Edward J. O'Boyle

Homo Socio-Economicus: Foundational to social economics and the social economy

In his introduction to The Social Economics of Human Material Need, John Davis directs attention to a paradox that only a few in mainstream economic thought are willing to admit: The concept of need, that is, human material need, is perhaps one of the most paradoxical of economic concepts. On the one hand, the idea of need seems an inescapable dimension of economic life. We can hardly begin to talk about the problems and concerns that drive economic thinking without speaking about those individuals, families, and communities whose needs go unmet and who are hoped to be important beneficiaries of economic growth and social policy. On the other hand, mainstream economic theory today -- whose prominence and self-proclaimed scientific standing challenge the most dedicated of humanists -- denies needs can be distinguished from wants, and indeed denies that the concept of need has any legitimate standing in economics whatsoever. Need in the modern world, it thus results, is a matter of pre-eminent concern that nonetheless escapes formal recognition. Need is a real, inescapable dimension of contemporary economic life, but at the same time seemingly unworthy of the professional attentions of those who devote themselves to systematically explaining economic life. In short, the very concept of need escapes us, while in every day life we continually respond to our needs and those of others (Davis, p. 1). This paradox, which has central significance for economics and the economy because any economic system that fails to help provision unmet need is unstable economically and politically, demands an extensive re-examination of economic thought. Essential to that re-examination and to the social economy is a reconsideration of human beings in their two central economic roles -- work and consumption. Such a re-examination is not a new undertaking for social economists. It is, rather, a continuation of a journey begun collectively more than 50 years ago by the founders of the Association for Social Economics and long before that by various social economists acting more or less individually. I invite others in the Association to continue with me on this leg of the journey for, as George Rohrlich has said, a burden shared is a burden made lighter. The paradox of need reflects vitally important differences between mainstream economists and social economists regarding the metaphysics of the human being as worker and consumer. Put differently, social economics and conventional economics are divided over the place of need and want in economic thought because they hold markedly different views on the questions who and what are the worker and the consumer. Further, both parties are scarcely aware that different perspectives at the metaphysical level, where discourse among economists rarely occurs, have a powerful influence on the different viewpoints taken at other levels where discourse among economists regularly occurs. William Waters refers to this level or domain of investigation as the philosophical base of social economics and asserts that it attracts relatively little attention from students of economics. There are two other domains of investigation that along with the philosophical base, according to Waters, constitute the entire social economics discipline: a description of the significant characteristics of the economy and social economic policy (Waters, 1988, pp. 113-14). One cannot address the philosophical base of social economics without at the same time intruding into the domain of empirical observation because the way in which economists understand the functioning of the economy is determined importantly by their own philosophical premises. Further, since the economy is made by human hands, any misconstruing of its philosophical foundations likely makes dealing with a dysfunctional economy even more difficult. The main concentration of this essay is on the philosophical base of social economics. …

The american marketing association code of ethics: Instructions for marketers

This article addresses the two main obstacles — ignorance and conflict — that block the pathway to ethically proper conduct, both generally in business and specifically in marketing. It begins with a brief examination of theories of the moral good which emphasizes the Greco-Roman humanistic tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. A professional code of ethics, such as the code of the American Marketing Association, is meaningful only if human beings are regarded as making moral judgments that, objectively speaking, are morally wrong, that is only when the code is considered a set of moral absolutes.Following that, the question of ignorance is dealt with utilizing the American Marketing Association code of ethics. The specific items in that code are related to the three central principles of economic justice: equivalence, contributive justice, and distributive justice. In the second section, the question of conflict is encountered in the context of four other ethical principles — double effect, culpability, good end and bad means, self-determination — that are likely to be helpful in dealing with two cases that are especially instructive because they are limiting cases: the dilemma and the hard case. The role of the hero or champion in conflicts is underscored.

Norms for evaluating economic globalization

This article examines experience with global financial integration to identify norms for evaluating economic globalization. There are two perspectives regarding globalization: mainstream economics and personalist economics. The first perspective regards itself as value‐free even though its premises originate in individualism and utilitarianism. The second perspective originates in personalism and finds no fault with being value‐laden because there is no other way to proceed in evaluating economic globalization. Mainstream economics brings to bear a few principles from positive economics. Personalist economics employs a larger set of principles from normative economics. The authors hold fast to personalist economics as more relevant to evaluating economic globalization properly. Our argument rests on principles from personalist economics and two other sources: Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and John Paul IIs public statements. We intend to contribute to the discourse on globalization using recent experience regarding financial integration to refine the norms for evaluating economic globalization.

On Justice And Charity

[In the case of unfair competition] the victorious competitor will dominate the market; and given his lack of scruples, he will not worry much about the [principle of equivalence], so that he will proceed to set his prices solely according to the law of self interest. Where Christian morality operates, that kind of destructive competi? tive combat is forbidden by the law which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves. As is often the case, charity will here become the guardian of justice; and together with justice, it becomes the bulwark of human welfare. Heinrich Pesch (Mulcahy, 1951, p. 68)

Poverty: A Concept that is Both Absolute and Relative Because Human Beings are at Once Individual and Social

Poverty is a condition wherein resources are insufficient to meet physical need. Since physical need is a normative concept that reflects the values of the person who uses it, so too is poverty. Over the years the official poverty standard has withstood numerous assaults on its adequacy. One controversy centers on the question Is poverty to be defined in absolute terms or in relative terms? We establish that a poverty standard which is at once absolute and relative is superior conceptually to a standard that is just one or the other. We present empirical evidence that indicates that the official standard includes some persons and families who are not needy and excludes others who are. This paper was published in the Review of Social Economy, Spring 1990. To retrieve the published article go to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00346769000000001 Questions and comments should be directed to: Edward J. O’Boyle, PhD Mayo Research Institute 318-381-4002 edoboyle737@gmail.com

On The Person And The Work Of The Entrepreneur

Nothing in Schumpeter’s writings is more familiar and more commonly mentioned than his “creative destruction.” Arguably the term is as well known as Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” One central difference between the two, however, is that creative destruction is a real economic actuality. The invisible hand is a manner of speaking.

On caring and the restoration of social order.

In an article which won the Helen Potter Award in 1975, J. Ron Stanfield [1975, pp. 153-165] urges a reformulation of the meaning of humanity and human progress which recognizes the individual as a person who knows and does much as opposed to one who has much. His suggested paradigms for such an individual are the artist and the scientist. At the very end of his most recent article in the Review [Stanfield, 1976, pp. 201-215] he asserts that [t]he problems of our age stem from the degradation of the labor process and the deteriora? tion of human life this involves and affirms his confidence in the ability of the scientific-intellectual elite to point the way to restoration of social order. These papers reflect a popular and rather convincing socio-economic position espoused by Marxists and other social commentators.

On Need, Wants, Resources and Limits

The conventional wisdom in economics is that resources are limited, wants are unlimited, and the business of the economist is to understand how limited resources are allocated to satisfy unlimited wants. Typically, poverty or unmet physical need is addressed apart from consumer behaviour. It was not always so. Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, and Paul Samuelson as recently as 35 years ago, for example, were explicit about the direct linkage between needs and wants. The changes that have taken place over the years are attributable to a shift away from an Aristotelian perspective on the nature of economic studies towards the Enlightenment view. Challenges the conventional wisdom that wants are virtually unlimited, resources are limited, and poverty is best addressed apart from wants. Presents need fulfilment alongside want satisfaction in the context of the principle of subsidiarity which helps define the role of the state in provisioning unmet need.

On Reconstructing the Foundations of Policy Toward the Unemployed

From the very beginning, the labor force concepts employed in the Current Population Survey have been viewed as measures of the supply of labor. [Bancroft, p. 188] Further, the concept of unemployment in the CPS has been seen as measuring the extent of unutilized labor immediately available in the economy. [Stein, p. 1409] The CPS focuses on activity; that is, on what the person was doing during a specific week. Thus, information on the type of work done by the employed and the unemployed and the industry in which they labor has been regularly collected, extensively analyzed, and routinely reported for more than 40 years. Over the years, the distinction between workers as persons and the other factors of production as objects has been blurred more and more by the objectification of those who work. The term human resources reflects and promotes this blurring of critical differences. Cost benefitting human capital and physical capital with the same analytical techniques is further evidence of the reduction of workers to objects. Indeed, if workers commonly were perceived more as persons and less as objects, would humanizing work be a central issue in labor relations? Today, workers are seen as factors of production who (which?), when? ever they are idled through unemployment, effect a loss of production and national income. At the same time, however, there are other perceptions of the worker that influence economic policy regarding unemployment. Burns identi? fies three: (1) human being in need, (2) potential contributor to eco? nomic output, and (3) threat to the incomes of others. [Burns, pp. 275 279] In a word, these attitudes can be reduced to needing,

On the Need for Work as Such

The need for work as such, along with physical need, are the two fundamental needs that flow directly from the materiality of human nature. For this reason, these two needs, taken together, are referred to as human material need. The embodiment of human beings is crucial for both social economics and the social economy, because without embodiment there would be no human material need and without that need there would be no social economy and therefore no social economics. This article proceeds from three main premises: (1) Man is not an object but a person, and for that reason matters much; (2) Work is organised and performed through two main modes conforming to the duality of human nature – these modes are referred to as teamwork and contribution; (3) Work has two main effects on persons conforming also to the duality of human nature – these modes are referred to as individual development and belonging.