« Welcome to Catallaxis! Main What's in a Name? Catallaxis is a name I invented several years ago through the fusion of two important concepts: catallactics and praxis.
Catallactics is a little-known term that refers to the science of exchanges. Although it is a terrific alternative to the more commonly used market theory, its use seems to have been limited primarily to the great work of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and some of their intellectual descendents. But, as Hayek himself reminded us, the classical Greek term from which it derives, katalattein or katalassein, meant not only to exchange but also to receive into the community and to turn from enemy into friend (Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.112). To me, this is suggestive of a deeper, wider meaning for the whole notion of market exchange—one that embraces the traditionally differentiated and increasingly antagonistic economic, social, and political aspects of the market. This is how I use the term. Praxis is a Greek term in its own right and generally means action, practice or the practical application of theory. It is also used to denote the idea of a theory of practice—that is, a theory of how to design one’s actions in order to achieve certain results. A catallactic praxis, then, may be thought of as a theory of how to participate in the market process or, more generally, as a practical theory of how markets really work.
Thus, catallactics x praxis = catallaxis. Voila.
I know, I know. I need to get out more.
Posted by Daniel O'Connor Permalink Catallaxis provides a unique integral perspective on the economic issues of the day. In my opinion, the need for such a blog is significant, given the dire state of the economic dialogue across America and throughout much of the world. Most of the participants in this dialogue seem to be polarized around the idea of the market and its perceived role in either resolving or exacerbating a litany of economic problems, from corporate corruption to economic recession to ecological degradation. Evidently, some of these people place a high degree of faith in the market’s ability to solve its own problems, provided that society just leaves it alone to do its work. Others are more skeptical about the market and emphasize the need for social activism, lest the market undermine our social welfare. Whenever economic problems emerge, one group will look for evidence of market failure, while the other group looks to the market for a solution. Predictably, each will tend to suspect the other of some sort of political motivation and, if they’re not careful, the entire economic dialogue is reduced to nothing but a contentious political debate. A Crisis of Vision »
An introduction to Market Learning: Toward a More Integral EconomicsAt the close of the 20th century, the market economy in America and elsewhere was in the midst of a veritable renaissance. Twenty years of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization had rendered the “stagflation” of the early 1980s a distant memory. During one of the greatest expansions in American economic history, productivity rose to record highs, unemployment fell to record lows, and inflation remained under control. Corporations realigned their strategies and restructured their operations to compete in the new era of globalization. Entrepreneurship flourished through the convergence of innovative new technologies, free-flowing venture capital, and relentless marketing. The mainstream media regaled us with a continuous stream of economic notions, from the iconic CEO to the free-agent worker to the once-and-for-all transcendence of the dreaded business cycle. For the first time ever, it was actually “cool” to be in business and everybody was following the stock market. The market, both as a system and as an idea, stood vindicated.[i]
The economists, politicians, and executives behind this renaissance are united by a well-schooled preference for individual and corporate freedom in a relatively unfettered market economy. They proclaim themselves economic liberals and pay homage to the classical economic philosophy that favors free markets and limited government as essential to both economic growth and social liberty. For reasons that will become clear in a moment, I call them economic libertarians.[ii] The best of these economic libertarians seem to think that in pursuing market opportunities they are contributing to the development of a civilization. They are indeed. Their record of entrepreneurship and innovation is unparalleled in history and the simple fact that they create so many of the jobs that fund our way of life confirms their value to society. As for the millions of economic libertarians who have never started a company or invented a new technology, the verdict is still positive. With each new market exchange they are creating some small incremental addition to the overall wealth and well-being of our society. Though some struggle just to survive in the market, they staunchly defend its very real virtues, preferring to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps rather than being, as they see it, hoisted by a social safety net.
Catallactics is a little-known term that refers to the science of exchanges. Although it is a terrific alternative to the more commonly used market theory, its use seems to have been limited primarily to the great work of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and some of their intellectual descendents. But, as Hayek himself reminded us, the classical Greek term from which it derives, katalattein or katalassein, meant not only to exchange but also to receive into the community and to turn from enemy into friend (Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, p.112). To me, this is suggestive of a deeper, wider meaning for the whole notion of market exchange—one that embraces the traditionally differentiated and increasingly antagonistic economic, social, and political aspects of the market. This is how I use the term. Praxis is a Greek term in its own right and generally means action, practice or the practical application of theory. It is also used to denote the idea of a theory of practice—that is, a theory of how to design one’s actions in order to achieve certain results. A catallactic praxis, then, may be thought of as a theory of how to participate in the market process or, more generally, as a practical theory of how markets really work.
Thus, catallactics x praxis = catallaxis. Voila.
I know, I know. I need to get out more.
Posted by Daniel O'Connor Permalink Catallaxis provides a unique integral perspective on the economic issues of the day. In my opinion, the need for such a blog is significant, given the dire state of the economic dialogue across America and throughout much of the world. Most of the participants in this dialogue seem to be polarized around the idea of the market and its perceived role in either resolving or exacerbating a litany of economic problems, from corporate corruption to economic recession to ecological degradation. Evidently, some of these people place a high degree of faith in the market’s ability to solve its own problems, provided that society just leaves it alone to do its work. Others are more skeptical about the market and emphasize the need for social activism, lest the market undermine our social welfare. Whenever economic problems emerge, one group will look for evidence of market failure, while the other group looks to the market for a solution. Predictably, each will tend to suspect the other of some sort of political motivation and, if they’re not careful, the entire economic dialogue is reduced to nothing but a contentious political debate. A Crisis of Vision »
An introduction to Market Learning: Toward a More Integral EconomicsAt the close of the 20th century, the market economy in America and elsewhere was in the midst of a veritable renaissance. Twenty years of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization had rendered the “stagflation” of the early 1980s a distant memory. During one of the greatest expansions in American economic history, productivity rose to record highs, unemployment fell to record lows, and inflation remained under control. Corporations realigned their strategies and restructured their operations to compete in the new era of globalization. Entrepreneurship flourished through the convergence of innovative new technologies, free-flowing venture capital, and relentless marketing. The mainstream media regaled us with a continuous stream of economic notions, from the iconic CEO to the free-agent worker to the once-and-for-all transcendence of the dreaded business cycle. For the first time ever, it was actually “cool” to be in business and everybody was following the stock market. The market, both as a system and as an idea, stood vindicated.[i]
The economists, politicians, and executives behind this renaissance are united by a well-schooled preference for individual and corporate freedom in a relatively unfettered market economy. They proclaim themselves economic liberals and pay homage to the classical economic philosophy that favors free markets and limited government as essential to both economic growth and social liberty. For reasons that will become clear in a moment, I call them economic libertarians.[ii] The best of these economic libertarians seem to think that in pursuing market opportunities they are contributing to the development of a civilization. They are indeed. Their record of entrepreneurship and innovation is unparalleled in history and the simple fact that they create so many of the jobs that fund our way of life confirms their value to society. As for the millions of economic libertarians who have never started a company or invented a new technology, the verdict is still positive. With each new market exchange they are creating some small incremental addition to the overall wealth and well-being of our society. Though some struggle just to survive in the market, they staunchly defend its very real virtues, preferring to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps rather than being, as they see it, hoisted by a social safety net.
No comments:
Post a Comment