Roots and Paradoxes of the Neoliberal Apologetics

• Autorzy: Mimo Draskovic
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In both economic theory and practice, there is a dichotomy between individual behavior and institutional structure. It causes the problem of finding a non-conflict "co-evolution" of individuals and institutions. Systemic motivation, the ways of business regulation and economic development directly depend on the degree of compliance between individuals and institutions. In this article we will try to explain the difference between the theoretical level, where methodological individualism and methodological holism irreconcilably distance themselves, and the practical level, where synthesis (institutional pluralism) between polarized institutional monisms becomes possible. Socioeconomic development essentially requires institutional pluralism, which per se excludes all forms of institutional monism and the existence of resulting alternative institutions. We can conclude that neoliberal apologetics can be called a specific form of neoliberal (elitist) dirigisme, because it indirectly justifies and protects quasi-neoliberal interests of the so-called "new elite". (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Social economic development; Economic theory; Neoliberalism; Populism

PL

Rozwój społeczno-gospodarczy; Teoria ekonomii; Neoliberalizm; Populizm

• Czasopismo: Economics & Sociology
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 9
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 209--219

Twórcy

autor

Mimo Draskovic

• University of Montenegro, Kotor, Montenegro

Bibliografia

• Agassi, J. (1960), Methodological Individualism, In: O'Neil, J. (ed.), Modes of Individualism and Collectivism, London: Heinemann.
• Baletić, Z. (2005), Ekonomski liberalizam i ekonomska znanost, Radovi HAZU, 43, pp. 1-45.
• Begović, B. (2015), Ekonomska nejednakost kao barijera privrednom rastu: r>g?, Ekonomske ideje i praksa, No. 15, pp. 175-202.
• Boas, T.C. & Gans-Morse, J. (2009), Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan, Studies in Comparative International Development, No. 44, pp. 137-161.
• Davis, J. (2006), Heterodox economics, the fragmentation of the mainstream, and embedded individual analysis, In: R. Garnett and J. Harvey (eds.), Future Directions in Heterodox Economics, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Dequech, D. (2007), Neoclassical, Mainstream, ortodox, and Heterodox Economics, Journal of Posto Keynesian Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 279-302.
• Draskovic, V. (2014), Neoliberal metaphor - as a quasi-economic paradigm in function of vulgarized institutional monism and an experiment of interest, Celje - Osijek - Czestochowa - Kotor: SPH.
• Drašković, V., Drašković, M. (2013), Kritika metodološkog individualizma, Economics-Ekonomija, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 273-296.
• Frolov, D. (2008), Metodologiceskiy institucionalizm: novij vzgljad na evoluciyu ekonomiceskoy nauki, Voprosi ekonomiki, No. 11, pp. 90-101.
• Iacobuta, A.-O., & Pohoata, I. (2015), Analysis of the State Failure in Several Post-Communist Countries from the Perspective of Institutional Quality and path Dependence. Transformations in Business & Economics, 14(2A), 313-328.
• Hodgson, G. (2007), Institutions and Individuals: Interaction and Evolution, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 95-116.
• Lakic, S., Draskovic, M., (2015a), Implications of Institutional Dispositions of Neoliberalism, Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, No. 2, 113-124.
• Lakic, S., Draskovic, M., (2015b), Methodological Individualism and Methodological Institutionalism for Interdisciplinary Research, Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, No. 1, 53-67.
• Lawson, T. (2006), The nature of heterodox economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, No. 30, pp. 483-505.
• Madžar, Lj. (2003), Enigme liberalizacije, Prizma, oktobar, pp. 36-43.
• Madžar, Lj. (2005), Institucionalne prepreke individualnih sloboda, Pojedinac i država, Beograd: Institut društvenih nauka - Centar za ekonomska istraživanja, pp. 21-52.
• Madžar, Lj. (2015), Moj obračun s njima: pošast preteranog državnog intervencionizma, Ekonomske ideje i praksa, No. 15, pp. 11-56.
• Marinescu, C. (2013), Institutional Quality of the Business Environment: some European Practices in a Comparative Analysis. Amfiteatru Economic, 15(33), 270-287.
• North, D. C. (1997), Some Fundamental Puzzles in Economic History/Development, In: W. B. Arthur, S. N. Durlauf, D.A. Lane (eds.), The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II, Addison-Wesley.
• North, D. C., Walis, J. J., Weingast, B. R. (2009), Violence and Social Orders - A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, Cambridge: The Syndicate of the Pres of the Cambridge University.
• Palley, T. I. (2005), From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms, In: A. Saad-Filho, D. Johnston, Neoliberalism - A Critical Reader, London: Pluto Press, pp. 20-29.
• Prokopijević, M. (20115), Liberalni i državni kapitalizam, Ekonomske ideje i praksa, No. 15, pp. 99-126.
• Rubinstein, A. (2013), Teorija opekaemih blag v optike sravnitel'noj metodologii, Naučnij doklad, Moskva: Institut ekonomiki RAN.
• Saad-Filho, A., Johnston, D. (2005), Introduction, In: A. Saad-Filho, D. Johnston, Neoliberalism - A Critical Reader, London: Pluto Press, pp. 1-6.
• Udehn, L. (2002), The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism, Annual Review of Sociology, No. 28, pp. 479-507.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-1/14