Economics and the Social Imaginary

Old theories and economic ideas do not fit the new reality. They cannot be the basis of proper economic policies. The economic model in which efficiency predominates over productivity to the extent that the latter is weakened or even neglected becomes useless in modern world. Economics should return to its tradition of being deeply rooted in moral philosophy. Economics cannot be focused on efficiency and output growth only; it must consider first of all quality of life and sustainable development. The cognitive framework of modern economics and the concepts related to it should contribute to the subjectification of individuals and societies rather than to their objectification. Economics should become a value economics. Then it will serve to generate economic value and to maintain human economic activity

Central banks: Hesitant guardians of equilibrium

In our paper we focus on situations when central banks have to conduct monetary policy in a world in which they cannot rely fully on what is regarded the best practice and they have to cope with financial system inherent tendency to be unstable. Both phenomena are rooted in János Kornai’s intellectual heritage highlighting that economy tends to divert from equilibrium and that soft budget constraint erodes economic actors’ behavior

The Global Crisis: the Need for a New Economic Policy

The economic crisis is forcing us to revise many of the tenets of neoclassical economic theory. Gradually, 'mainstream economics' is being fleshed out with several elements of economic heterodoxy. Hence, much more so than previously, economic theories are 'absorbing' the findings of other social sciences. Revision in the area of theory has hitherto had little impact on economic policy. Indeed, when something new appears, such as 'new industrial policy' for instance, it is usually an attempt to breathe life into old concepts that have been abandoned in practice. The aim of this paper is to consider the foundations of economic policy in the context of current theoretical research and current economic challenges

Wartości, normy, dobra

Wartości mogą być indywidualnie instrumentalizowane, ale są w swej genezie społeczne. Wynikają z tego, że jednostki wchodzą w relacje społeczne i potrzebna jest im wspólnotowość, aby te relacje utrwaliły się i były respektowane. Wartości istnieją, o ile są wytwarzane. A proces ich wytwarzania ma społeczną naturę. To ludzie wytwarzają wartości. Nie są one im dane. Wytwarzanie wartości jest społecznym procesem, w którym jedne wartości generują inne i zarazem pomnażają (podtrzymują) te wyjściowe, egzystencjalne, stanowiące podstawę tego procesu.Values can be instrumentalized individually, but they are social in origin. They derive from the fact that individuals enter into social relationships and need the community in order to ensure that such relationships are consolidated and respected. Values exist provided that they are produced, and the process of producing them is social in nature. It is people who generate values, values are not given to them. Value creation is a social process in which certain values generate others and simultaneously multiply (reinforce) the initial, existential ones that underlie the entire process

The Development and Types of Social Knowledge - Continued

Tekst jest podsumowaniem dyskusji toczącej się na seminariach Koła Krakowskiego, wywołanej inicjującym tę dyskusję tekstem, który otwiera niniejszy tom. Autor prowadzi dialog z innymi autorami artykułów zamieszczonych w tym tomie i rozwija swoje wyjściowe argumenty. Zarazem wskazuje, w jakim kierunku - jego zdaniem - powinny zmierzać seminaria Koła Krakowskiego w kolejnym okresie.The paper recapitulates the discussion pursued at the Krakow Circle seminars, prompted by the first paper in this volume. The author engages in a dialogue with the authors of other papers published herein and develops his initial argumentation. At the same time, he indicates his preferred direction of subsequent debates within the Krakow Circle

Subjectivity and institutional order

W pracach Koła Krakowskiego zajmowaliśmy się związkami bytu, poznania i działania. Dla zrozumienia zależności zachodzących między tymi kategoriami kluczowa wydaje się kwestia podmiotowości. Nie wolno odrywać wiedzy i działania od podmiotu. Nie ma podmiotu bez wiedzy. Nie ma podmiotu bez działania. Jednakże związki między podmiotem, wiedzą i działaniem nie są linearne i proste. Tu nie ma miejsca na następstwo przyczynowo-skutkowe, determinizm. O podmiotowości autor wypowiada się w kontekście społecznych relacji i interakcji. Z tego punktu widzenia podmiotowość jest elementem ładu społecznego i bez podmiotowości, a dokładnie istnienia wielu podmiotów społecznych, ład społeczny nie może się wykształcić i – ewoluując – trwać.In the Cracow Circle, we have dealt with the links between self, cognition, and action. It seems to me that the issue of subjectivity is key for the understanding of interactions between these categories. Knowledge and action should not be divorced from the subject. There is no subject without knowledge. There is no subject without action. However, the relationships between the subject, knowledge and action are neither linear nor simple. There is no place for a cause effect sequence or determinism. The author discusses subjectivity in the context of social relationships and interactions. From this point of view, subjectivity is a component of the social order and without subjectivity, or more accurately, without the existence of a number of social subjects, social order cannot emerge or last and evolve

Politics vs. Public Policy

Artykuł jest analizą zależności między czterema płaszczyznami polityki: dyskursywną (polis), strukturalną (system polityczny), behawioralną (działania polityczne), funkcjonalno-techniczną (polityki publiczne). Autor zaproponował cztery znaczenia pojęcia „polityka” i konwencję językową, która pozwala uchwycić te rozróżnienia.The article offers a conceptual and theoretical analysis of the relationships that hold among the four domains of politics: the discursive one - polis, the structural one - the political system, the behavioral one - political activity, the functional and technical one - public policies. In the case of each of these domains, policy consists in the application of power to large social aggregates (groups, formations, organizations). However, with reference to each one we may discuss different thematic scopes of power: the discursive plane - the power over meaning, the structural plane - the power over the system, the behavioral plane - the power over the decision-making process, the functional and technical plane - the power over the resources. In my article, I propose to introduce a distinction among the four meanings of the concept of politics and a linguistic convention to capture this distinction. I believe that, on the one hand, it is necessary to develop the analytical capacity of social sciences, and on the other hand, to rationally design, organize and implement political activities, especially public policies. In my opinion, the proposed analytical model has two major methodological advantages: it overcomes the false dichotomy between action and structure, consequently, the dichotomy between ideas-based politics and power-based politics, allows for the gradation of political subjectivity without adopting the view of the world of politics as an organizational hierarchy. I conclude my analysis with the proposition that contemporary politics should be a multi-domain and polyarchic system combining discursive and technical aspects