Archive

Author Archives: Malgorzata Dereniowska

wea-logo-anniversary-7

We are delighted to inform that the Discussion Forum for the WEA Conference Going Digital: What is the Future of Business and Labour? has been extended to 16th December, 2019. 

Join us to discuss recent contributions to the understanding of digital economy and its consequences for business trends and labour challenges!

All papers are available HERE. You can participate in the Discussion Forum by commenting on specific papers, or contributing to a general discussion on the Complexities in Economics. In the spirit of debate, authors are asked to respond to the comments on their papers as well as on related general remarks.

Comments are moderated prior to posting to ensure no libellous or hateful language. 

CONFERENCE PROGRAM 

Keynote Papers

  1. Grazia Ietto-Gillies, “Digitalization and the transnational corporations. Rethinking economics”
  2. Peter Söderbaum, “Ecological Economics in relation to a digital world”

Selected Contributions

  1. Bin Li, “How Could The Cognitive Revolution Happen To Economics? An Introduction to the Algorithm Framework Theory”
  2. Marc Jacquinet, “Artificial intelligence, big data, platform capitalism and public policy: An evolutionary perspective”
  3. Guilherme Nunes Pires, “Gig economy, austerity and “uberization” of labor in Brazil (2014 – 2019)”
  4. Alessandro Zoino, “Predicting Stock Returns: Random Walk or Herding Behaviour?”

CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION E- CERTIFICATE 

A reminder for those, who wish to obtain a conference participation e-certificate. You can still do so by completing your official registration here and paying $10.

Otherwise than that, registration is not required for participation in this conference. You can read and comment on the papers without it.

ABOUT THE WEA

The Association’s activities center on the development, promotion and diffusion of economic research and knowledge and on illuminating their social character. The WEA makes full use of the digital technologies in the pursuit of these commitments.

We look forward to having you participate in the Discussion Forum.

Maria Alejandra Madi, Conference Leader and a Chair of the WEA Conferences Program

Malgorzata Dereniowska, Co-Leader and a member of the WEA Conferences Planning and Organization Committee

wea-logo-anniversary-7Welcome to the second week of the Conference!

The objective of this conference is to discuss recent contributions to the understanding of digital econom y and its cons equences for bus ines s trends and labour challenges .

Read the latest comments!

DISCUSSION FORUM

The Discussion Forum is open until December 9th.

All papers are available HERE. You can participate in the Discussion Forum by commenting on specific papers, or contributing to a general discussion on the Complexities in Economics. In the spirit of debate, authors are asked to respond to the comments on their papers as well as on related general remarks.
Comments are moderated prior to posting to ensure no libellous or hateful language.

CONFERENCE PROGRAM

Keynote Papers

1. Grazia Ietto-Gillies, “Digitalization and the transnational corporations. Rethinking economics” 2. Peter Söderbaum, “Ecological Economics in relation to a digital world”

Selected Contributions

  1. Bin Li, “How Could The Cognitive Revolution Happen To Economics? An Introduction to the Algorithm Framework Theory”
  2. Marc Jacquinet, “Artificial intelligence, big data, platform capitalism and public policy: An evolutionary perspective”
  3. Guilherme Nunes Pires, “Gig economy, austerity and “uberization” of labor in Brazil (2014 – 2019)”
  4. Alessandro Zoino, “Predicting Stock Returns: Random Walk or Herding Behaviour?”

REGISTRATION FOR THE CONFERENCE

There is no fee for conference registration.
Registration is not required for participation in the conference – you can read and comment on the papers without it – but your registration will allow us to send you emails to keep you posted on announcements and progress of the conference.

If, additionally, you would like to receive a conference participation e-certificate, you can pay $10 and complete your official registration here.

We look forward to having you participate in the Discussion Forum.

Maria Alejandra Madi, Conference Leader and a Chair of the WEA Conferences Program

Malgorzata Dereniowska, Co-Leader and a member of the WEA Conferences Planning and Organization Committee

Call for Papers

The advent of digital economy creates new challenges for businesses, workers, and policymakers. Moreover, business prospects for artificial intelligence and machine learning are evolving quickly. These technologies have transforming implications for all industries, businesses of all sizes, and societies. The digitalisation of economic activities calls for a deep reflection on the forces that will shape the future of the global economy.

Aims of the Conference

The objective of this conference, led by Prof. Maria Alejandra Madi and Dr. Małgorzata Dereniowska, is to discuss recent contributions to the understanding of digital economy and its consequences for business trends and labour challenges. The conference also focuses on bridging the gap between different economic theoretical approaches and the practical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Related topics include law, ethics, safety, and governance.

Topics include (but are not limited to):

  • The gig economy and recent economic theoretical approaches: advances and challenges.
  • Internet of Things in retrospect and today.
  • Machine learning: integration of people and machine learning in online systems.
  • Consumer transactions and Big Analytics.
  • Time Series Data & Data for Prediction in Economics.
  • Business Transformations though Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence.
  • Impact of artificial intelligence on business and society: automation of jobs and the future of job creation
  • Artificial intelligence for manufacturing: today and tomorrow.
  • Disruptive innovation and transforming industries: telecom, finance, and travel/transportation, logistics, etc.
  • Machine learning and eco-challenges.
  • E-government, e-democracy and e-justice.
  • Ethical and legal issues of artificial intelligence technology and its applications.
  • Digital economy and economic inequality.
  • The impact of the digital economy on competition and economic growth.
  • Technological change and ecological economics

Paper Submissions

Who Can Participate

We welcome submissions from scholars working in economics, law, political science, psychology, philosophy, and sociology.

We also welcome contributions from business executives responsible for AI initiatives, heads of innovation, data scientists, data analysts, staticians, AI consultants and service providers, and students.

Key Dates

Paper submissions: 20th October, 2019.
Notification of acceptance: 4th November, 2019.
Discussion Forum: 11th November – 9th December, 2019.

Contact

Maria Alejandra Madi: alejandra_madi@yahoo.com.br
Małgorzata Dereniowska: malgorzata.dereniowska@gmail.com

Environmental ethics is a field of applied ethics concerned with the ethical dimension of human relationship towards nature. The term environmental ethics covers a variety of approaches that can be roughly divided into two camps: anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism refers to a human-centered approach to environmental problems that protects nature for humans. Radical anthropocentrism is often equated with the view that only human beings have intrinsic value, and sees nature as having only instrumental value. Non-anthropocentrism encompasses a variety of approaches connected by the belief that nonhuman entities also have value that is not reducible to anthropocentric interests. It often questions the propriety of human interests and preferences as a sufficient basis for environmental decision-making (Routley 1973). Environmental ethics is inherently pluralistic, representing a wide variety of socio-environmental values and beliefs. Its overarching goal is to prompt change in collective practices and individual behaviours.

Environmental ethics developed as a separate field of enquiry and action in response to the fact that ecological crisis is driven by human activities (Attfield 2017). Even though it is difficult to predict the scope and speed of environmental change—such as biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change—the scientific community rests on consensus that contemporary environmental problems are humanly induced (see Gardiner 2010 in relation to climate change). This recognition led to problematising the human-environment relationship in ethical terms, and looking at environmental problems as moral ones.

Social change fostered by environmental ethics is meant to counteract what is believed to underlie the unsustainable, extractive paradigm of human activities: the attitude of dominion and the instrumentalist view of nature ingrained in the Western system of values. In this broad sense, environmental ethics advocacy diverges from the dominant neoliberal paradigm with its focus on human-centred values, markets and economic growth. But according to some environmental pragmatists, such a strong normative position and the rhetoric of intrinsic value may impair its capacity to induce a broader change because it is too detached from the existing social and political reality (e.g., Minter 2012, Norton 1984). There are also concerns about the effectiveness of grounding environmental action on moral foundations for different reasons. For example, John Pezzey points that relying on moral progress and philosophical arguments to really make a difference may be too slow; instead, appeals to solid scientific information may provide a sound and sufficient basis for expanding our horizons and motivating actions for sustainability (Pezzey 1992).

It looks as if the choice is between moral arguments and some kind of rationalism, or even scientism. Do we need an environmental ethics? I claim that we do. In face of scientific uncertainty regarding the scope of environmental hazards, we cannot avoid making judgments that are as much about values as they are about facts. Indeed, access to solid information is an important aspect of advancing environmental responsibility. But our beliefs about the world—which include moral beliefs and values—impact our perception and assessment of scientific information. Environmental ethics can facilitate expanding scientific horizons by looking outside of the box of our received systems of beliefs.

The dominant socio-economic practices exacerbate ecological problems and widen inequalities. Alternatives emerging in response to these problems call for a new societal narrative for economic practices (e.g., Daly and Cobb 1994, Söderbaum 2008). Environmental ethics articulates a trend that counteracts the extractive paradigm of human practices, unfettered economic growth, and insatiable human desires. A new societal narrative inspired by environmental ethics is based on the recognition of our share in the current, unbalanced situation. It is founded on ethical values of responsibility towards each other and the world, reverence for life, and respect towards other people and the planet (e.g., Schweitzer 1993, Leopold 1994).

The alternative paradigm informed by environmental concerns aims to challenge the status quo and implement a profound change in how we use our limited resources. That means a necessity of a complete makeover of economy, society, and individual behaviours. Such transition is urgently needed in order to move socio-economic systems towards a more sustainable and responsible modus operandi (cf. Dereniowska and Matzke 2014). It can be sustainably achieved by shifting emphasis on what matters to us. For example, a new narrative may promote sufficiency over efficiency and expanding our measures of success in welfare and well-being to better include environmental factors. This paradigmatic shift may also involve changing the norms of socio-economic interactions from those of competition and a search for profit towards more cooperation and appreciation of non-monetary values for a sustainable economy and society. Such a change will be more robust if it is based on a redefinition of the human relationship with nature from that of dominion over nature towards stewardship, duly noting our place within nature (not above it). 

Issues linked to environmental ethics broaden the scope of a normative reflection in economics and about economics in society. For example, this perspective helps to account for intrinsic motivation to care for nature. For many people nature has value on its own, independently of its usefulness for humans (see a study of Butler & Acott 2007 on the social perception of the intrinsic value of nature). Environmental ethics articulates these moral intuitions and promotes environmental values in wider society. It also stimulates some game-changing concerns for public policy. For instance, without sustainable environment there can be no sustainable economy. Preserving the environment means preserving conditions of life for us and for the non-human world. Furthermore, environmental problems are transborder issues, and it is our collective responsibility to address them in a global perspective. Adequate policy solutions will require curbing economic freedom through social justice and environmental regulations. The arising questions about the limits to growth and models for sustainable economies are deeply normative and become unavoidable. To answer them, economists need to team up with environmental and social scientists, and ethicists.

What we chose to value and to preserve ultimately says something about us. Through our practiced values we are co-writing a societal narrative that shapes our society and economy. A stance that is oblivious to values in virtue of ethical neutrality is still a normative choice that says something about us. Environmental ethics can encourage us to take a stand in times of crisis. It can also inform alternative principles of resource allocation and socio-economic security. Since the economics education for the most part is driven by the perspective that separates economic reasoning from moral one, engaging with environmental ethics has potential to open up alternative ways of thinking on contemporary problems. 

References

Attfield, R. (2014). Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Polity.

Bullard, R. D. (2005). The Quest for Environmental Justice. Human Rights and the Politics of Recognition. Berkeley: Counterpoint.

Butler, W. F. and T. G. Acott. (2007). An inquiry concerning the acceptance of intrinsic value theories of nature” Environmental Values 12(2): 149–168.

Daly, H. E. and J. B. Cobb. (1994). For the common good. Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Dereniowska, M. and J. Matzke. (2014). Interdisciplinary foundations for environmental and sustainability ethics: An introduction. Ethics in Progress 5(1): 07-32. 

Horii, R. and M. Ikefuji (2015). Environment and Growth. In S. Managi (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Economics in Asia (pp. 3-29). London & New York: Routledge.

Leopold, A. (1994). A sand county almanac. And other sketches here and there. Oxford University Press.

Minteer, B. A. 2012. Refounding Environmental Ethics: Pragmatism, Principle, and Practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental Ethics and Weak. Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics. 6(2), 131-148.

Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Guide. Environmental Values, 1(4), 321–362.

Routley, R. (1973). Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental Ethic? Proceedings of the XVth World Congress of Philosophy 1:205-210.

Söderbaum, P. (2008). Understanding Sustainability Economics. Towards Pluralism in Economics. London: Earthscan..

Schweitzer, A. (1993). Reverence for Life. The Words of Albert Schweitzer. Compiled by H. E. Robles. Harper Collins.

Good practices for development need leaders who help turning ideas into action. A well-working economy needs leaders who push boundaries, innovate, and make inspirations doable. Any change needs visionaries with strong values and a bold, clear vision of a better world. This applies on both local and global scales. Theories about economy and development are just a part of the bigger scene on which the actors are the actual people with the potential to make things happen. And because people do matter—as agents of change—the contribution of those who plant hope and give inspiration should not be overlooked.

Paweł Adamowicz (1965-2019), the Mayor of Gdańsk city of Poland since 1998, was one of such great leaders. His successful management that turned Gdańsk into an important business centre in the Baltic Sea region, efficacy, passion and the love for people he served granted him popularity. The many accomplishments of his office include the development of a modern transportation and business infrastructure, and civil budget. Adamowicz promoted an economy that protects local business, but is also open to international investors and working force from abroad, welcoming immigrants. He was not shy of bold visions. Before his sixth, and last, reelection as the Mayor of Gdańsk in 2018, he envisioned his city—which he called “the city of freedom and solidarity”—as the most important port in the Baltic Sea, a goal that he wanted to pursue during his most recent post. Adamowicz was also known for his openness and respect for people across divisions and borders such as nationalities and gender. In many ways, this local Pomeranian leader embodied values of global development, global justice, and civil society. These values and visions made liberal Adamowicz also a controversial figure on a strongly divided Polish political scene.

On January 13, 2019, Mayor Adamowicz was stabbed during the finale of the biggest national charity event, The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity (GOCC).* He was on the scene for the opening of the GOCC’s concert in Gdańsk. The assailant, Stefan W., was a 27 year-old man with a history of instability, violence, and assaults. The motives were, allegedly, a mix of a political vendetta against the Civil Platform party to which Adamowicz once belonged, and personal reasons, which remain unclear. After being stabbed multiple times resulting in serious injuries, Adamowicz underwent 5 hours of surgery. He died on January 14, leaving a mourning family and his people. Gdańsk lost a leader of great charisma and power to make things happen.

To many, the assault on Paweł Adamowicz is not a discreet event. It is more a representation of a deeper friction in society, reflected in hateful attitudes towards different orientations (be it political, sexual, national, or the like), lack of accountability in social media and public space that allows for the language of hate and destruction, and the propagation of vengeance rather than peace. But in the midst of such tragedy, beautiful things happen that give hope and inspire to development–personal and societal alike. The deputy of the Mayor Adamowicz for social affairs, Piotr Kowalczuk, reached out to the mother and family of Stefan W. offering them support. Such a gesture reminds us of the power of humanism and peace that stands with the legacy of the Polish pope Jean Paul II.

In the dawns of such a tragedy like the murder of a great leader, it is necessary to take a stand. And so this is a stand against hatred and ideological divisions that create mindsets capable of unspeakable crime. But more importantly, it is a stand for peace, solidarity, and responsibility. It is also an invitation to cultivate positive leadership, good practices, and bold visions of a better future. There are always plenty of reasons to criticize and improve economic theories and existing practices. But we should not lose from sight all the greatness around us that is nevertheless happening. With this tribute to Paweł Adamowicz, I invite you to acknowledge and share the goodness that comes from, and is inspired by, great leaders and good practices in your region.

The memory of Paweł Adamowicz has also a moral for teaching students. An economy that embodies the values of justice, civil society, and solidarity is a building block of global sustainable development and peace. We tend to look at the bigger picture, a perspective from which we can easily spot flaws. But the local level is the level where things happen on a day-to-day basis. While many of the great actors are not visible or recognized in the bigger picture, local governance, local leaders, and local community is what gives shape to universal, global ideals. Development goes hand in hand with a democratic mindset and institutions, a lesson learned from the real-world example of the work of Paweł Adamowicz in Gdańsk. The assault on these values should not be an excuse for creating more hatred and divisions. It should be an encouragement to carry on the legacy of our great leaders, and to act together for change.

 

 

* The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity (GOCC) was founded in 1993. The foundation uses the collected donations to purchase the most modern equipment for hospitals that treat children. Over almost a quarter of a decade, the GOCC contributed with modern equipment to all hospitals for children in Poland, and to many other medical facilities. The initiator of this popular and trusted NGO is Jurek Owsiak, who resigned from his function of the Chairman of the GOCC after the attack on the Gdańsk Mayor. Owsiak has just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2019.

Scientific epistemology is a serious business in economics—as it is in any science. Not surprisingly, therefore, discussions about value-ladeness tend to focus on theoretical and methodological issues within the discipline, while the question of the social consequences of science is approached with more reservation. And for many good reasons, one may say, because it is not entirely up to scientists how will the scientific product be disseminated and interpreted in society, or how will it be used by policy makers. Or, that’s not the job of the scientist, one could reason, to determine and be ready for all possible applicative scenarios.

Since the last few decades, research practices have undergone a far-reaching transformation at the interface between science, policy and society. It involves an increased engagement of science in problem solving and policy advice, and the enhancing role of participatory research methods in problem-based approaches. The social consequences of science become therefore more readily visible, opening up new perspectives on debates about facts and values dichotomy, or the relationship between knowledge, truth, and values (cf. Kitcher, 2001). One way of looking at the transformation of scientific practices focuses on the criteria of scientific rationality with regard to scientific knowledge and the very process of knowledge production, echoing a Weberian contrast between instrumental and axiological rationality of social action (Weber 1968). Specifically, the scientific rationality criteria have been extended in the process from purely (i) internal rationality, that can be defined as a conventional scientific rationality approach focused on disciplinary epistemology and methodology, to (ii) external rationality that pertains to axiological, ethical, and societal elements of knowledge and its production (Kiepas, 2006). 

There are many reasons for including external rationality in scientific practices. For one thing, all applied sciences can be considered as value-laden in virtue of their goal-oriented values (Pullin, 2002). Furthermore, many contemporary problems, as subjects of research, are radically complex. They are laden with systemic uncertainties, meaning that “the problem is concerned not only with the discovery of a particular fact (as in traditional research), but with the comprehension or management of a reality that has irreducible complexities or uncertainties” (see more in Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1994, p. 1882). They also pose future incalculable risks in an unprecedented scope. For example, in the context of complex, adaptive problems such as climate change, uncertainty in science follows (Brown, 2013). Scientific uncertainty regarding the severity and scope of the problem fuels general disagreement about the appropriate actions to undertake. Attempts to accurately assess all the possible climate change impacts and to exhaustingly assign an economic value to alternative courses of action are bound to fail (Jamieson, 2010). That being the case, the policy-relevance of standard economic analysis as the sole knowledge-base for environmental decision making is limited.

In case of economics, the shift in approaches to rationality can be seen in debates about reflexivity in economics, bounded rationality, or performativity of economic models, to name a few topics. But for the most part, ethical- and value-neutrality continue to feature much of economic research, such as in standard normative theories of decision making under uncertainty and risk. The burgeoning of economics as a separate discipline, accompanied by distancing from philosophy, build up strong methodological foundations to prevent any extra-scientific elements to interfere in its analysis (cf. Hausman, 1992).

The classic conceptualisation of uncertainty and risk in economics is very specific and differs from the above-mentioned, sociologically incrusted understanding. Following the paradigmatic distinction formulated by Knight (1921), uncertainty refers to situations of radical uncertainty that cannot be expressed as sets of probabilities, whereas risk is related to situations in which actions do not lead with certitude to specific outcomes, but the alternative outcomes and their probabilities can be discerned. 

The categories of uncertainty and risk, as considered here, lend themselves to complexity of many policy issues, and are associated with the transformation of postmodern societies due to technology, consequences of globalisation, and environmental crises that follow (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1990). These circumstances, “external” to standard methodological practices, motivate the extension of scientific rationality criteria and rethinking the role of science by researchers themselves. An example of this transformative process is the so-called advocacy science for environmental justice. It represents a socially engaged, multidisciplinary research approach that emerged in response to environmental toxicity movements, and developed an alternative epidemiological paradigm based on participatory research methods (see, e.g., Ottinger & Cohen, 2011).

With regard to the interface between science, policy, and society and the extra-scientific aspects of uncertainty and risk, one can note that the assessment and acceptance of risk are not purely a matter of data analysis or applying the “right” indicators. The perception and interpretation of uncertainty and risk are influenced by a mixture of social, political, and scientific processes that interact with each other. Consider the relationship between environmental pollution and risk. While pollution appears to be solely as a matter of scientific measures, the question of what is an acceptable level of pollution and its risk for a given society, and whether there are cases of unacceptable risks, involves our pre-conceptions and assumptions about what constitutes a good quality of life, wellbeing, and sustainable development (cf. Evernden, 1999).

Why would an individual economist care about the science-policy interface, or about considering extra-scientific elements of her research practice? There are several reasons to seriously reflect on this question. For one thing, transparency about the value content of specific research programs may translate into more careful and accountable approach to complex problems of public policy and the remedying capacity of science and technological progress. Furthermore, Söderbaum (2000) argues that economics should be more properly approached as political economics to make clear the fact that each scientist, as the discipline itself, has an ideological orientation (in the sense of means-ends philosophy) that plays out in the problem-framing, and reflects on the performative features of economic expertise. To the latter point, the analyst’s conclusion that reduces the extra-monetary aspects of a given problem to monetary ones is not without policy consequences; it suggests certain framings and solution-imageries to economic agents and decision makers. Besides, academia itself is not free of subjective interests and rent seeking. But—I haste to add—this does not undermine the value of scientific expertise per se. Neither does it suggest that citizens and policy makers are passive or unreflective recipients of scientific knowledge. It rather suggests a double-edge approach to science that recognises the subjective, cultural, and societal components in scientific practices on the one hand, and the aspiration of scientific community to reach objectivity (understood broadly as a normative objective) on the other hand. Although scientific practices are saturated with theoretical pre-conceptions and cultural perspectives, it does not immediately follow that science has nothing to do with truth and objectivity (a subject that deserves a separate discussion). 

The double-edge approach to science calls for more explicit discussions about the social consequences of science and scientific literacy in society:

  • Concerns about the role of science and scientific expertise in society may facilitate disciplinary reflexivity. It may also feed into methodological approaches. In case of economics, instead of focusing only on expanding the standard framework of economic analysis onto new subjects, concerns about the social consequences of science create a platform for a more direct consideration of methodological alternatives. Especially for contexts in which standard economic tools of analysis display some limits (e.g., cost-benefit analysis in sustainable development planning), alternative approaches that directly accommodate non-monetary impacts and justice concerns are needed (Brown et al., 2017). 
  • According to a political scientist Frank Fischer, in face of technical and social complexity that characterises most of policy issues, citizens and politicians need to display a good level of competence (2009, 1). In this context, an urgent question arises: how to democratise science on the one hand, and how to prevent populism and the spread of fake facts to take the provenience of science (as a source of information about the world) on the other hand? While the aspiration of science to be the absolute truth holder has been widely challenged, it does not immediately follow that there is nothing to scientific knowledge that would make it somehow different from other forms of knowledge. No differentiation at all can give way to anti-science of dangerous kind, in which “facts” are matters of preferences or interests. A caveat here is in order: such differentiation does not imply that scientific knowledge is inherently better than any other form of knowledge.

Certainly there are many challenges to balancing the double-edge approach to science both within and outside of the scientific community, as there are multiple philosophical framings of the role and status of scientific expertise in society. To be continued!

References

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Brown, J. Söderbaum, P. & Dereniowska, M. (2017). Positional Analysis for Sustainable Development: Reconsidering Policy, Economics and Accounting. London: Routledge. 

Evernden, N. (1992). The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hasuman, D. M. (1992). The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fischer, Frank (2009). Democracy & Expertise. Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). Uncertainty, Complexity and Post-normal Science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(2), 1881-1885. 

Jamieson, D. (2010). Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming. In S. M. Gardiner, S. Caney, D. Jamieson & Henry Shoue (Eds), Climate Ethics. Essential Readings (pp. 77-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kiepas, A. (2006). Ethics as the Eco-development Factor in Science and Technology. Problems of Eco-development 1(2), 77–86.

Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. 

Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ottinger, G. & Cohen, B. R. (Eds). (2011). Technoscience and Environmental Justice. Expert Cultures in Grassroots Movement. Cambridge: the MIT Press.

Pullin, A. S. (2002). Conservation Biology. Cambridge & New York; Cambridge University Press. 

Söderbaum, P. (2000). Ecological Economics. A Political Economics Approach to Environment and Development. London: Earthscan/Routledge.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster Press.

Something for PhD Students and early-career researchers thirsty of pluralistic education:

 

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS

Poznań Summer School in Heterodox Economics

3rd edition

12.09.2018-16.09.2018

Poznań University of Economics and Business

 

The School is intended for PhD Students and early-career researchers interested in heterodox approaches to studying complex economic phenomena. We provide an international learning environment for those interested in deepening their knowledge in heterodox economics or considering applying it to their own research area. Over five days, participants will have an opportunity of attending lectures, presenting their findings and ideas, as well as discussing them with highly competent faculty. They will also take part in workshops and seminars that will improve their analytical skills.

 

Confirmed speakers:

– MACIEJ GRODZICKI (Jagiellonian University, PL),

– PAOLO RAMAZZOTTI (University of Macerata, IT),

– LOUIS-PHILIPPE ROCHON (Laurentian University, CA),

– MARC LAVOIE (University of Ottawa, CA, University of Paris 13, FR),

– HANNA SZYMBORSKA (The Open University, UK)

– ANNA ZACHOROWSKA-MAZURKIEWICZ (Jagiellonian University, PL).

 

The School is organized by the Poznań University of Economics and Business in cooperation with Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne “Heterodox”.

The event is supported by the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy, the Review of Political Economy and the Forum for Social Economics.

 

For more information, please contact the Organizing Committee through email: heterodox.school@projekty.ue.poznan.pl or facebook.

Ongoing Recruitment – please send us an email to check if places are still available.

 

Please send your application to: heterodox.school@projekty.ue.poznan.pl

School fee: 120 euro/500 zł

Fees include lunches and coffee breaks. Budget accommodation can be provided by organizers upon request.

Deadline for payment: 15 August 2018.

 

The Organizing Committe:

Krzysztof Czarnecki (Poznań University of Economics and Business),

Marcin Czachor (Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne „Heterodox” – Publishing House „Heterodox”),

Anna Piekarska (Praktyka Teoretyczna; Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne „Heterodox” – Publishing House „Heterodox”)

Agnieszka Ziomek (Poznań University of Economics and Business).