William Waller

On the Possibility of a Feminist Economics: The Convergence of Institutional and Feminist Methodology

The purpose of this article is to examine feminist and institutionalist views on epistemology and methodology to see if they are compatible. The reason for undertaking this examination is the belief that a truly feminist economics, as opposed to economics done by feminists or economics about women, will necessarily be the result of feminist explorations in epistemology and methodology. Put simply, if feminist thought is meaningful in economics, it must make a difference in the analysis. The two major paradigms in the discipline of economics, neoclassical and Marxist, are both uncongenial to feminist views on epistemology and methodology. A tremendous amount of scholarship has been devoted to incorporating gender into these paradigms, but in the final analysis it remains an ad hoc addition, not really central to the epistemological, methodological, or theoretical core of the economics discipline as defined by these two paradigms. Institutionalists have, with a few notable exceptions, ignored gender in their analysis. We will argue that this omission is not the result of

Kickin'em While They're Down: Consumer Bankruptcy Reform

Consumer bankruptcy in the United States has taken on increased importance in the last few years for two reasons. First, until 1998, there had been a five-year trend of increasing consumer bankruptcies. 1 Second, proposals for significant bankruptcy reform that are decidedly anti-consumer have been working their way through Congress? Bankruptcy law as a public policy response to the problems created by insolvency has a long history. The problems created by insolvency fall into four major categories: minimizing the damage caused by the insolvency of a debtor, maintaining the credit system, stabilizing a credit-driven economy, and social equity considerations. Pragmatically, a reform of the bankruptcy system would imply altering policy because the current system fails to adequately resolve one of these problems. This article will explore the proposed bankruptcy reform bill and show that this particular legislation does not address any public policy problem whatsoever.

The stratified state : radical institutionalist theories of participation and duality

This new edition of American Poverty in a New Era of Reform provides a comprehensive examination of the extent, causes, effects, and costs of American poverty nearly ten years after the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996. The author includes the most current available demographic, budget, evaluation, and program data to evaluate the impact of this sweeping legislation on federal and state policies, as well as on poverty populations. This revised edition takes into account the economic slowdown that took place in 2001 through 2003. It examines the state decisions about how to implement PRWORA, and how changes have affected the poverty population and overall welfare system. The author identifies the positive implications of welfare reform along with problems that must be addressed. New features for this edition include an appendix of Internet sources a state-by-state tables of poverty rates.

It's Culture All the Way Down

I regularly use Evolutionary Economics in my classes on institutional economics and political economy. In that capacity I use it as a primer on institutional economics. It succeeds in this capacity because it presents the institutionalist criticism of neoclassical economics and then immediately follows the critique with an explanation of the institutionalist alternative framework for understanding the same economic and social phenomena. Hamiltons book also accomplishes another task: it identifies the classical economics of the eighteenth century {and consequently the derivative neoclassical economics of the nineteenth century} as an expression of the Newtonian worldview. Philip Mirowski

John Kenneth Galbraith: Cultural Theorist of Consumption and Power

Abstract This article counters the claim that John Kenneth Galbraith’s work was descriptive in character. Instead, the case is made that Galbraith’s work was theoretical in nature. Galbraith was primarily a cultural theorist rather than the deductive formalist type theorist typical in mainstream economics. In particular, it is shown that Galbraith’s “revised sequence” is part of his substantial contribution to the theory of consumption. Additionally, his analyses of economic power are not merely descriptive but instead constitute a cultural theory of economic power.

Radical Institutionalism: From Technological to Democratic Instrumentalism

INTRODUCTION Institutionalists and social economists have always had much in common. Both dismiss the fact/value distinction as naive and adopt a problem-by-problem approach to economic inquiry. Moreover, radical institutionalists differ from traditional institutionalists in ways that bring them even closer to social economists, particularly in the area of social values. Radical institutionalism does not represent a break with the institutionalist movement, but an attempt to move it beyond its current, Ayresian philosophical foundation. Radical institutionalism involves the introduction of three new elements into the contemporary stream of institutionalist works. These three new elements include an emphasis on Veblenian fundamentals, a shift in research interests, and a reconsideration of the philosophical foundations of inquiry. MOVING BEYOND AYRES Instrumental Theory of Knowledge: Four Basic Formulations To understand how the philosopical foundation of radical institutionalism differs from traditional institutionalism, we must first explain the instrumental theory of knowledge common to both and then explain the different variants of the instrumental theory of knowledge espoused by each. Like most economists, institutionalists have not carefully examined their philosophical foundations - though to be fair heterodox economists are generally more aware and critical of their philosophical foundations than mainstream economists. What we are calling (by convention) the instrumental theory of knowledge is, in fact, a label for what more accurately should be thought of as a vague consensus on method within institutionalism. After presenting the elements of this consensus on method we will explicitly problematize the underlying philosophical foundations. We will argue that it is differences in the implicit understanding of the underlying epistemological foundations that constitute the core differences between radical institutionalists and institutionalists in the Ayresian tradition. Moreover we will argue that these differences are nontrivial and the use of the same expressions to mean very different things makes it difficult for institutionalists and noninstitutionalists alike to understand these differences. The problem of using the same term to mean several different things is not a new problem in institutionalism. (See Waller [1982] on the Veblenian dichotomy and Neale [1987] on Institutions.) In order to advance the discussion regarding the areas of difference, we will begin with a basic sketch of a formulation of the instrumental theory of knowledge that constitutes an underexamined component of the institutionalists basic tool kit: Four formulations are included in the instrumental theory of knowledge: 1 the instrumental-ceremonial split, 2 the ceremonial resistance to instrumental knowledge, 3 the locus of value, and 4 the problems of the age. Both radical institutionalism and traditional institutionalism include these four formulations, but each uses elements in their formulation differently. 1. Instrumental-Ceremonial Split The instrumental theory of knowledge begins by distinguishing between two aspects of knowledge - instrumental knowledge and ceremonial knowledge. This basic distinction differs from the dualistic separation between positive and normative as traditionally accepted in neoclassical economics. In fact, the instrumental theory of knowledge does not accept the mutually exclusive categories of positive and normative. Instead, the two are understood to be inextricably intertwined, making the positive-normative split extremely difficult to carry out in actual practice - as difficult and as useful as the splitting of hairs. In practice the positive-normative dualism supposes the positive deals with evaluating means while the normative deals with evaluating ends. However, what is a means and what is an end depends entirely on how you look at them. …

Compulsive Shift or Cultural Blind Drift? Literary Theory, Critical Rhetoric, Feminist Theory and Institutional Economics

Clearly one of the central organizing foci of Marc Tool’s contributions to institutional thought is the thesis put forward in his 1980 Presidential address to the Association for Institutional Thought where he argued that a compulsive shift towards institutional analysis was underway. He argued that the reactionary counter revolution going on at that time would not overtake this tendency (Tool 1986, p. 181-202). I think it is relatively safe to say that Tool’s observation was correct, but that some qualification and elaboration is required. The qualification is as follows—the move towards institutional analysis has occurred, but it has not been a move to institutional economics. Since Tool’s address the movement away from mainstream orthodoxy has increased. However the dominant tendency remains away from (or beyond) orthodoxy, not towards institutionalism. This tendency can be demonstrated by: 1) The increased interest in heterodox traditions, the proliferation (or fragmentation) of heterodox positions, and the creation of new proto-schools of thought—all building on themes recognizable within institutionalism. This increased interest in heterodoxy manifests itself in the formation of new scholarly organizations, the founding of new journals, and expanded discussions of institutionalist themes in existing journals within heterodoxy. 2) The serious reconsideration of the methodology of positive economics within the mainstream and the widespread consternation about and interest in reopening the question of methodology by mainstream and heterodox methodologists, historians of thought, economic historians and those interested in the philosophical foundations of economics. 3) The increased interest by orthodox economists in the creation of social institutions, the processes of institutional adjustment, and the evolution of economic systems. This interest can be seen by the growth of such sub-fields as public choice, transactions cost analysis, law and economics, and property rights theorizing increasingly identified as the “new institutionalism.” 4) The increased interest in conservative alternatives to orthodox economics such as Austrian economics.

Care and the Neoliberal Individual

Abstract: This article explores two conflicting ethical systems: neoliberalism and institutionalism. Neoliberalism’s foundations support an overarching ethic of individual autonomy and individual responsibility. Institutionalism contrasts this conception with a view of human beings as relational. The ethical foundation of such a view requires a meta-ethic of interpersonal responsibility that supports an ethic of care.

Public Policy Adrift: Veblen’s Blind Drift and Neoliberalism

Abstract This paper considers the factors that currently shape and direct public policy formation in the United States. The paper begins by articulating the general position of institutionalists with regard to the purpose of public policy analysis and formulation. Next, a discussion of Thorstein Veblen’s view is presented focusing on his rejection of meliorative tendencies in the economy and the meaning of his concept of blind drift as applied to the likely direction of ongoing social processes. Then, we explore a contemporary analysis of the belief in the role of meliorative trends in contemporary social and economic policy analysis and discussions by James K. Galbraith. Then, we examine Philip Mirowski’s recent analysis of the shaping of the direction of public policy debate by what he refers to as the neoliberal thought collective as a mitigating factor to the blind drift suggested by Thorstein Veblen.

The Political Economy of Laissez-Faire

Laissez-faire has several complicated roles in our culture. It is an intellectual construct in the history of economic thought; it has significance for economic theory; it is and has been a policy proposal or position in every public policy debate in the West since the eighteenth century; it is an ideological position-a logically inconsistent part of classic liberalism, a mild embarrassment to modern liberalism; it is a fetish of the lunatic right wing of the American political scene, a mantra for conservative think tanks, and a potent cultural symbol in industrial and industrializing economies-especially the United States. All of these roles contribute to the political economy of laissez-faire.