In mainstream economics （the neoclassical economics）, it is accepted that every company that competes under the perfect competition market has the same technological equipment. So, technology is approached as a simp...In mainstream economics （the neoclassical economics）, it is accepted that every company that competes under the perfect competition market has the same technological equipment. So, technology is approached as a simple efficiency increase whose source is unknown. In terms of established economics view, technology is like a ＂black box＂ that cannot be predicted. As the creator of the concept of＂creative destruction＂, Joseph Schumpeter （1883-1950） caused significant changes in terms of the view of neoclassical economics about technology. On one hand, Schumpeter created a new point of view about the concept of＂innovation＂ by using key concepts, such as ＂invention＂, ＂imitation＂, and ＂business cycles＂. Schumpeter＇s ＂creative destruction＂ concept carries out the role of a new map for the new institutional economics trend which accepts ＂technology＂ as an institution. On the other hand, if one is to understand why the ideology differs between neoclassical economics and new institutional economics, ＂transaction costs＂ should be analyzed. Since, transaction costs and creative destruction have a relationship between each other; Schumpeter and Coase＇s ideas are resembling each other. While doing this, this paper will try to discuss the question of how to accept the technology as ＂external＂ instead of ＂internal＂ limit neoclassical economics. In this process, it will primarily base the dimension on the concept of＂technology＂ developed by Schumpeter. The second station is an inquiry between Schumpeter＇s and Coase＇s ideas about technology. Although new institutional economics （NIE） and neoclassical economics can be confused, they can be seperated from each other by the way they look at technology. Because, technology is accepted as an external theme by neoclassical economics, on the contrary, NIE acceptes technology as an internal fact. One of the most important reasons why technology is internal in terms of NIE can be evaluated by ＂transaction costs＂. As a result, the author will give effort to create a critical presentation in order to readdress the viewpoint of mainstream economics about ＂technology＂.展开更多
In European politics,the issue of neo-liberalism is both dominant and contested.This political position has a foundation in an influential economic theory.This economic variant of a universal theory of human behaviour...In European politics,the issue of neo-liberalism is both dominant and contested.This political position has a foundation in an influential economic theory.This economic variant of a universal theory of human behaviour is known as‘economic imperialism’.It is very influential in the other social sciences as well.The‘rationalchoice-model’(RCM)is frequently employed to explain social phenomena.The RCM,formally speaking,is the approach of neoclassical economic theory.By scrutinising some presuppositions of economic imperialism,it becomes clear,however,that this approach cannot offer a universal theory of human behaviour.These considerations are not a criticism of economic rationality as such but of a specific interpretation of this rationality,namely that of economic imperialism.Although basic ideas of the RCM are criticised within the discourse of economics itself,such criticism has a primarily empirical nature.By contrast,this article develops a reflexive argument that concerns the framework of the RCM itself.RCM starts from assumptions that it does not justify,or is even unable to justify.Two of these assumptions are discussed in-depth:the givenness of preferences and the quantifiability of utility.It turns out that preferences of rational beings are not merely given but continuously evaluated.Moreover,preferences qua goals of action have a non-quantitative character:they are constituted by values.Values make up the foundation of(quantifiable)goods or preferences in the economic sense.展开更多
文摘In mainstream economics （the neoclassical economics）, it is accepted that every company that competes under the perfect competition market has the same technological equipment. So, technology is approached as a simple efficiency increase whose source is unknown. In terms of established economics view, technology is like a ＂black box＂ that cannot be predicted. As the creator of the concept of＂creative destruction＂, Joseph Schumpeter （1883-1950） caused significant changes in terms of the view of neoclassical economics about technology. On one hand, Schumpeter created a new point of view about the concept of＂innovation＂ by using key concepts, such as ＂invention＂, ＂imitation＂, and ＂business cycles＂. Schumpeter＇s ＂creative destruction＂ concept carries out the role of a new map for the new institutional economics trend which accepts ＂technology＂ as an institution. On the other hand, if one is to understand why the ideology differs between neoclassical economics and new institutional economics, ＂transaction costs＂ should be analyzed. Since, transaction costs and creative destruction have a relationship between each other; Schumpeter and Coase＇s ideas are resembling each other. While doing this, this paper will try to discuss the question of how to accept the technology as ＂external＂ instead of ＂internal＂ limit neoclassical economics. In this process, it will primarily base the dimension on the concept of＂technology＂ developed by Schumpeter. The second station is an inquiry between Schumpeter＇s and Coase＇s ideas about technology. Although new institutional economics （NIE） and neoclassical economics can be confused, they can be seperated from each other by the way they look at technology. Because, technology is accepted as an external theme by neoclassical economics, on the contrary, NIE acceptes technology as an internal fact. One of the most important reasons why technology is internal in terms of NIE can be evaluated by ＂transaction costs＂. As a result, the author will give effort to create a critical presentation in order to readdress the viewpoint of mainstream economics about ＂technology＂.
文摘In European politics,the issue of neo-liberalism is both dominant and contested.This political position has a foundation in an influential economic theory.This economic variant of a universal theory of human behaviour is known as‘economic imperialism’.It is very influential in the other social sciences as well.The‘rationalchoice-model’(RCM)is frequently employed to explain social phenomena.The RCM,formally speaking,is the approach of neoclassical economic theory.By scrutinising some presuppositions of economic imperialism,it becomes clear,however,that this approach cannot offer a universal theory of human behaviour.These considerations are not a criticism of economic rationality as such but of a specific interpretation of this rationality,namely that of economic imperialism.Although basic ideas of the RCM are criticised within the discourse of economics itself,such criticism has a primarily empirical nature.By contrast,this article develops a reflexive argument that concerns the framework of the RCM itself.RCM starts from assumptions that it does not justify,or is even unable to justify.Two of these assumptions are discussed in-depth:the givenness of preferences and the quantifiability of utility.It turns out that preferences of rational beings are not merely given but continuously evaluated.Moreover,preferences qua goals of action have a non-quantitative character:they are constituted by values.Values make up the foundation of(quantifiable)goods or preferences in the economic sense.
