From the Economics of Responsibility to Economic Responsibility: Introduction

  • Michaela HaaseEmail author
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 53)


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.


Business ethics Control Economic responsibility Economics of responsibility Economic value Social value 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayertz, Kurt. 1995. Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung. In Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? ed. Kurt Bayertz, 3–71. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  4. Birnbacher, Dieter. 1999. Ethics and social science: Which kind of co-operation? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caroll, Archie B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 497–505.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, John M. 1915. The concept of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 29: 663–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy 24(3): 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 1926. Social control of business. New York/London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1936. Preface to social economics: Essays in economic theory and social problems. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.Google Scholar
  12. Da Fonseca, Eduardo G. 1991. Beliefs in action: Economic philosophy and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleming, Peter, and Marc T. Jones. 2013. The end of corporate social responsibility: Crisis and critique. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine. September 13.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, Marc T. 1996. Missing the forrest for the trees. Business & Society 35(1): 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolm, Serge-Christophe. 2009. Justice. In Handbook of economics and ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene van Staveren, 291–300. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moneta, Alessio, and Federica Russo. 2014. Causal models and evidential pluralism in econometrics. Journal of Economic Methodology 21(1): 54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohrlich, George F. 1981. John Maurice Clark’s unmet challenge. Review of Social Economy 39(3): 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rutherford, Malcolm. 2000. Understanding institutional economics: 1918–1929. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22(3): 277–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2015. Chicago and institutional economics. Becker Friedman Institute for Research in Economics Working Paper. SSRN. Accessed 28 Jan 2016.
  25. Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. London/Cambridge, MA: Allen Lane/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stanfield, J. Ron. 1981. The instructive vision of John Maurice Clark. Review of Social Economy 39(3): 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Young, Iris M. 2004. Responsibility and global labor justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (4): 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business & Economics, Marketing DepartmentFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations