No abstract

The radical difference between orthodox and heterodox economics emanates from the different views of the capitalist socio-economic system. Economics as the science of social provisioning felicitously describes the heterodox view that economy is part of the evolving social order; social agency is embedded in the social and cultural context; a socio-economic change is driven by technical and cultural changes; and the provisioning process is open-ended. Such a perspective on economy offers ample methodological and theoretical implications for modeling the capitalist economy in a realistic manner. It lends itself especially to the micro-macro synthetic approach. Thus the objective of this paper is twofold: 1) to examine how the concept of the social provisioning process can be clarified and expanded by virtue of recent development in heterodox methodology and 2) to discuss how methodological development would nourish the heterodox modeling and theorizing of the capitalist social provisioning process.

No abstract

This paper examines the historical developments of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise since early 1900s. We will examine the major contributions in order to find the theoretical characteristics of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise vis-à-vis evolving capitalism. The paper begins with a discussion of the present state of the institutional theory, looks back on the original ideas of Veblen and Commons, and goes on to later contributions, such as Gardiner Means, John Kenneth Galbraith, William Dugger, and Alfred Eichner. The paper concludes with a discussion as to what should be done for the further development of the institutionalist theory of the business enterprise.

Purpose -The purpose of this article is to introduce heterodox economics as a viable alternative to market-fundamentalist economics and to outline the articles of the special issue.Design/methodology/approach -This introductory article provides an overview and summary of the contributions in the special issue.Findings -Market-fundamentalist economics has failed to adequately explain the economy or to provide guidance to policymakers that lead to widely-shared prosperity and human well-being. By contrast, heterodox economics offers social and historical narratives of both market and non-market activities.Originality/value -The article helps general readers to get acquainted with visions and approaches that are alternative to market-fundamentalist economics. This will allow them to imagine more concretely that a better world is possible.

No abstract

It is often argued that Richard Nelson and Sydney Winter's evolutionary theory is an alternative to neoclassical economics and is compatible with or complementary to Veblenian evolutionary economics. This paper subjects such arguments to critical examination. I argue that while Nelson and Winter's theory provides a more realistic account of the firm behavior than Marshallian-neoclassical theory does, it is a neoclassical evolutionary theory in much the same sense as Marshall's economics is quasi-evolutionary, 'neo-classical' economics according to Veblen. Therefore, Nelson and Winter's evolutionary theory is in fact a protective modification of the neoclassical economics and is antithetical to Veblen's evolutionary economics.

No abstract