Inside This Issue


Mladen Staničić and Josip Sapunar have written a timely and profoundly interesting paper titled “EU between Monetarism and Keynesianism”, triggered in part by the Greek economic crisis. They see the problem as ultimately requiring a prudential integration of both monetarism and Keynesianism. They draw attention to the fact that the EU approach to globalization represents an element of political inequality for states that are less developed within the EU. Imposing economic measures inspired by monetarism, they have reduced themselves to radical posterity. These measures do not account for the political integrity and stability of these weaker developed states. However, the consequences of radical austerity tend to promote radical instability and in effect, radically weaken the autonomy of the weaker state. The authors insist that the EU approach this kind of problem with political realism as well as technical economic argument. This is an important and far reaching suggestion and it remains to be seen how this will evolve within the political economy of the European Union. It is a piece well-worth reading.

In “Introduction to the New Paradigm of Political Economic TheoryWinston Nagan recommends a framework for the future based on new paradigm thinking. This short article provides a clear and a simple description of the fundamental paradigms of classical and neoclassical theories of economic thinking. The author emphasizes the dire need for new economic thinking and focuses on the centrality of human capital as a critical foundation for economic prosperity. The new politico-economic theory, he adds, must be human centered and seek to address the whole society in a comprehensive manner. This is an important contribution that seeks to go beyond old paradigmatic thought and embrace a new economic theory that is transnational, holistic, integrated and values-based. – Comment by Garry Jacobs, Editorial Board Member, Eruditio.

In “Collabocracy: Collaborative Intelligence and Governance of Globalised Society,” Dimitar Tchurovsky explores the interrelationship between the brain, thinking, and the organization of intelligence. In his view, intelligence is the foundation for making decisions. He distinguishes between individual, collective and collaborative intelligence. It is when human beings engage in collaborative intelligence that they improve the capacity for responsible and effective decision making in the common interest. The theme of intelligence and decision making has of course been explored by other Fellows of the Academy. They have emerged with a breakdown that has similarities to this paper. Although our Fellows have insisted that intelligence begins with problem identification and then requires a mastery of at least five intellectual tasks that inform decision making, be it individual, collective or collaborative. In sum, the problem requires intellectual skills in goal clarification, and an appreciation of historic trend, an understanding of conditions which inspire problems and which inspire possible solutions, the capacity to predict consequences of decision making intervention or the lack of it, and the imagining of creative alternatives for solving the problem. Both of these approaches have important ramifications for a deeper understanding of global governance and decision making and this article adds to the store of knowledge of this important area.

Hazel Henderson’s contribution, “Reforming Electronic Markets and Trading”, underscores the vital importance of integrity and fair dealing in the stock exchange and the impact of high-frequency trading (HFT). High-frequency trading brings high-tech electronics into the mechanisms of investments in the market. As Henderson points out, there have been substantial losses to investors and to a large extent these appear to be attributable to the operators of high-frequency trading. The importance of the piece, together with other contributions, is that transparency is virtually nonexistent for the prudent institutional investor, and therefore the investor proceeds in a blindfolded manner. Worse still, the controllers of the technology are far ahead of the governmental regulators in the security exchange commission. In part, this is the result of the Republican effort to starve the agency of funding and personnel to effectively police this component of the private sector. Henderson’s contribution provides many thoughtful insights from insiders into the problem, its dangers and the prospect of reforms that are meaningful. This is an extremely important piece of the puzzle of the new economic paradigm.

Robert J. Berg has anticipated an important discourse that is about to take place within the World Academy of Art & Science. That discourse concerns the aspiration of the Academy to forge an intellectual and scientific climate receptive to paradigm change. In his work, “Remarks on Visions of Sustainable Development: Theory and Action”, he underscores the point that a shift in the paradigm is no simple matter and needs to explore complex methods in evolving multiple trajectories of change in search of the solutions necessary for constructive paradigm change. He is particularly concerned about the complicated interrelationship of sustainable development and climate change. His article notes that there is an urgent necessity for an integrated social science that may serve as an intellectual foundation to responsibly grapple with the options implicated in paradigm change in this context. His article implies that we are far from any kind of unification of the social sciences to facilitate this objective. This is a good and challenging paper and worthy of considered thought.