For reflexivity as an epistemic criterion of ontological coherence and virtuous social theorizing

This article offers an approach that combines, on the one hand, the philosophical notion of reflexivity, which is related to the ideas of self-reference and paradox, and, on the other hand, the sociological discussion of epistemic reflexivity as a problem of coherence, which was mainly initiated by certain branches of ethnomethodology and social constructionism. This combinatory approach argues for reflexivity as an epistemic criterion of ontological coherence, which suggests that social ontologies should account for the possibility of self-reflective subjectivity – for otherwise they result in a paradoxical conclusion according to which a social scientist reflects on her or his ontological commitments even though these commitments deny her or him the capacity for self-reflection. This analysis presupposes that all human sciences are categorically premised on social ontologies; and it argues for an analytical distinction between self-reflection, which refers to the agential capacity for reflecting on one’s own commitments, and the epistemic criterion of reflexivity hereby proposed. These two analytically distinct though interdependent socio-theoretical concepts are frequently conflated in the literature; thus, this article also aims at a ‘clearing of the ground’ that can be of categorical use to the human sciences

Economic Analysis of Knowledge: The History of Thought and the Central Themes

Following the development of knowledge economies, there has been a rapid expansion of economic analysis of knowledge, both in the context of technological knowledge in particular and the decision theory in general. This paper surveys this literature by identifying the main themes and contributions and outlines the future prospects of the discipline. The wide scope of knowledge related questions in terms of applicability and alternative approaches has led to the fragmentation of research. Nevertheless, one can identify a continuing tradition which analyses various aspects of the generation, dissemination and use of knowledge in the economy

To L. Popkova, Author Of The Letter "Where Are The >i>Pirogi>/i> Meatier?"

I found your letter, which was printed in issue five of >i>Novyi mir>/i>, quite perplexing. And I am not the only one. Many of my acquaintances ask me: "Did you read it? What is it all about?" I was not immediately able to say just what it was in your letter that bothered me. After all, you did not provide material for scholarly discussion by economists. Nor did you cite facts or arguments. The only thing that could be considered an argument was your brief statement about the failure of the social democratic, "third road" in capitalist countries. But is there anything new and surprising in this? Has any Soviet economist predicted that it would be successful? And what relationship does all this have to a socialist economy?