be possible to safeguard social interest even more effectively if both market mechanism and government intervention are complemented by a sense of moral obligation?
Thirdly, physical, social and political environments also influence human behaviour and the use of scarce resources. It may, thus, be necessary to supplement both the filter mechanism and the motivating system by creating an enabling environment of economic, social and political values and institutions8 that influence individuals positively, and in a manner that is conducive to the realization of well-being in its comprehensive sense. This would bring into focus the need for socio-economic and political reform.
For example, if the need-fulfilment of all is accepted as a goal, and the operation of market forces does not automatically lead to this, then some arrangement may need to be made to realize this goal. If budgetary constraints prevent the state from playing an important role, then is it possible for the family and the society to share the burden? However, if the values or the structure of the families and the society have changed over time, making them unwilling or unable to share the burden, then is it possible for economics not to discuss the kind of socio-economic change that is necessary to realize its humanitarian goals? Its refusal to do so may be tantamount to giving blessings to the prevailing inequities. These might accentuate social unrest and tensions, which may ultimately lead to the decline of the society even in a material sense. Similarly, even if a society has values, but individuals are able to get away with dishonesty, bribery and other unfair means of earning because there is no effective system for detecting and punishing the culprits, then such practices may become locked-in through the long-run operation of path dependence and self-reinforcing mechanisms. Everyone may then condemn the practice but not be able to eliminate it single-handedly. Is it possible to eliminate undesired practices by just preaching sermons and not undertaking comprehensive reforms through socioeconomic and political restructuring? If such restructuring is needed, could it be brought about without the state also playing a supportive role? Is it possible for economics to abstain from discussing the kind of change that is needed and the role of the state therein?
If the mechanisms chosen by economics are not in conformity with the desired concept of well-being, or if the desired restructuring is not, or cannot be, brought about, then that kind of well-being may not be realized. Within this perspective, anything that prevents the kind of filtering, motivation and restructuring that the desired well-being requires may be termed as distortion, and any use of resources that does not directly or indirectly contribute to, or is in conflict with, goal realization may be considered ‘unproductive’, ‘inessential’ or ‘wasteful’. The role that the state plays in the economy may also be determined by the kind of filtering, motivation and restructuring that are necessary for realizing its vision.
The concept of well-being selected by economics as well as the filtering, motivation and restructuring mechanisms adopted by it are determined essentially by its worldview, which in turn tends to influence “the nature of man’s reflections on almost any subject.”9 Some of the questions that the worldview tries to answer concern how the universe came into existence, the meaning and purpose of human life, the ultimate ownership and objective of the limited resources at the disposal of human beings, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and families towards each other and their physical and social environment.
Answers to these questions have a far-reaching influence on human thought and behaviour and lead to different theoretical frameworks and policy prescriptions. For example, if the universe is believed to have come into existence by itself and human beings are not accountable to anyone, then they are free to live as they please. Their purpose in life is to serve their self-interest through the realization of maximum wealth and consumption. The measure of their well-being would, in this case, be the extent to which they attain bodily pleasures and sensual gratifications.Survival of the fittest may perhaps be the most logical behavioural pattern. Value judgements may be unwarranted and all three filtering, motivation and restructuring mechanisms may be developed by human beings alone through reliance on their own reason and experience.
However, if all human beings have been created by the Supreme Being and the resources they have at their disposal are a trust from Him, then they are automatically all related to one another by a natural bond of brotherhood and are also accountable to Him. They are not then absolutely free to do what they please, but are rather expected to use the scarce resources and interact with each other and their environment in such a way that helps realize the well-being of all individuals, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, white or black, male or female, children or adults. They would also be expected to ensure not only the realization of material goals but also spiritual and humanitarian goals, particularly social harmony and the absence of anomie. Here, Revelation and reason would both play an important role in filtering, motivation and restructuring, and value judgements would not be out-of-bounds.
The method of economics is also determined by its worldview. Linguistically, the term method refers to the rules and procedures of a discipline followed in a certain logical order to achieve a desired end.10 What the method essentially does is to provide criteria for the acceptance or rejection of certain propositions as a part of the discipline.11 The steps taken and the criteria for acceptance or rejection thus depend, as Caws has rightly indicated, on the end sought.12
If survival of the fittest is an acceptable behavioural pattern and if individuals are free to do what they wish in accordance with their preferences and their wealth, then the allocation and distribution brought about by market forces cannot be questioned. There would be no point in talking about humanitarian goals. Economics would accept the status quo, pass no judgement on it, and make no policy recommendations to change it. Its function would be just to describe (make positive statements about) how resources are actually allocated and distributed by the operation of market forces, and to analyze, theoretically as well as empirically, the relationship between the different variables involved in such allocation and distribution, with a view to helping make predictions about what may happen in the future. Economics would then be strictly a positive science with no normative role to play.
If, however, the purpose of economics is also to help realize humanitarian goals, then the method may not be just to describe, analyze and predict, but also to compare the actual results with the desired goals, to analyze the reasons for the gap between the two, and to show how the gap may be removed without unduly sacrificing individual freedom. Value judgements may not then be out-of-bounds. Since the purpose of Revelation is to help make such value judgements, it too may be welcome and economics may then be based on both Revelation, and reason and experience. There may then be no justification for creating a watertight distinction between its positive and normative functions, as both may be closely integrated and together constitute an indispensable part of its raison d’être.
The vision, the mechanisms, and the method of economics are all, therefore, the logical outcome of the prevailing worldview. Even though none of the current major worldviews is either totally materialist and hedonist or totally humanitarian and spiritual, there are nevertheless, significant differences among them in terms of the emphasis that they place on material or spiritual goals. The greater the difference in the emphasis, the greater may be the difference in the economic disciplines of these societies. Feyerabend frankly recognizes this in the Introduction to the Chinese edition of his thought-provoking book, Against Method, by stating that: “First world science is only one science among many; by claiming to be more it ceases to be an instrument of research and turns into a (political) pressure group.”13 Even with respect to institutional economics,
