- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Invisible Ideology of Mainstream Economics: The “Invisible Hand”
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to show the ideological character of the “invisible hand,” which is the cornerstone of the mainstream economics. The article discusses how the “invisible hand” acts as a cognitive metaphor in mainstream economics' adoption of its worldview, its scientific view, its research methodology, and its mathematical rationality, which are spread in society through the educational system and the media. According to the “invisible hand,” the individuals' selfish interest automatically results in the improvement for society as a whole. The “invisible hand,” therefore, focuses on individual behavior and recommends abstraction from the social consequences of individual behavior. This atomistic view, together with its attendant abstraction from society as a whole, constitutes the foundation of the ideological character of the “invisible hand.” This is because it conceals the actual social consequences of what it supports.
Content
Author and article information
Notes
For the general literature, see Barth (1976), Kennedy (1978), Lane (1962), Parsons (1951; 1959), and Sutton et al. (1956).
For the economics literature, see Amadae (2003), Backhouse (2010), Dobb (1973), Meek (1967), Melki (2011), Robinson (1962), Schumpeter (1949), and Soderbaum (2008).
For the general literature, see Berger and Luckmann (1966), Geertz (1973), and Ricoeur (1986).
For the economics literature, see Ayers (1967), Boulding (1969), Burke (2004), Colander (2005), Galbraith (1970), Katouzian (1980), Leroux (2004), Macfie (1963), Myrdal (1965), North (1992; 2005), Samuels (1979), and Ward (1972).
For the general literature, see Boggs (1976), Gramsci (1971), Kellner (1978), Korsch (1970), Lukacs (1971), and Mannheim (1936).
For the economics literature, see Di Ruzza and Halevi (2004), Foley (1975; 2004), Fullbrook (2004), Heilbroner (1973; 1988), Hoover (2003), Hunt and Schwartz (1972), Monsen (1963), and Nell (1972).
For the general literature, see Althusser (1984), Marx and Engels ([1970] 2004), Meszaros (1989), Parekh (1982), and Therborn (1980).
For the economics literature, see Bendix (1957), Fine (1980), Freeman and Kliman (2008), Gramm (1973), Lange (1963), and Sweezy (1970).
See Boggs (1976), Gramsci (1971), Korsch (1970), Lukacs (1971), and Mannheim (1936). This section is based on Kellner (1978).
For this literature, see Friedman (1962), Friedman and Friedman (1980), Fukuyama (1992), Hayek (1978), Naisbitt (1995), and Ohmae (1990; 1995). For an alternative view, see Sen (1995). This section is based on Cohn (2005), Scholte (2000), Steger (2002; 2003), and Wriston (1992).
This section is based on Burrell and Morgan (1979).
Much of the discussions that follow is based on Popper (1979) and Frankfurter and Philippatos (1992).
Mobley and Kuniansky's (1992) survey of practitioners in Finance supports their previous surveys in Marketing and Management Information Systems, i.e., divergence of research and practice. Note that, business schools, in general, do research within this same paradigm. This section is based on Ardalan (2008).
See, e.g., Elliott (1974), Epstein (1973), Gans (1974), and Hirsch and Newcomb (1987). This section is based on Altheide (1974).