The volume at hand gives an exposition of the tradition of the Historical School of Economics and of the Geisteswissenschaften or human sciences, the latter in their development within the Historical School as well as in Neo-Kantianism and the sociology of knowledge. It continues the discussion started in the year 1994 on the Older Historical School of Economics and the 19th century German contribution to an ethical theory of economics with the Newer Historical School of the 20th century. Economists, social scientists, and philosophers examine the contribution of this tradition and its impact for present theory. The schools of thought and their approaches to economics as well as to the cultural and social sciences are examined here not as much for their historical interest as for their poten tial systematic contribution to the contemporary debates on economic ethics, economics, sociology, and philosophy. The volume at hand contains the proceedings of the Fourth Annual SEEP-Conference on Economic Ethics and Philosophy in 1996, "Economics and Ethics in the Historical School. Part B: Max Weber, Heinrich Rickert, Max Scheler, Werner Sombart, Arthur Spiethoff, John Commons, Alfred Marshall, and Others", held at Marienrode Monastery near Hannover, Germa ny, on March 27-30th, 1996, together with several additional invited papers.

This book brings together emerging and established scholars to explore the insights that can be gleaned from applying Austrian economics to a range of different topics and a variety of related disciplines, from history to politics to public policy.

In arguably his most important book to date, Hodgson calls into question the tendency of economic method to try and explain all economic phenomena by using the same catch-all theories and dealing in universal truths. He argues that you need different theories to analyze different economic phenomena and systems and that historical context must be ta

Arthur Spiethoff (1873–1957), an economist of the German Historical School of Economics, is best known for his theory of the business cycle. Despite Spiethoff calling for a unified reading of his work, his epistemological thinking has received less attention. This book addresses that gap by analysing Spiethoff’s theory of the business cycle in the light of his epistemological views. Putting Spiethoff’s work in context, the book also investigates the most significant features of the evolution of the “research programme” of the German Historical School of Economics, with particular reference to the relationships between Schmoller, Sombart, Weber and Spiethoff. In addition, Spiethoff’s work is compared with some of the scientific orientations of the current debates: on the epistemological side, the book examines the relationship between Spiethoff’s views and some contemporary thinking on scientific realism, as well as methodological pluralism in social sciences. And, more broadly, it emphasises the analytical relevance of the historical approach in explaining the economic imbalances of contemporary capitalism, questioning the idea, widespread in the neoclassical approach, that taking historical specificities into account makes it hard to achieve a theoretically effective attitude. This book is a significant addition to the literature on the German Historical School of Economics and the history of economic thought, business cycle theory and macroeconomics more broadly.

This book explores the relationship between economic thought, proposals for reform of political institutions, and civil society in the period between the rise to power of Napoleon and the eve of the First World War in Italy and France – two countries with a similar cultural and political tradition and with personal mobility of the intellectual class. The first section of the book is devoted to the struggle for identity, justice, and liberty, including its economic dimensions. The relation between political and economic freedom and its effect on equity is then addressed in detail, and the third, concluding section focuses on the intellectual and political conflict between the social visions of liberalism and socialism in some of their various forms, again with consideration of the economic implications. The comparative nature of the analysis, combined with its interdisciplinary approach to the history of economic and political thought and social history, will enable the reader to understand more clearly the historical evolution of each country and the relevant contemporary political and economic issues.

Are humans at their core seekers of their own pleasure or cooperative members of society? Paradoxically, they are both. Pleasure-seeking can take place only within the context of what works within a defined community, and central to any community are the evolved codes and principles guiding appropriate behavior, or morality. The complex interaction of morality and self-interest is at the heart of Geoffrey M. Hodgson’s approach to evolutionary economics, which is designed to bring about a better understanding of human behavior. In From Pleasure Machines to Moral Communities, Hodgson casts a critical eye on neoclassical individualism, its foundations and flaws, and turns to recent insights from research on the evolutionary bases of human behavior. He focuses his attention on the evolution of morality, its meaning, why it came about, and how it influences human attitudes and behavior. This more nuanced understanding sets the stage for a fascinating investigation of its implications on a range of pressing issues drawn from diverse environments, including the business world and crucial policy realms like health care and ecology. This book provides a valuable complement to Hodgson’s earlier work with Thorbjørn Knudsen on evolutionary economics in Darwin’s Conjecture, extending the evolutionary outlook to include moral and policy-related issues.

This Festschrift was "presented" in electronic form to Buchanan on the occasion of his eightieth birthday on October 3, 1999, after dinner in Fairfax, Virginia. As one might have expected, the response to our call for papers was vo luminous. In looking over the many contributions, we felt that a "published" Festschrift was also possible and fitting for the eightieth birthday of so prodi gious and influential a scholar as Professor Buchanan. To that end we have assembled the following volume. In selecting the papers to be included here we have basically tried to choose those papers which in some way bear on Buchanan's contributions. Perfectly good papers about issues not related to Buchanan's research agenda or not referring directly to Buchanan's work were not included. Space constraints did not allow universal coverage, so choices had to be made. It should be stated clearly that these were our choices based on the criterion that the contribution be relevant to Buchanan's work. Buchanan had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection of papers for this volume. Once choices had been made, we arranged the papers by subject matter ranging from various aspects of Buchanan's work in economics, political science, philosophy, and related areas, to some more personal recollections of Jim as a professor, friend, and colleague. Including the latter material was also our decision, and this probably represents a choice with which Jim would not have agreed. We think, however, that the reader will find these pieces interesting and informative.

In recent decades, rational choice theory has emerged as the single most powerful, controversial claimant to provide a unified, theoretical framework for all the social sciences. In its simplest form, the theory postulates that humans are purposive beings who pursue their goals in a rational, efficient manner, seeking the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. This volume brings together prominent scholars working in several social science disciplines and the philosophy of science to debate the promise and problems of rational choice theory. As rational choice theory has spread from its home base in economics to other disciplines, it has come under fierce criticism. To its critics, the extension of the explanatory model mistakenly assumes that the logic of economic rationality can explain non-economic behavior and, at its worst, commits the ethnocentric error of imposing Western concepts of rationality on non-Western societies and cultures. This volume includes strong advocates as well as forceful critics of the rational choice approach. However, in contrast to previous debates, all the contributors share a commitment to open, constructive and knowledgeable dialogue. Well-known advocates of rational choice theory (Michael Hechter, Michael Smith, Chris Manfredi) explicitly ponder some of its serious limitations, while equally well-known critics (Ian Shapiro, Mario Bunge) strike a surprisingly conciliatory tone in contemplating its legitimate uses. Vociferous critics of neoclassical economics (Bunge) favorably discuss sociological proponents of rational choice theory while two economists who are not particularly anti-mainstream (Robin Rowley, George Grantham) critically assess the problems of such assumptions in their discipline. Philosophers (Storrs McCall) and sociologists (John Hall) alike reflect on the variable meaning of rationality in explaining social behavior. In the introduction and conclusion, the editors survey the current state of the debate and show how open, constructive dialogue enables us to move beyond hackneyed accusations and dismissals that have characterized much previous debate.

While methodological individualism is a fundamental approach within the social sciences, it is often misunderstood. This highlights the need for a discursive and up-to-date reference work analyzing this approach’s classic arguments and assumptions in the light of contemporary issues in sociology, economics and philosophy. This two-volume handbook presents the first comprehensive overview of methodological individualism. Chapters discuss historical and contemporary debates surrounding this central approach within the social sciences, as well as cutting edge developments related to the individualist tradition with philosophical and scientific implications. Bringing together multiple contributions from the world’s leading experts on this important tradition of theorizing, this collective endeavor provides teachers, researchers and students in sociology, economics, and philosophy with a reliable and critical understanding of the founding principles, key thinkers and intellectual development of MI since the late 19th century. ​

Economics has become a monolithic science, variously described as formalistic and autistic with neoclassical orthodoxy reigning supreme. So argue Dimitris Milonakis and Ben Fine in this new major work of critical recollection. The authors show how economics was once rich, diverse, multidimensional and pluralistic, and unravel the processes that lead to orthodoxy’s current predicament. The book details how political economy became economics through the desocialisation and the dehistoricisation of the dismal science, accompanied by the separation of economics from the other social sciences, especially economic history and sociology. It is argued that recent attempts from within economics to address the social and the historical have failed to acknowledge long standing debates amongst economists, historians and other social scientists. This has resulted in an impoverished historical and social content within mainstream economics. The book ranges over the shifting role of the historical and the social in economic theory, the shifting boundaries between the economic and the non-economic, all within a methodological context. Schools of thought and individuals, that have been neglected or marginalised, are treated in full, including classical political economy and Marx, the German and British historical schools, American institutionalism, Weber and Schumpeter and their programme of Socialökonomik, and the Austrian school. At the same time, developments within the mainstream tradition from marginalism through Marshall and Keynes to general equilibrium theory are also scrutinised, and the clashes between the various camps from the famous Methodenstreit to the fierce debates of the 1930s and beyond brought to the fore. The prime rationale underpinning this account drawn from the past is to put the case for political economy back on the agenda. This is done by treating economics as a social science once again, rather than as a positive science, as has been the inclination since the time of Jevons and Walras. It involves transcending the boundaries of the social sciences, but in a particular way that is in exactly the opposite direction now being taken by "economics imperialism". Drawing on the rich traditions of the past, the reintroduction and full incorporation of the social and the historical into the main corpus of political economy will be possible in the future.