Agenda

Is the economic science so significant that it is responsible for all the problems of the contemporary world!?

Or has it pretentiously "swallowed a frog" by not understanding the relationship of nature and society, that is primarily determined by ideological, institutional and organizational propositions (and only then by economic!?), which, with greater or lesser measure of freedom and coercion is effecting individuals and collectives in a way that the effectiveness of economic dogma and generated management mechanisms seem questionable and uncertain, today and in the perspective!?

On the other hand it is often disregarded that both freedoms and coercion are legitimized as preferred mechanisms for the realization of economic interests, which in terms of diversities, conflicts and volatility of natural and social relations complicates the formulation of a hierarchy of goals and aimed benefits, not only in the long term, but at the moment; for individuals, collectives and civilization.

In such circumstances of forced conceit and uncritical apologetic commitment to the universalization of economic knowledge, in whole or in fragments, limits the opportunities for economic science to examine more clearly the effects of legitimate and / or illegitimate mechanisms of freedom and coercion of economic principles and scope of preferred dogmas and propositions.

Pretentiousness that addresses profit as unquestionable primary target (almost exclusive) and the market as unquestionably the most effective mechanism to achieve this objective, dealing with the empirical circumstances cannot avoided. They clearly indicate that not only the natural but also the social phenomena have much more complex meanings and implications than the preferred "economistic" approaches and ideologies can interpret them!?

The study of natural and technical phenomena significantly contributes to the development of the economy, with growing social conflicts and controversies that seek new ideological and doctrinal review for balancing the co-existence and sustainability of nature and civilization !?Can economic science maintain and/or improve the efficiency and effectiveness without questioning ideological and philosophical fundaments of the modern world and reviewing and redefining the starting principles of freedom and competition, as well as structural and generated risks!?

The importance of political philosophy, as a thinking framework for the formulation of any ideological paradigm that contributes to clarifying of these and other concerns, has been increasing with development of civilization.

This is particularly evident in liberal societies characterized by freedom of ideological competition, where the functionality of such societies has been derived and legitimized by continual ability of renewal and maintains of competition in ideological and every other domain!?

The principle of freedom is inconceivable without a liberal and democratic societies based on competition (Equal Opportunities for All), which, sui generis, should primarily mean the existence of unlimited ideological and philosophical pluralism and competition in the formulation and implementation of social and economic relations!?

On the other hand, freedoms and competition, are often limited by the established power structures and mechanisms of coercion that social and economic relationship position not in the interests of the majority but rather in the interest of powerful and wealthy, who are de facto "negligible" minorities, which derogates democratic principles as the basis for the organization of liberal societies !? How to respond to the consequences of the "natural lottery" (most of civilization being "less capable" than efficient "minority", and with it born in poor countries), is situated in the lobby of freedom and competition, and how to protect yourself from the risk of instability and not to endanger basic settings of the undisputed effectiveness of ideology of liberalism!?

Whether subsidies as proclaimed protection mechanism against unwanted outcomes problematize the consistency of liberal ideology by the fact that the rich and capable "minority" should compensate insufficiently efficient poor "majority" independently of their own will and interest, which opens up many other questions (how, what context and scope), including questions of efficiency and optimal allocation of resources, whatever the explanation we choose!?

The extent to which the "natural lottery" in the area of resource allocation legitimizes the right of "deprived" to participate through the mechanisms of freedoms and/or enforcement mechanisms, and how theory and practice of international relations today, institutionally and out of institutions contributes to (in)stability of states, institutions, business entities and citizens!?

This, as well as many unasked questions certainly are not only economic!?

I hope that new ideas and approaches to this complex problem would be mostly beneficial to economists, not only for designing strategies for sustainable development of the national economies, but also management strategies for enterprises in modern circumstances!?


Spasoje Tuševljak, Chairman of the Scientific Committee