Showing posts with label common good. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common good. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2020

How Can We Cooperate When the Pandemic Is Driving Us Apart? — Jill Suttie interviews Paul Atkins

JS: What are those concepts? What do we need for groups to be more kind, helpful, and cooperative?
PA: There are eight design principles in our book that help groups to act more cooperatively [for the common good].
Greater Good Magazine
How Can We Cooperate When the Pandemic Is Driving Us Apart?
Jill Suttie interviews Paul Atkins, coauthor of the new book Prosocial: Using Evolutionary Science to Build Productive, Equitable, and Collaborative Groups.

Friday, January 12, 2018

Geoffrey M. Hodgson — Education is not a public good


I am surprised that Geoffrey Hodgson would make an elementary error in argument by taking an arbitrary definition as an absolute criterion.

His argument actually says that those he is opposing are using the term "public good" in a way that contradicts current convention in the dominant faction of the economics profession.

What if the definition is too narrow to fit the general case and is therefore only suitable for special case models?

This is similar to the claim of conventional economists that the methodological debate is over and only their method is admissible in inquiry and debate.

It's also reminiscent of religious dogmatism.

It is an example of the sort of authoritarian nonsense that Paul Feyerabend was opposing in Against Method (PDF download).

Yeah, I know — "Anarachism," "Postmodernism," "epistemological relativism," and all that. The basis for asserting these types of view derives from an analysis of the role of power in discourse.

This is a classic power play at the level of John Bates Clark and James Buchanan. As an institutionalist, Hodgson should know this. Or maybe he does?

I actually like the conventional definition in some respects, but as guideline rather than a dogma. I don't receive it as "blest."

The "blessing" comes from elevating economic liberalism over social and political liberalism, which results in many paradoxes.

Why should what some liberal economists say (assume) dictate criteria outside the framework in which they serve as arbitrary criteria. Hello, model definitions are always stipulations and their necessity is logical necessity limited to the model.

As for conventional economics and lot more, the influence of these views will recede as the Anglo-American influence declines in a changing world where the Global East and South are rising and the North and West are waning.

New Politics
Education is not a public good
Geoffrey M. Hodgson | Research Professor of Business Studies in the University of Hertfordshire, and also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Institutional Economics.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

David F. Ruccio — From highway to master


More on Adam Smith that contradicts the mainstream view of him, from his own pen.

Occasional Links & Commentary
From highway to master
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Noam Chomsky — What Is the Common Good?

This article is adapted from a Dewey Lecture by Noam Chomsky at Columbia University in New York on Dec. 6, 2013
Truthout
Noam Chomsky | What Is the Common Good?
Noam Chomsky | Dewey Lecture, Columbia University, 2013

Thursday, December 12, 2013

AFP — Pope Francis calls for a ‘rethinking of our models of economic development’

Pope Francis on Thursday urged governments around the world to show more solidarity and strive for equality following a period of economic crisis, a day after being declared “Person of the Year” by Time magazine.
“The succession of economic crises should lead to a timely rethinking of our models of economic development and to a change in lifestyles,” Francis said in his message for New Year’s Day, which is World Peace Day.
“Effective policies are needed to promote the principle of fraternity, securing for people… access to capital, services, educational resources, healthcare and technology,” he said in a written text which will be read out in Catholic churches on January 1.

Governments have a “duty of solidarity” towards poorer nations and a “duty of social justice” towards their citizens, while individuals should also practice fraternity by “sharing their wealth”, he said.
He also said disarmament accords were not “sufficient to protect humanity from the risk of armed conflict”.
“A conversion of hearts is needed which would permit everyone to recognise in the other a brother or sister,” he said.
Francis called for “a culture of solidarity” and said the biblical story of Cain and Abel showed “the difficult task to which all men and women are called, to live as one, taking care of each other.”
“Rampant individualism, egocentrism and materialistic consumerism, weaken social bonds, fuelling that ‘throw away’ mentality which leads to a contempt for, and the abandonment of, the weakest,” he said.
He also reiterated his critique of financial speculators saying they were often “both predatory and harmful for entire economic and social systems, exposing millions of men and women to poverty”.
The Raw Story
Pope Francis calls for a ‘rethinking of our models of economic development’
Agence France-Presse

Friday, November 29, 2013

Pope Francis — Evangelii Gaudium, 56


Conservatives seem to have caught their breath and are now attacking the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis as "Marxist." Here is the passage in especially in question.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule. — Evangelii Gaudium
Marxist? Really?

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Francine Mestrum — Promoting the Social Commons

Firstly, the term ‘social commons’ is meant to be analogous with the protection of the so-called ecological ‘commons’. Defending ‘the commons’ means focusing on that which is shared by all human beings. It is the very foundation of collective life of humanity. It also means resisting the current commodification of everything and a breakaway from the dominant logic. The ‘social commons’ are human-made commons, meant to protect individuals and societies.
Secondly, the notion of ‘social protection’ is, paradoxically, being hollowed out by the new global initiatives of the ILO, the World Bank and other international organisations. Some of their proposals have an important potential for improving the situation of poor people, but others barely go beyond the already existing poverty reduction policies. We think that in the long term, more is needed.
Thirdly, we noticed that the concept of ‘social protection’ has a very low appeal to young people who were raised in a neoliberal world in which individual freedom and competitiveness are presented as being natural. But these same young people do understand the value of solidarity and sharing with others. Changing the concept of social protection to social commons may change the perception and the understanding of an idea that may positively shape their future. It may also open up new analytical insights and lead to a new praxis fit for the 21st century.
Fourthly, and most importantly, we think that not only individuals need to be protected, but also societies. With its focus on competitiveness, neoliberalism is destroying social relationships, societies and communities. This collective dimension is particularly important when one knows that poverty is never a problem of poor people alone, but is the problem of societies with a skewed income distribution. It thus cannot be eradicated if the whole of society is not involved in solving it. This requires solidarity and active participation of all. Universalism will therefore be a major characteristic of ‘social commons’. This is based on the fact that social relationships are not purely contractual but are constitutive of each one’s individuality. Indeed, society is necessary for the survival of individuals.
Global Social Justice
Promoting the Social Commons
Francine Mestrum
(h/t Michel Bauwens at P2P Foundation Blog)

Monday, June 18, 2012

David Bollier — Review: Brett Frischmann on Infrastructure as a Commons

It’s unlikely that we are ever going to get a book as rigorous and comprehensive in its treatment of infrastructure as a commons than Professor Brett Frischmann’s recently published Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources (Oxford University Press). This book is a landmark in the study of the social value of infrastructure, a theme that is generally overlooked or marginalized.

Who among us gives much thought to the economics and policy structures that govern the Internet, telecommunications, water systems, roads and highways or the electric power grid? These resources hover in the background, nearly invisible, until they break down. Then people start to contemplate the wide-ranging social, economic and civic benefits of safe bridges and reliable, efficient water systems. And if we're lucky, prudent policies are enacted.
Infrastructure tends to be neglected because it is generally very complex, technologically and financially. Its value extends well into the future and so it’s easy to ignores its benefits. And since the benefits also tend to be diffused among the general public, there is often no single individual constituency to rally behind infrastructure except those who directly profit from it.
 Not surprisingly, lots of private interests have made great fortunes by privatizing public infrastructure. Since deregulation in the 1990s, the broadcasting industry has enjoyed exclusive control over our airwaves with no meaningful public interest obligations – an enclosure worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The atmosphere is used as a free waste dump by polluters. Multinational bottlers continually prowl the globe in search of free or cheap groundwater supplies while other attempt to privatize municipal water systems.
Read it at David Bollier | news and perspectives on the commons

Brett Frischmann on Infrastructure as a Commons
by David Bollier