-referentiality and knowledge flows in economics journals before and after the 2008 financial crisis. Using a multi-level approach, we analyze patterns at the discipline, cluster, and journal levels, combining citational measures with a classification of journals based on intellectual similarity and social proximity. At the aggregate level, results suggest a general decline in self-referentiality, indicating increased openness across the discipline. However, this trend conceals substantial heterogeneity. At finer levels of analysis, two clusters - CORE and Finance - emerge as persistent outliers, exhibiting very high levels of self-referentiality. While Finance experienced a gradual reduction over time, the CORE shows increasing closure. By examining reference asymmetries, we uncover a hierarchical structure of knowledge flows. The CORE operates as a central hub and net exporter of knowledge to all other clusters, particularly to the traditional core fields of economics, whereas Finance acts as a net exporter only within its own domain and remains dependent on the CORE. These asymmetries are reinforced at the level of individual journals, where a small set of top journals occupies the apex of a hierarchically ordered system of knowledge transmission. We argue that these patterns reflect the interplay between intellectual dynamics and organizational structures, particularly the role of editorial networks in shaping access to publication and visibility. The findings suggest that, following the financial crisis, economics has experienced a process of increasing epistemic and organizational closure at its core, alongside greater openness in peripheral areas. This dual dynamic raises questions about the representativeness of top journals and the evolving structure of the discipline. |
| Date: | 2026–04 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2604.18144 |