Advertisement

The Mechanistic Paradigm

  • Claus Dierksmeier
Chapter
  • 298 Downloads
Part of the Humanism in Business Series book series (HUBUS)

Abstract

This chapter presents management problems and traces them back to mistaken business theories based on a misguided “mechanistic paradigm” of economics. Mechanistic models, mimicking the methods of natural sciences, became popular in the realm of economic theory soon after the year 1800. Mechanistic economists attempted to break down all economic behavior into its smallest constituent parts such as the rational pursuit of self-interest of economic agents. Through this methodological filter, however, much of what constitutes everyday economic practices does not enter into economic theory. As a result, precisely those aspects of the human condition that enable individuals and institutions to advance the course of an ethical economy—personal freedom and responsibility—were eliminated from mechanistic economics. This led to the externalization of responsibility from the concept of economic freedom, much to the detriment of any and all interests in the social, moral, and ecological sustainability of business.

Keywords

Economics Utilitarianism Maximization Homo economicus Principal/agent-theory 

Bibliography

  1. Argyris, Chris. 1973. Some limits of rational man organizational theory. Public Administration Review 33: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backhaus, Jürgen, and Reginald Hansen. 2000. Methodenstreit in der Nationalökonomie. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 31(2): 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham, Jeremy. 1954. Economic writings, vol. 3. London: Franklin.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, Jeremy. 1970. Of laws in general. Ed. H.L.A. Hart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bergmann, Barbara. 1989. Why do most economists know so little about the economy? In Unconventional wisdom: Essays on economics in honor of John Kenneth Galbraith, ed. Samuel Bowles, Richard Edwards, and William G. Shepherd, 29–37. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  6. Boettke, Peter J. 1997. Where did economics go wrong? Modern economics as a flight from reality. Critical Review 11(1): 11–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bostaph, Samuel. 1978. The methodological debate between Carl Menger and the German historicists. Atlantic Economic Journal 6(3): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulding, Kenneth. 1969. Economics as a moral science. American Economic Review 59(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
  9. Brodbeck, Karl-Heinz. 2000. Die fragwürdigen Grundlagen der Ökonomie, Eine philosophische Kritik der modernen Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, Nancy. 2006. From causation to explanation and back. In The future for philosophy, ed. Brian Leiter, 230–245. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  11. Chamberlain, Edward. 1948. An experimental imperfect market. Journal of Political Economy 56: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chytil, Václav. 1941. Vom Begriff des Ganzen. Eine wirtschaftsphilosophische Betrachtung. Prag: Litera.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, John Bates. 1899. The distribution of wealth. New York: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
  14. Crisp, Roger. 1987. Persuasive advertising, autonomy, and the creation of desire. Journal of Business Ethics 6: 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, Partha. 2005. What do economists analyze and why: Value or facts? Economics and Philosophy 21: 221–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2007. Qualitative oder quantitative Freiheit? Rechtsphilosophische Hefte XII: 107–119.Google Scholar
  17. diZerega, Gus. 1997. Market non-neutrality: Systemic bias in spontaneous orders. Critical Review 11(1): 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  19. Erhard, W., M. Jensen, S. Zaffron, and K. Granger. 2010. Being a leader and the effective exercise of leadership: An ontological model. Mays School of Business. Unpublished paper and slides, available online at http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38840
  20. Fehr, Ernst, Urs Fischbacher, and Michael Kosfeld. 2005. Neuroeconomic foundations of trust and social preferences. AEA Papers and Proceedings 95(2): 346–353.Google Scholar
  21. Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13.Google Scholar
  24. Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1958. The affluent society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1986 (1967). The new industrial state. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Glimcher, Paul W., and Ernst Fehr, eds. 2013. Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haney, Lewis H. 1949. History of economic thought; a critical account of the origin and development of the economic theories of the leading thinkers in the leading nations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Harrison, E. Frank. 1995. The managerial decision-making process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  29. Heilbroner, Robert. 1979. Modern economics and a chapter in the history of economic thought. History of Political Economy 11(2): 192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensen, Michael C. 2009. Integrity: Without it nothing works. Rotman Magazine: The Magazine of the Rotman School of Management, 16–20. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1511274
  31. Jevons, William S. 1874. The principles of science: A treatise on logic and scientific method. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  32. Jevons, William S. 1970 (1871). The theory of political economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  33. Keynes, John Maynard. 1923. A tract on monetary reform. In The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes, IV. London: Macmillan, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. Kirchgässner, Gebhard. 1991. Homo oeconomicus. Das ökonomische Modell individuellen Verhaltens und seine Anwendung auf Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  35. Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Reprint Chicago, London, 1971.Google Scholar
  36. Lippke, Richard. 1989. Advertising and the social conditions of autonomy. Business & Professional Ethics Journal 8(4): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lucas, Robert E. 1998. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 22: 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marglin, Stephen. 1999. “John Kenneth Galbraith and the Myths of Economics.” Between Friends: Perspectives on John Kenneth Galbraith, 114–138. H. Sasson(ed), Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 114–138.Google Scholar
  40. Marshall, Alfred. 1897. The old generation of economists and the new. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 11: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall, Alfred. 1920 (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  42. May, K. 1947. Technical change and aggregation. Econometrica 15(1): 51–63.Google Scholar
  43. McCloskey, Donald. 1994. Knowledge and persuasion in economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Menger, Carl. 1871. Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre. Erster Allgemeiner Theil. Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller.Google Scholar
  45. Menger, Carl. 1883. Untersuchungen über die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften und der Politischen Ökonomie insbesondere. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  46. Mirowski, Philip. 1988. Against mechanism: Protecting economics from science. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  47. Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine dreams: Economics becomes a cyborg science. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mises, Ludwig von. 1931. Die Ursachen der Wirtschaftskrise. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  49. Mises, Ludwig von. 1940. Nationalökonomie. Genf: Éditions Union.Google Scholar
  50. Neurath, Otto. 1931. Soziologie im Physikalismus. In Erkenntnis II.1. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nguyen, Huy. 2000. Do humanistic values matter? Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings ODC: (1): A1–A6.Google Scholar
  52. Pigou, Arthur C. 1962. The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  53. Prigogine, Ilya. 1977. Time, structure and fluctuations. Nobel Lecture, December 8. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.pdf
  54. Robbins, Lionell. 1932. An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, Joan. 1962. Economic philosophy. Harmondsworth/Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  56. Rudner, Richard. 1953. The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ruff, Christian C., and Ernst Fehr. 2014. The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15(8): 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Samuelson, Paul. 1938. A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behaviour. Economica 5: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Samuelson, Paul. 1983 (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schmoller, Gustav von. 1883. Zur Methodologie der Staats- und Sozialwissenschaften. Schmollers Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft 7: 975–994.Google Scholar
  61. Schmoller, Gustav von. 1893. Die Volkswirtschaft, die Volkswirtschaftslehre und ihre Methode. Reprinted Frankfurt 1949.Google Scholar
  62. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sen, Amartya. 2002. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Shackle, George L.S. 1972. Epistemics and economics: A critique of economic doctrines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Solow, Robert. 1997. How did economics get that way, and what way did it get? Daedalus 134(4): 39–58.Google Scholar
  66. Spiegel, Henry William. 1971. The growth of economic thought. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Stigler, George, and Gary Becker. 1977. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. American Economic Review 67(2): 76–90.Google Scholar
  68. Sundaram, Anant K., and Andrew C. Inkpen. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization science 15(3): 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ulrich, Peter. 2008. Integrative economic ethics: Foundations of a civilized market economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Veblen, Thorstein. 1898. Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Quarterly Journal of Economics 12(4): 373–397.Google Scholar
  71. von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1952. The counter-revolution of science. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  72. von Hayek, Friedrich A. 1970. Constitution of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  73. Waligorski, Conrad. 1990. The political theory of conservative economists. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  74. Walras, Léon. 1909. Économique et méchanique. Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise de Sciences Naturelles 45: 313–324.Google Scholar
  75. Warke, Tom. 2000. Mathematical fitness in the evolution of the utility concept from Bentham to Marshall. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22(1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weber, Max. 1904. Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19: 22–87. Band.Google Scholar
  77. Weber, Max. 1918. Der Sinn der „Wertfreiheit“ der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften. Logos 7. Reprinted In Weber, Max: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. Johannes Winckelmann. Tübingen, 1988.Google Scholar
  78. Wieser, Friedrich von. 1884. Über den Ursprung und die Hauptgesetze des wirthschaftlichen Werthes. Wien: Alfred Hölder.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and the Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus Dierksmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Weltethos-Institut University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations