Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Not what I was looking for

Posted June 21st, 2009 by Jonathan Cobb in Economics
In Reference to:
Integral Economics: Understanding our Economic Institutions

I've been trying to construct an Integral economic framework for a while, and was a bit disappointed with this presentation.  This doesn't really look like Integral Economics to me.  It looks like an attempt to explain mainstream economic viewpoints from an Integral perspective.  I think the problem is that you can't find the destination if you don't know where you came from, and most economists don't bother to study economic history.  Economics is usually taught starting with Adam Smith, so we're led to believe that economics began with him.  This is not the case.  Economics has existed for as long as civilization.  By starting economic history with Adam Smith, what economists are really doing is identifying economics with the Orange meme.  But long before Adam Smith, there was Amber economics.  While Orange economics focuses on how rational self-interest can help produce better outcomes for everyone, amber economics is concerned with maintaining the social order and national sovereignty.  This was largely the goal of mercantilism.  If you look at the Bible, you'll find there are prohibitions against usury, and the Year of Jubilees helped ensure that debt did not accumulate to the point of disrupting social order.  More recently, while mainstream economists weren't looking, Green has gotten into the economics business.  A movement of several economic schools collectively known as "Post-Autistic Economics" has introduced ideas like pluralism and interdisciplinary work, while criticizing mainstream economic ideas about growth and rational self-interest.

So I'm afraid it seems rather inadequate to look at the upper-left quadrant of individual attitudes about economics while not also examing the lower-left quadrant and looking into the development of economics itself.  It seems especially inadequate to try to derive Integral economics from mainstream economics, which is firmly in Orange, while skipping the recent contributions made by Green.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

How would you go about that?

Posted July 18th, 2009 by Kevin Bowman

In my opinion, the points you make are worthy of using the integral economics framework for further study rather than deconstructing it.  If you find an alternative, more useful approach, I'd like to see it.  Keep in mind that we must include the partial truths of mainstream economics as we try to transcend it.  Bashing mainstream economics and arguing we need an entirely different approach takes away our power to improve mainstream economics.  It places us as radical outsiders making us easy to ignore.  Mainstream economics is mainstream for good reason, it has powerful explanatory power even though it needs to be transcended and included. 

By having capital inputs per quadrant with nested levels, the framework allows for an historical approach.  There are stages of capital and you can explore those further.  Having immature and sophisticated versions of both conservative and liberal perspectives (the radical perspective is included in my scholarly version) allows us to include the partial truths of both while massaging away their limitations.  We must acknowledge both market and government failures in working towards an integral stage of economics.  Sure there were bans on usury in the bible.  There was also talk of a social safety net where the poor where allowed to eat in the fields of other farmers but not allowed to cart the food away.  Also, God helps those who help themselves.  All of these statements can be addressed.  Helping the poor with equal opportunity without overly distorting incentives and protecting them from abuse.  These are universal issues but the economic system and level of development changes the specifics of the policies.  There were laws against usury before banking deregulation of the 1980s.  That has moral issues which cultural capital by level and stakeholder allows us to better address.  How do agents that affect the enactment and enforcement of strong or weak usury laws differ by level of values, morals, incentives given their stakeholder position, etc.?  This approach is taken up in my paper "The Financial Crisis of 2008-09: An Integral Political-Economic Analysis" posted at my webpage.  That paper addresses not only incentives by type and level, but also the theoretical justification for regulating financial firms and the government failures that must be overcome to have proper regulation.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Let's talk emergence . . .

Posted July 10th, 2009 by Brian McConnell

-- I think several of your points are well taken, particularly in respect to Economics' historical development.  You'll notice there's a link for the Integral economics page I originated at Wikipedia in the signature line of this post.  Although I've incorporated a chronological outline for the 'modern era', I've not translated that to reflect developmental levels because it would essentially vary only in shades of 'amber' to 'orange'.

Much of the turmoil (and instability) we're currently witnessing in respect to global finance and economics appears due in large part to a clash between traditional 'orange' and more enlightened perspectives.  Similarly, I also share your expressed concerns that those like ourselves may be wrestling with developmental challenges (ghosts?) of our own.  I nevertheless believe that's a good reason for inviting dialogue and relationships that might otherwise encourage or motivate us to venture beyond the perception of those (imposed) limitations.

I'd like to invite you to visit the new Integral economics page at Wikipedia and to relay any comments you think helpful.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

An 'Economic Timeline from an Integral Perspective'

Posted April 24th, 2010 by Brian McConnell

Thanks for contributing your input to the discussion, Jonathon.  I've found it especially relevant in the practical development of an 'Integral Economics'.  Consequently, I'd like to direct you to a document I published to the internet the later part of January entitled, A Historical Overview of Economic Events from an 'Integral Perspective'.  It represents a chronological overview, presented as an Appendix to a paper I'm completing entitled, "An Integral Perspective: or Prophetic Peek at Apocalypse?".

I hope you'll visit my new blog site, the integral economist.