Page 239 - Sustainable Cities and Communities Design Handbook

The Next Economics: CiviceSocial Capitalism Chapter j 11 213

It is important to understand that neither all existing economic philosophies
and theories nor are the accomplishments of neoclassical economics in solving
other industrial and business problems dismissed. Nonetheless, a full discus-
sion is necessary.
Neoclassical economics and its conventional contemporary proponents that
are derived from a particular economic philosophy are not appropriate for the
energy and many other infrastructure sectors. Furthermore, there are other
economic philosophical paradigms that lead to very different economic prin-
ciples and rules (Clark and Fast, 2008). In short, the explanation of economic
issues surrounding the electricity industry require new tools, frameworks
models based upon a different social science philosophical paradigm. It is this
paradigm, called “interactionism,” discussed by Clark and Fast (2008), which
is framed by the civic market theory.
Interactionism is, in short, the theory that because people (actors) interact
in specific situations (everyday behavior such as business), companies and
their behaviors are better understood. The decisions of business actors does not
depend on numbers, figures, and statistics alone. Instead, business people form
strategies and plans, such as deregulation public policy, knowing that they can
maneuver the newly formed markets. A key component in understanding
business in the interactionism paradigm is to also know, influence, or control
the role of government. Much has been written on this subject, but the
“invisible hand” of government needs to be influenced to do as business wants
it to do.
Economists want to be scientific and therefore ignore this influence over
government. Instead, they tend to think that the use of statistics and numbers
place them above the interaction between people. Economists see themselves
akin to the hard and natural sciences. There is almost a sense in economics that
if the field is not scientific (e.g., statistical or numbers oriented) then it is not
professional. For most economists, however, the perspective and view or
definition of what science is and does bears little proof in reality (Blumer,
1969).
Science is not a simple matter of statistics or numbers (Perkins, 1996).
Although some field or qualitative studies have been conducted, especially on
productivity, economists remain steadfast in their belief that fieldwork is the
main research area for sociologists and journalists. Yet, the need to explore the
“productivity paradox” as Nobel Laureate, Robert Solow, called it in 1987,
promoted statistical research in the 1990s only to crash-land with the explosive
truths behind the “productivity miracle” of that decade by the turn of the next
century.
Clearly statistics did not tell the “truth” about productivity in the 1990s.
The popular journal, The Economist (see The Economist issues 1998e2002),
often tries to “sugarcoat” or marginalize the accounting scandals of CEOs,
major American corporations, corporate governance, and bankruptcies in