Competition, consumerism, and the "Other". A philosophical investigation into the ethics of economic competition

This paper presents a philosophical discussion of the ethical foundations of economic competition, based in large part on Emmanuel Levinas's theory of exteriority and of responsibility for the "Other". The claim is that competition, notwithstanding its positive effects in terms of efficiency and innovativeness, ontologically neglects the "other-ness" of individuals. The fundamental factor in the neglect is the "consumerist" orientation of competitive capitalism through which even small price differences can cause large shifts in demand, so that many firms are choicelessly dependant on competitors' behavior. This analysis based on Levinas significantly deepens Frank Knight's seventy year-old ethical critique of competition.Competition; Consumer economics; Ethics; Philosophy of economics

What Is Neoclassical Economics? The three axioms responsible for its theoretical oeuvre, practical irrelevance and, thus, discursive power

This paper offers a precise definition of neoclassical economics based on three axioms which lie at the latters foundations. This definition is all inclusive in that it applies as much to the neoclassical economic models of the late 19th century as it does to todays more flexible and inclusive models. The paper argues that these axioms, simultaneously, (a) provide the foundation for neoclassicisms discursive success within the social sciences and (b) are the deep cause of its theoretical failure. Moreover, (a) and (b) reinforce one another as neoclassicisms discursive power (which is largely due to the hidden nature of its three foundational axioms) makes it even less likely that it will con-duct an open, pluralist debate on its theoretical foundations (i.e. the three axioms which underpin it).Neoclassical economics, Methodological individualism, Methodological instrumentalism, Methodological equilibration.

Can competition ever be fair ? Challenging the standard prejudice

In this paper, we challenge the usual argument which says that competition is a fair mechanism because it ranks individuals according to their relative preferences between effort and leisure. This argument, we claim, is very insuficient as a justification of fairness in competiton, and we show that it does not stand up to scrutiny once various dynamic aspects of competition are taken into account. Once the sequential unfolding of competition is taken into account, competition turns out to be unfair even if the usual fairness argument is upheld. We distinguish between two notions of fairness, which we call U-fairness,where "U” stands for the "usual” fairness notion, and S-fairness, where "S” stands for the "sequential” aspect of competition. The sequential unfairness of competition, we argue, comprises two usually neglected aspects connected with losses of freedom : first of all, there is an "eclipse” of preferences in the sense that even perfectly calculating competitors do not carry out a trade-off between effort and ranking; and second, competitive dynamics leads to single-mindedness because the constraints on the competitors’ choices always operate in the sense of increased competitiveness and, therefore, in the direction of an increased effort requirements. We argue (1) that competition is S-unfar even if it is U-fair, (2) that as S-unfairness increases, the ethical relevance of U-fairness itself vanishes, so that (3) by focusing as they usually do on U-fairness alone, economists neglect much deeper aspects of unfairness.

Could homo oeconomicus become a revolutionary ? On the need to teach and practice a different economics

This paper investigates the standard economic paradigm as to the possibility for the agents to become revolutionaries, i.e., to develop the desire and effective action to overturn the prevailing social order. We take our cue from Amartya Sen’s remark that the Second Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics might be part of ‘a revolutionary’s handbook’. In analyzing the meaning of Sen’s assertion, we uncover the deep-lying difficulties which the standard paradigm, characterized by a vision of individuals as self-enclosed ‘monads’ and of social order as monadological coordiantion, has in even making sense of the notion of revolution. We are thus led to the intermediary conclusion that the neoclassical paradigm is structurally unable to see the agents as (even only potential) revolutionaries. In the course of our demonstration, we show that economics needs to be conceived not primarily as a ‘teaching about’, the economic system and the agents ’actions, but as a ‘resource for’ the agents within the model itself to reflect on the directions they want to give to social change. We endow the economic agents themselves (and not just the theorist who looks at them ‘from above’) with a significant capacity to educate themselves in order to form a judgment about what kind of economy they want to act in. In other words, asking whether the economic agents might in some cases become revolutionaries leads us to militate for the need to fully endogenize economics as a component of the economic model itself.Revolution;agency;economic models;epistemology of economics;critical theory

Envisioning the Ecological Future: Three Perspectives off the Beaten Track

With few truly hopeful visions currently emerging from mainstream academia or from established science concerning humanity’s collective environmental outlook, it might be necessary to go off the beaten track in order to see how we can maintain a sense of hope while realistically preparing for the gradual erosion of the world as we know it, therefore also leaving some psychological and emotional room for a sense of the tragic. This essay considers three lesser-known but, in our eyes, important contemporary perspectives on the ecological future: Ernest Callenbach’s “ecotopia,” John Michael Greer’s “catabolic descent” and William deBuys’s “hospice for Earth”—all three of which aim to challenge the currently still dominant focus on the binary of “progress or apocalypse” that flows from modern thought. We critically examine these visions and argue that, when combined, they offer an approach to the ecological future that is both more realistic and more inspiring. In essence, Callenbach’s ecotopian vision still has significant traction—and an almost “erotic” appeal—today, but needs to be adapted to contemporary ecological realities through Greer’s and deBuys’s insights into decline, grief and the tragic

A Civic Hope: from Lausanne to Los Angeles

Cet ouvrage se propose de redéfinir le rôle joué par le projet – projet de villes et de territoires – dans la construction sociale de l’espoir. Les disciplines de la transformation de l’espace ont toujours contribué à l’élaboration de visions du monde et de systèmes de valeurs partagés. Leur participation à la construction de l’espoir est pourtant remise en question aujourd’hui, principalement en raison de leur difficulté à s’inscrire dans une narration collective convaincante à propos du futur. Les contributions rassemblées dans le présent ouvrage visent à identifier les conditions théoriques et pratiques nécessaires à la constitution d’un urbanisme de l’espoir: saisir les configurations socio-économiques du territoire en dehors des théories dominantes; appréhender le territoire comme palimpseste, en considérant sa profondeur historique et ses potentialités évolutives; privilégier l’approche descriptive et qualitative pour aborder, sous l’angle des enjeux climatiques et énergétiques, des problématiques aussi cruciales que la régénération des sols, les structures paysagères, le bâti ou les formes de la production industrielle et agricole. Une posture paradoxale doit être assumée: réanimer le lien indissoluble que la modernité a établi entre projet et espoir, tout en en renversant les fondements

Monetary adaptation to planetary emergency: addressing the monetary growth imperative

Background: The existence of a Monetary Growth Imperative (MGI) and its implications for economic stability, democracy and environmental sustainability have been put forward by environmental economists for around two decades but recently criticised as invalid. Given the urgency of the climate and ecological crisis alongside spiralling public and private debt, the MGI deserves closer attention. Methods: For this review paper we analysed studies on the MGI, using a selective, iterative approach to the literature review. Results: Our critical review of the research on the MGI revealed several full academic treatments of the argument and even a taxonomy of them, most of which have not been refuted. We articulate one of them in a new way, as well as two more which have not received academic treatment, before considering why it might be thought politically expedient that any MGI should be refuted, or at least seen to be refuted. Conclusion: In any economy where money hoarding and accumulation is not curtailed, and where most of the money in circulation is issued by private banks as debt, with or without interest, there will be a system-wide scarcity of money available to people and organisations to service their debts – unless, that is, there is continual economic growth. To avoid the deleterious implications of a shortfall of money in an economy, policies are used to maintain economic growth, which is therefore a form of imperative on society. This MGI may be accentuated, at a system-wide level, by the practice of full-reserve re-lending of money. Interest is not the main driver of the imperative, but because it increases the transfer of money to those who are wealthy and more likely to hold that money in a stagnant form that is not available for debt servicing by others, interest charges may indeed exacerbate the MGI. We conclude that the debt-money system creates a competition for money between debtors and savers which is resolved through creation of more debt-money, which in turn drives growth and the resulting ecological and climate emergency