The Concept of Human Nature as a Driving Force for Changes in Economics Exemplified by Feminist and Neoclassical Economics

• Autorzy: Anna Horodecka

Warianty tytułu

Koncepcja natury ludzkiej jako siła napędowa zmian w ekonomii na przykładzie koncepcji człowieka w ekonomii feministycznej i neoklasycznej

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The goal of this paper is to present the impact of the concept of human nature alterations on changes in economics. The example is feminist economics, contrasted with homo economicus. Therefore, in the paper the differences in understanding of the definition and methodology between these two schools have been explained, as a result of the diverse concepts of human nature. The analysis has proved that main differences in these economic schools may be explained by different understanding of human nature. It encourages further research exploring the concept of human nature as a crucial factor shaping economics. The method applied to this research is mainly a content analysis of representative publications within of those economic schools(original abstract)

Celem tej pracy jest przedstawienie wpływu zmiany koncepcji natury ludzkiej na zmiany w ekonomii, na przykładzie koncepcji człowieka w ekonomii feministycznej, zestawionej z homo oeconomicus. W artykule wskazano na różnice w definiowaniu ekonomii i jej metodologii występujące między tymi dwoma szkołami, które są wynikiem różnych koncepcji natury ludzkiej. Analiza wykazała, że główne różnice w tych szkołach ekonomicznych mogą być wyjaśnione przez inne rozumienie ludzkiej natury. To zachęca do dalszych badań nad koncepcją natury ludzkiej jako kluczowego czynnika kształtującego ekonomię. Metodologia zastosowana do tych badań polega na analizie treści publikacji najlepiej reprezentujących wskazane szkoły ekonomiczne(abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Neoclassical economy; Homo oeconomicus; Feminist economics

PL

Ekonomia neoklasyczna; Homo oeconomicus; Ekonomia feministyczna

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu
• Rocznik: 2015
• Numer: nr 401 Ekonomia
• Strony: 155--165

Twórcy

autor

Anna Horodecka

• Warsaw School of Economics, Poland

Bibliografia

• Agarwal B. 1997, Bargaining' and gender relations: Within and beyond the household, Feminist Economics, `vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-51.
• Albelda R. 2002, Fallacies of welfare-to-work policies, [in:] Albelda R., Withorn A. (eds.), Lost Ground: Welfare Reform, Poverty, and Beyond, South End Press, Boston, pp. 79-94.
• Anderson E., 1993, Value in Ethics and Economics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Aristotle, Everson S., 1988, Aristotle, the Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Aslaksen I., Flaatten A., Koren C., 1999, Explorations on economics and quality of life, Feminist Economics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 79-82.
• Barker D., 1995, Economists, social reformers, and prophets: A feminist critique of economic efficiency, Feminist Economics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 26-39.
• Becker C., 2006, The human actor in ecological economics: Philosophical approach and research perspectives, Ecological Economics, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 17-23.
• Carrier J.G., 1996, Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics. Marianne A. Ferber, Julie A. Nelson, American Ethnologist, vol 23, no. 1, pp. 147-147.
• Ferber M.A., Nelson J.A., 1993, Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Ferber M.A., Nelson J.A., 2003, Feminist Economics Today. Beyond Economic Man, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Floro M.S., 1995, Women's well-being, poverty, and work intensity, Feminist Economics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1-25.
• Folbre N., 1993, How does she know? Feminist theories of gender bias in economics, History of Political Economy, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 167-184.
• Folbre N., 1994, Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint, Routledge, London.
• Folbre N., Hartmann H., 1988, The rhetoric of self-interest, [in:] Klamer A., McCloskey D.N., Solow R.M. (eds.), The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp. 184-203.
• Harding S., 1995, Can feminist thought make economics more objective?, Feminist Economics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7-32.
• Heilbroner R., 1994, Taking the measure of economics, Challenge, vol. 6, pp. 4-8.
• Hewitson G., 2007, Feminist economics as a postmodern moment, Review of Social Economy, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 187-193.
• Himmelweit S., 1995, The discovery of "unpaid work": The social consequences of the expansion of "work", Feminist Economics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 11-19.
• Horodecka A., 2014, Komponenty obrazu człowieka w ekonomii, Kwartalnik Historii Myśli Ekonomicznej, nr 5/1, pp. 117-139.
• Horodecka, A., 2015, The field of evolutionary and neoclassical economics as a consequence of the changes in concepts of human nature, Journal of International Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 126-137.
• Jennings A.L., 1993, Public or private? Institutional economics and feminism, [in:] Ferber M.A., Nelson J. (eds.), Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 111-129.
• Kalberg S., 1980, Max Weber's types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 1145-1179.
• Kuhn T.S., 2007, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Lawson T., 2003, Ontology and feminist theorizing, Feminist Economics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 119-150.
• Marx K., 1990, Capital, Penguin, New York.
• Nelson J., 1993a, The study of choice or the study of provisioning? Gender and the definition of economics, [in:] Ferber M.A., Nelson J.A., Beyond Economic Man, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 23-36.
• Nelson J., 1993b, Value-free or valueless? Notes on the pursuit of detachment in economics, History of Political Economy, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 121-145.
• Nelson J., 2000, Feminist economics at the Millennium: A personal perspective, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1177-1181.
• Nelson J.A., 2001, Economic methodology and feminist critiques, Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 93-97.
• Novick P., 1988, That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Nussbaum M.C., 1997, Capabilities and human rights, Fordham Law Review, vol. 66, pp. 273-300.
• Nussbaum M.C., 2001, Disabled lives: Who cares?, The New York Review of Books, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 34-37.
• Nussbaum M.C., 2003, Capabilities as fundamental entilements: Sen and social justice, Feminist Economics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 33-59.
• Power M., 2004, Social provisioning as a starting point for feminist economics, Feminist Economics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 3-19.
• Robbins L., 1935, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Macmillan, London.
• Sen A., 1980, Equality of what?, [in:] McMurrin S.M. (ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 353-369.
• Sen A., 1985, Commodities and Capabilities, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
• Sen A., 1990, Gender and Cooperative conflicts, [in:] Tinker I. (ed.), Persistent Inequalities, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 123-149.
• Sen A., 1992, Inequality Reexamined, Russell Sage, New York.
• Sen A., 1995, Gender inequality and theories of justice, [in:] Nussbaum M.C., Glover J. (eds.), Women, Culture and Development, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Sen A., 1999, The possibility of social choice, American Economic Review, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 349-378.
• Smith A., 2005, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Strassmann D., 1993, Not a free market: The rhetoric of disciplinary authority in economics, [in:] Ferber M.A., Nelson J. (eds.), Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 54-68.
• Strassmann D., 1995, Creating a forum for feminist economic inquiry, Feminist Economics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-5.
• Strassmann D. 2008, Editorial: Feminist economic methodologies, Feminist Economics, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 1.
• Veblen T., 1967, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Penguin Books, New York.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/pn.2015.401.14