|
on History and Philosophy of Economics |
| By: | Lidström, Erik |
| Abstract: | In a new paper, academic Dr Erik Lidström argues that there is a fundamental mismatch between the world our brains evolved in to, and the society we operate in today. Human beings evolved over roughly two million years to live in small hunter-gatherer tribes of around 500 people. In that world, instincts around face-to-face exchange, equal sharing of collectively hunted resources, and wariness of outsiders were rational and adaptive. The extended order of modern capitalism - anonymous, spontaneous, governed by price signals involving millions of strangers - is, in evolutionary terms, a very recent and alien environment. No one has had time to adapt to it. Drawing on Hayek's concept of the "extended order", Lidström argues that large societies self-organise through voluntary exchange, property rights and contract - without anyone designing the outcome. Hunter-gatherer psychology struggles to process this: our minds handle direct, face-to-face interactions well, but not the second and third-order effects of interventions in complex, interconnected systems. Price controls, from Diocletian's in 301 AD to modern rent regulations, illustrate the pattern: each is an instinctively appealing direct intervention that produces the opposite of its intended effect. Government expenditure in major industrialised economies rose from around 10.7% of GDP in 1870 to 45.6% by 1996 - a trajectory the paper connects to the repeated human impulse to "do something", where each intervention tends to generate new problems requiring further intervention in turn. The paper concludes that allowing economies to flourish requires accepting what will always feel counterintuitive: that prosperity emerges from the self-organisation of markets, not from conscious direction. |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:ieadps:342487 |
| By: | George, Babu (Alcorn State University) |
| Abstract: | Arrow (1962b) identified a fundamental paradox in markets for information: a buyer cannot value knowledge without possessing it, and a seller cannot demonstrate knowledge without surrendering it. Six decades of institutional design, from patent law to trade secret doctrine, answer that problem. This paper argues that Arrow’s paradox is a limiting case of a more general phenomenon. Every market transaction occurs across an interaction surface through which knowledge flows in both directions, and the classical analysis holds only under four restrictive assumptions: that knowledge is an artifact, that disclosure is one-shot, that it runs from seller to buyer alone, and that absorption is automatic. Relaxing these assumptions yields a general theory of epistemic flux in which the direction of payment and the direction of net knowledge flow are independent. The framework recovers the classical paradox, the economics of consulting, the theory of the firm’s knowledge boundary, and the platform economy as parameter settings of a single model, and it is closed with an equilibrium: buyers choose usage and absorption, a hub prices access, and welfare is evaluated against a planner. Three results follow for markets in machine intelligence. First, an inverse information paradox: consumption of intelligence requires disclosure of context, and the discloser cannot value what she surrenders, because its value is realized only in aggregation with disclosures she cannot observe. Second, a two-sided welfare theorem: where the positional harm of rival access dominates, decentralized adoption over-discloses and under-absorbs relative to the planner; where the level benefit of better models dominates, it under-discloses, so the externality’s sign is an empirical object rather than an assumption. Third, an epistemic subsidy: a hub that values aggregate flux prices inference below marginal cost, which reinterprets free tiers and zero-retention premiums as the subsidy returned. The paper unifies Arrow’s two 1962 contributions, learning by doing and the information paradox, into one apparatus; explains why vendor competition cannot dissipate the asymmetry, since money can rebate a subsidy but cannot restore relative position; and specifies the institutions the new regime will require. |
| Date: | 2026–07–17 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:7nrbp_v1 |
| By: | Aadil Belhaj (CRMEF - Centre Régional des Métiers de l’Education et de la Formation, Ouarzazate, Maroc) |
| Abstract: | Abstract: The social sciences, by studying human interactions and the functioning of organizations, aim to produce knowledge useful for transforming reality. This article offers a critical, reflexive study based on an extensive review of theoretical literature, without period delimitation, drawing on general and disciplinary databases to identify the main currents of thought related to action research and to examine their scientific validity. Founded by Lewin and Collier in the 1940s, action research is distinguished by the direct involvement of the researcher and the active participation of social actors, prioritizing social transformation and the resolution of concrete problems over neutral and detached observation. The analysis pursues three objectives: to characterize the position of the researcher-actor, to demonstrate the methodological rigor inherent in this approach, and to assess its potential as an emerging paradigm. Faced with the uncertainties of fieldwork, action research establishes its scientific validity on four qualitative criteria: credibility, guaranteed by data triangulation and peer review; Transferability, supported by a detailed description of the contexts studied; the reliability of the analytical procedures; and confirmability, ensured by transparency regarding the researcher's stance. Structured around an iterative and cyclical approach, action research is establishing itself as an autonomous paradigm in the social sciences, particularly in management and education. The article, however, highlights certain limitations and calls for future work empirically testing these criteria. Keywords:Action research, methodology, scientific rigor, social transformation, researcher-practitioner relationship. ClassificationJEL:B41, C18, O35, Z13 |
| Abstract: | Résumé : Les sciences sociales, en étudiant les interactions humaines et le fonctionnement des organisations, visent à produire des connaissances utiles à la transformation du réel. Cet article propose une étude critique réflexive fondée sur une revue étendue de la littérature théorique, sans délimitation de période, mobilisant des bases de données généralistes et disciplinaires afin de repérer les principaux courants de pensée relatifs à la recherche-action et d'en interroger la validité scientifique. Fondée par Lewin et Collier dans les années 1940, la recherche-action se distingue par l'engagement direct du chercheur et la participation active des acteurs sociaux, privilégiant la transformation sociale et la résolution de problèmes concrets à l'observation neutre et distante. L'analyse poursuit trois objectifs : caractériser la position du chercheur-acteur, démontrer la rigueur méthodologique propre à cette démarche, et évaluer son potentiel en tant que paradigme émergent. Face aux aléas du terrain, la recherche-action asseoit sa scientificité sur quatre critères qualitatifs : la crédibilité, garantie par la triangulation des données et la validation par les pairs ; la transférabilité, appuyée sur une description dense des contextes étudiés ; la fiabilité des procédures d'analyse ; et la confirmabilité, assurée par la transparence sur la posture du chercheur. Structurée autour d'une démarche itérative et cyclique, la recherche-action s'affirme comme un paradigme autonome en sciences sociales, notamment en sciences de gestion et de l'éducation. L'article souligne toutefois certaines limites et appelle à des travaux futurs testant empiriquement ces critères. Mots clés : Recherche-action, méthodologie, scientificité, transformation sociale, relation chercheur-acteur. JEL Classification : B41, C18, O35, Z13 |
| Keywords: | Action research, methodology, social transformation, researcher-practitioner relationship, transformation sociale, relation chercheur-acteur, scientificité, méthodologie, Recherche-action |
| Date: | 2026–07–31 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05712634 |
| By: | Platt, Lucinda |
| JEL: | J1 |
| Date: | 2025–08–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:128086 |
| By: | Wasserziehr, Jan |
| Abstract: | This paper explores the idea that technical progress could free humanity from necessity and labour. Taking inspiration from a remark in Arendt's Human Condition, I consider a tension immanent to that idea: the possibility that its realisation requires social transformations that culminate in a world incommensurable with our own and to which our concepts of freedom no longer apply. Drawing on resources from social theory, the philosophy of technology and critical theory, I defend this incommensurability thesis in two steps. I argue, first, that technical progress entails a social dynamic which leads to continuous upward shifts in the level of automation required to free people from work, plausibly extending beyond the sphere of production; second, that this leads the idea of freedom from labour ad absurdum: the widespread automation of human life would render modern concepts of freedom unintelligible. |
| Keywords: | technical progress;technology;freedom;freedom from labour;automation;artificial intelligence |
| JEL: | R14 J01 |
| Date: | 2026–07–27 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:140236 |
| By: | Minh Ha-Duong (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris) |
| Abstract: | At Baku in 2024, climate negotiators fixed a new collective goal: $300 billion a year by 2035 for climate action in developing countries. Climate finance — the public and private flows developed countries mobilize to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt — is the magnitude that goal purports to measure, though no fund holds it and no counting method commands assent. Climate finance was assembled into an economic aggregate, in the lineage of GDP, through three ingredients that met between 2007 and 2014: the Copenhagen pledge supplied a political number in search of its object, the OECD's development-aid statistics supplied an accounting apparatus already standing, and economists in international organizations and development banks supplied the devices — markers, concessionality thresholds, attribution rules — that turned the two into a countable whole. A computational break-detection analysis of a multilingual corpus, blind to the calendar of the climate negotiations, corroborates this periodization. Four recurring controversies — concessional-loan valuation, Rio-marker credibility, mobilized-private-finance attribution, the aid/climate-obligation boundary — organize the field since 2015; a 2025 World Bank operation in Türkiye displays all four in one transaction. The ambiguity of these categories is not a flaw: it lets donors report mobilization and recipients audit obligation from the same number, making a distributive conflict administrable rather than resolved. |
| Abstract: | À Bakou en 2024, les négociateurs climat ont fixé un nouvel objectif collectif : 300 milliards de dollars par an d'ici 2035 pour l'action climatique dans les pays en développement. La finance climat, c'est-à-dire les flux publics et privés que les pays développés mobilisent pour aider les pays en développement à réduire leurs émissions et à s'adapter, est la grandeur que cet objectif prétend mesurer, alors qu'aucun fonds ne la détient et qu'aucune méthode de comptage ne fait consensus. La finance climat a été assemblée en agrégat économique, dans la lignée du PIB, par la rencontre de trois ingrédients entre 2007 et 2014 : l'engagement de Copenhague a fourni un nombre politique en quête de son objet, les statistiques d'aide au développement de l'OCDE ont fourni un appareil comptable déjà en place, et les économistes des organisations internationales et des banques de développement ont fourni les dispositifs (marqueurs, seuils de concessionnalité, règles d'attribution) qui ont fait des deux un tout comptable. Une analyse computationnelle de détection de ruptures sur un corpus multilingue, aveugle au calendrier des COP, corrobore cette périodisation. Quatre controverses récurrentes (valorisation des prêts concessionnels, crédibilité des marqueurs de Rio, attribution de la finance privée mobilisée, frontière entre aide et obligation climatique) organisent le champ depuis 2015 ; une opération de la Banque mondiale en Türkiye en 2025 les montre toutes les quatre dans une seule transaction. L'ambiguïté de ces catégories n'est pas un défaut : elle permet aux donateurs de déclarer une mobilisation et aux récipiendaires d'auditer une obligation à partir du même nombre, rendant un conflit distributif administrable plutôt que résolu. |
| Keywords: | climate finance, quantification, accounting categories, international organizations, organisations internationales, catégories comptables, finance climat |
| Date: | 2026–07–21 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:ciredw:hal-05558422 |
| By: | Eberhardt, Markus (University of Nottingham); Facchini, Giovanni (University of Nottingham); Rueda, Valeria (University of Nottingham) |
| Abstract: | Is the top of the economics profession becoming more insular? We study the placement of top PhD graduates over the past quarter-century matching them to their advisors. Three trends point towards greater openness: graduates increasingly place outside academia, outside the US, and into a tech sector recruiting broadly across gender, ethnicity, and program prestige. The disaggregated picture is less reassuring: the Emerging South is largely sidelined in the global job market, East Asians face persistent gaps in top academic placement, and elite advisors continue to confer substantial advantages within academia. Tech placement, meanwhile, is dominated by a single employer. |
| Keywords: | gender, ethnicity, diversity, economics, job market |
| JEL: | J16 A11 D9 |
| Date: | 2026–08 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp18868 |
| By: | Alain Bonnafous (LAET - Laboratoire Aménagement Économie Transports - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - ENTPE - École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l'État - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Abstract: | L'ingénieur des Ponts et Chaussées Jules Dupuit s'est trouvé confronté au problème de l'évaluation d'un investissement de transport. Dans la terminologie de son époque, cette problématique de l'évaluation se résumait à la question de savoir si l'utilité d'un pont, d'un canal, d'une route justifiait la dépense publique impliquée par sa construction et son entretien. En y apportant ses réponses, Jules Dupuit a inventé le concept de surplus des usagers et a posé les bases de ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler aujourd'hui le calcul économique. |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05604085 |