Abstract
This introduction provides an overview on the content of John Maurice Clark’s article The Changing Basis of Economic Responsibility and the contributions to the book Economic Responsibility – John Maurice Clark: A Classic on Economic Responsibility. At the beginning, the introduction provides reasons for the specification of a concept of economic responsibility that stems from economic theory. Taking Clark’s perspective, it analyzes the social and economic changes in the US at the turn of the last century and their consequences for economic theory and practice. Clark was striving for the development of an economics of responsibility and a change in the working business ethics. The social and economic changes Clark faced in the US are described with respect to metaphysics, loci of responsibility, and social responsibility. Differences in the understanding of individual, collective, and social responsibility are addressed as well. This introduction further devotes attention to the close relationship of Clark’s works on economic responsibility and social value; economic value and social value; and individual control and public control. The final section introduces the reader to the articles in the collected volume.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Concept of Social Value, published in 1915, and reprinted in Preface to Social Economics, Clark points out that “we have come to emphasize more and more the effect of environment in determining the character and powers of man” (Clark 1915 [1936], p. 52).
- 2.
Notice that principles and values originate both from ethics and economics.
- 3.
Notice that in Clark’s approach, collective responsibility is not the responsibility of a collective action unit.
- 4.
Some quotations below refer to the reprint of the article in this book (Clark 1936 [1967]). The reprint is a revised version of the original article.
- 5.
Rutherford (2000, p. 286) argues that “Hamilton’s and Clark’s references to relevance of institutional economics for the solution of social problems make clear, institutionalism was always linked to a progressive social reform agenda.” Hamilton, Clark and Mitchell are on Rutherford’s (2000) list of promoters of institutionalism.
- 6.
Vol. 39, Issue 3 of the Journal was dedicated to John Maurice Clark. As there is no editorial available, we conjecture that the volume focuses on social economics . Thus, it is no surprise that only two of the contributors refer to The Changing Basis of Economic Responsibility.
- 7.
Notice that the term “environment” stands for the impact of the social surrounding on the individual.
- 8.
The attribute of modernity was attached to Clarkean economics as well, for example by William H. Spencer in his foreword as the editor of the second edition of Social Control of Business (Clark 1926 [1939]).
- 9.
“TRIPS ” stands for “(The Agreement on) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights” – an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO ). For further information, see https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm. Accessed 15 March 2016.
- 10.
“GATT” stands for “General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade” that covers the international trade in goods. For further information, see https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm. Accessed 15 March 2016.
- 11.
Clark used various formulations for what was later called “negative externalities,” among them: “We have begun to realize the many inappropriable values that are created and the many unpaid damages that are inflicted in the course of business exchanges” (Clark 1916, p. 218).
References
Abramovitz, Moses, and Eli Ginzberg. 1936. Introduction. In Preface to social economics: Essays in economic theory and social problems, ed. John M. Clark, ix–xxi. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
Arruñada, Benito, and Veneta Andronova. 2008. Market institutions and judicial rulemaking. In Handbook of new institutional economics, ed. Claude Ménard and Mary Shirley, 229–250. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Bayertz, Kurt. 1995. Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung. In Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? ed. Kurt Bayertz, 3–71. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Birnbacher, Dieter. 1999. Ethics and social science: Which kind of co-operation? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 319–336.
Caroll, Archie B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497–505.
———. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 39–48.
Caroll, Archie B., and Kareem N. Shabana. 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 85–105.
Clark, John M. 1915. The concept of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 29: 663–673.
———. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy 24(3): 209–229.
———. 1926. Social control of business. New York/London: McGraw-Hill.
———. 1936. Preface to social economics: Essays in economic theory and social problems. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
Da Fonseca, Eduardo G. 1991. Beliefs in action: Economic philosophy and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fiorito, Luca, and Massimiliano Vatiero. 2011. Beyond legal relations: Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s influence on American institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues 45(1): 199–222.
Fleming, Peter, and Marc T. Jones. 2013. The end of corporate social responsibility: Crisis and critique. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. September 13.
Haase, Michaela, Ingrid Becker, Alexander Nill, Shultz II, Clifford J, and James W. Gentry. 2016. Male breadwinner ideology and the inclination to establish market relationships: Model development using data from Germany and a mixed-methods research strategy. Journal of Macroeconomics 36(2): 149–167.
Jones, Marc T. 1996. Missing the forrest for the trees. Business & Society 35(1): 7–41.
Kolm, Serge-Christophe. 2009. Justice. In Handbook of economics and ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene van Staveren, 291–300. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, Mark A. 1990. An essay on the nature and significance of social economics. In Social economics: Retrospect and prospect, ed. Mark A. Lutz, 407–422. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer.
Moneta, Alessio, and Federica Russo. 2014. Causal models and evidential pluralism in econometrics. Journal of Economic Methodology 21(1): 54–76.
Rohrlich, George F. 1981. John Maurice Clark’s unmet challenge. Review of Social Economy 39(3): 343–348.
Rutherford, Malcolm. 2000. Understanding institutional economics: 1918–1929. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22(3): 277–308.
———. 2015. Chicago and institutional economics. Becker Friedman Institute for Research in Economics Working Paper. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2714082. Accessed 28 Jan 2016.
Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. London/Cambridge, MA: Allen Lane/Harvard University Press.
Stanfield, J. Ron. 1981. The instructive vision of John Maurice Clark. Review of Social Economy 39(3): 279–287.
Van Staveren, Irene, and Jan Peil. 2009a. Introduction. In Handbook of economics and ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene van Staveren, xvi–xviii. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Young, Iris M. 2004. Responsibility and global labor justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (4): 365–388.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haase, M. (2017). From the Economics of Responsibility to Economic Responsibility: Introduction. In: Haase, M. (eds) Economic Responsibility. Ethical Economy, vol 53. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52099-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52099-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52098-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52099-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)