Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorComsa, Petre
dc.contributor.authorMunteanu, Costea
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-19T08:33:09Z
dc.date.available2016-01-19T08:33:09Z
dc.date.issued2015-12
dc.identifier.issn1899-2226
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/16646
dc.description.abstractThe paper begins by emphasizing the fact that, on a historical scale, one can have several views of the relationship that has existed over time between ethics and capitalism, namely: missionary, ‘Nietzschean’, critical, and ‘regulatory’. It is argued that, nowadays, the capitalization of the contributions supplied, over time, by the four views embraces the form of two modern diametrically opposed perspectives, i.e.: on the one hand, there is the interpretation given by the neo-classical school of thought (mainstream economics) and, on the other hand, it comes to the interpretation given by the Austrian praxeological economic school (libertarian economics). The emphasis of the analysis is put on the assertions developed by the last one, libertarian thinking, that insists on the necessity to operate with a well-defined distinction between the legal level of the matter, the ethical level and the moral one. At the core of the libertarian analysis there is the understanding of the capitalist system being naturally impregnated by ethical values. And this intrinsic ethical nature of capitalism is organically bound to the sphere of the ownership-type relationship. In line with the understanding of the economic system, based on the institutions of the free market as representing ethical capitalism per se, the paper argues that the realities of the world today show governmental interventionism as a main factor that supports non-ethical economic behaviour. As a consequence, the more limited government intervention is, the greater the chance of ethical capitalism, that is, voluntary, non-conflictual and non-aggressive economic market relationships. Under such conditions, a ‘minimal state’ institutional arrangement (that is, the legitimate use of power by the state is limited to preventing fraud or the use of force; it does not include the power to tax or to confiscate property) is the basic condition for the existence of an ethical capitalism that works, which is to say that the chance of an economic system based on ethical values stands in people’s willingness to be part of such an evolution in society that aims to minimise the role of the state. Further, the paper argues that any historical analysis on how societies asserted such a willingness outlines the expression of a secular and unshaken option for growing rather than diminishing state involvement in the economy. It is about people’s perennial preference for the state, namely for the organization of society based on state interventionism (respectively, their preference for the coercive order imposed by the state authorities, order based, through its own nature, on the subjugation of private property and the aggression against individual freedom), with a preference for the government intervention over the organization of a society based on free market functioning (which is equivalent, in fact, to their rejection of a voluntarily and spontaneously non-violent order, based on the observance of private property and individual freedom, brought about by the free functioning of markets). In the last part of the paper there are put forward for discussion the possible explanations for this perennial preference for non-ethical capitalism, the analysis focusing on two directions: firstly, on that of social ontology; and then, on that of human psychology.pl_PL
dc.language.isoenpl_PL
dc.publisherLodz University Press
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAnnales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym;4
dc.subjectneoclassical economicspl_PL
dc.subjectlibertarian economicspl_PL
dc.subjectnatural lawpl_PL
dc.subjectinstitutionalized aggressionpl_PL
dc.subjectstate preferencepl_PL
dc.subjectprivate property orderpl_PL
dc.titleAn Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Relationship between Ethics and Today’s Capitalismpl_PL
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.page.number39-53pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationValahia University, Targoviste, Romaniapl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationBucharest University of Economic Studies, Romaniapl_PL
dc.identifier.eissn2353-4869
dc.referencesBuchanan J.M., Afraid to Be Free: Dependency as Desideratum, “Public Choice” 2005, Vol. 124, No. 1/2, pp. 19–31, doi: 10.1007/s11127-005-4743-2, reprinted in: Policy Challenges and Political Responses: Public Choice Perspectives on the Post-9/11 World, eds. W.F. Shughart II, R.D. Tollison, Springer, 2005.pl_PL
dc.referencesClegg S., E. Ibarra-Colado, L. Bueno-Rodriques, Global Management: Universal Theories and Local Realities, Sage, London 1998, cited in: M.-L. Djelic, How has capitalism lost its soul: From the protestant ethics to the “robbery barons” [in:] Ethical frontiers of capitalism, eds. D. Dăianu, R. Vrânceanu, Polirom Printing House, Iasi, Romania 2006.pl_PL
dc.referencesDjelic M.-L., How has capitalism lost its soul: From the protestant ethics to the “robbery barons” [in:] Ethical frontiers of capitalism, eds. D. Dăianu, R. Vrânceanu, Polirom Printing House, Iasi, Romania 2006.pl_PL
dc.referencesFriedman M., Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago University Press, Chicago 1962, cited in: M.-L. Djelic, How has capitalism lost its soul: From the protestant ethics to the “robbery barons” [in:] Ethical frontiers of capitalism, eds. D. Dăianu, R. Vrânceanu, Polirom Printing House, Iasi, Romania 2006.pl_PL
dc.referencesHolcombe R.G., Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable, “Journal of Libertarian Studies” 2007, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 326.pl_PL
dc.referencesHoppe H.-H., The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, The Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama 2006 (first edition in 1993).pl_PL
dc.referencesKung H., An Ethical Framework for the Global Market Economy [in:] Making Globalization Good, ed. J. Dunning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003, cited in: M.-L. Djelic, How has capitalism lost its soul: From the protestant ethics to the “robbery barons” [in:] Ethical frontiers of capitalism, eds. D. Dăianu, R. Vrânceanu, Polirom Printing House, Iasi, Romania 2006.pl_PL
dc.referencesMaking Globalization Good, ed. J. Dunning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003, cited in: M.-L. Djelic, How has capitalism lost its soul: From the protestant ethics to the “robbery barons” [in:] Ethical frontiers of capitalism, eds. D. Dăianu, R. Vrânceanu, Polirom Printing House, Iasi, Romania 2006.pl_PL
dc.referencesRothbard M.N., Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York and London 1988 (first edition in 1982).pl_PL
dc.referencesStringham E.P., J.R. Hummel, If a Pure Market Economy is So Good, Why Doesn’t It Exist? The Importance of Changing Preferences versus Incentives in Social Change, “Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics” 2010, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 31–52.pl_PL
dc.referencesTopan M.-V., The Entrepreneur in the International Firm. A Theorizing in the Austrian School Tradition, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Press, Bucharest 2013.pl_PL
dc.referencesTransnational Regulation in the Making, eds. M.-L. Djelic, K. Sahlin-Anderson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York 2005.pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorEmailcomsa.petre@gmail.compl_PL
dc.contributor.authorEmailcostea_munteanu@yahoo.compl_PL
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1899-2226.18.4.03
dc.relation.volume18pl_PL
dc.subject.jelA13
dc.subject.jelP17
dc.subject.jelP26
dc.subject.jelZ13


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record