Ioannis Katselidis, George Daflos and Stelios Fetanis
The main goal of this paper is to provide us with a more systematic framework for examining the moral background of markets.
Abstract
Purpose
The main goal of this paper is to provide us with a more systematic framework for examining the moral background of markets.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper makes an attempt to put forward a way of market evaluation relying upon the three major moral theories of utilitarianism, deontology (Kantianism) and virtue ethics. Specifically, by using these three basic pillars, an “evaluation triangle” is constructed in order to examine various crucial moral aspects of markets' functioning.
Findings
The paper examines some significant distortions with respect to the three above-mentioned triangle's sides, using also examples from the real world. The paper also discusses the main findings from the previous analysis, stressing also emphasis on some crucial factors with respect to the triangle's functioning, such as the role of culture and time.
Originality/value
Mainstream economic theory, with a very few exceptions, does not acknowledge the interwovenness of economic behavior and morality, adopting the fact/value dichotomy underlying modern science. Accordingly, most economists usually avoid answering questions concerning ethical topics. The market system, however, has a direct effect on our everyday lives, so it is crucial that a systematic method of moral assessment can be proposed. Thus, this paper seeks to promote the dialogue with respect to the interconnection between economic and moral issues.
Ioannis Katselidis, Angelos Vouldis and Panayotis G. Michaelides
This paper aims to analyze Emil Lederer's and Sumner Slichter's theses on the concept of technological unemployment.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to analyze Emil Lederer's and Sumner Slichter's theses on the concept of technological unemployment.
Design/methodology/approach
Given the presence of core elements of both economists' visions in the famous Debate on Technological Unemployment (1928‐1933), it is surprising that so little attention has been paid to their works. This paper makes an attempt to interpret certain parts of Emil Lederer's oeuvre in association with the writings of Sumner Slichter based on a careful examination of their writings and their theoretical investigations.
Findings
The writings of both economists seem to converge to similar views. Analytically, they both attempted to explain the inability of the economic system to readjust and absorb the unemployed workers. Moreover, both economists disputed the assertion of Say's law that full equilibrium would be assured by the functioning of market forces. In contrast to other economists, they both attached increased significance to the supply side of the economy and in particular to the role of technical change. Furthermore, it seems that both authors were in favor of restrained technological change, which would be absorbed smoothly from the economic system. Another interesting aspect of both economists' investigations is their respective theoretical shift around 1930, which could be attributed to the disastrous consequences of the Great Depression. The paper concludes that, despite some differences between Lederer and Slichter, the parallels are impressive.
Originality/value
Most aspects of Slichter and Lederer's works remain unexplored. Thus, the connection between them may be very useful for promoting dialogue between different schools or strands of thought.