The Evolution of Technical Competence: Strategic and Economic Thinking

Author(s):  
Ben Jeffares
Author(s):  
Sherrie P. Gott ◽  
Ronald S. Kane ◽  
Alan Lesgold
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-123
Author(s):  
Farhad Rassekh

In the year 1749 Adam Smith conceived his theory of commercial liberty and David Hume laid the foundation of his monetary theory. These two intellectual developments, despite their brevity, heralded a paradigm shift in economic thinking. Smith expanded and promulgated his theory over the course of his scholarly career, culminating in the publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Hume elaborated on the constituents of his monetary framework in several essays that were published in 1752. Although Smith and Hume devised their economic theories in 1749 independently, these theories complemented each other and to a considerable extent created the structure of classical economics.


2003 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Majoros

The study introduces a Hungarian economic thinker, István Varga*, whose valuable activity has remained unexplored up to now. He became an economic thinker during the 1920s, in a country that had not long before become independent of Austria. The role played by Austria in the modern economic thinking of that time was a form of competition with the thought adhered to by the UK and the USA. Hungarian economists mainly interpreted and commented on German and Austrian theories, reasons for this being that, for example, the majority of Hungarian economists had studied at German and Austrian universities, while at Hungarian universities principally German and Austrian economic theories were taught. István Varga was familiar not only with contemporary German economics but with the new ideas of Anglo-Saxon economics as well — and he introduced these ideas into Hungarian economic thinking. He lived and worked in turbulent times, and historians have only been able to appreciate his activity in a limited manner. The work of this excellent economist has all but been forgotten, although he was of international stature. After a brief summary of Varga’s profile the study will demonstrate the lasting influence he has had in four areas — namely, business cycle research and national income estimations, the 1946 Hungarian stabilisation program, corporate profit, and consumption economics — and will go on to summarise his most important achievements.


2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 449-454
Author(s):  
M.C. Steynberg ◽  
A. Vermeulen

For years training was evaluated with measures such as numbers of participants, number of programs, length of programs, cost of programs and content of programs. These input focused measures have to be replaced by output focused measures. The output focused measures include learning profile and whole brain approach for the learner, competency requirements for the job, management’s role before, during and after training as well as the competency of the trainer and the effectiveness of the training environment. However, to ensure that the highest possible scores for these measures can be achieved, a multidisciplinary approach is of paramount importance. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the IAFECT™ management tool designed to ensure effective technology training. IAFECT™ is a systematic approach that involves all stakeholders. It focuses on technical competence and a high Return-On-Investment.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 147-170

The article provides a comparison of the concept of homo œconomicus with the core theses of René Descartes’ moral philosophy. The first section draws on the work of the contemporary Western philosopher Anselm Jappe in which Descartes’ philosophy is held to be the cornerstone of the established view and current scientific definitions of homo œconomicus as the fundamental and indispensable agent of capitalistic relations. As opposed to this “common sense” position in the modern social sciences, the second section of the article builds upon Pierre Bourdieu’s Anthropologie économique (2017) to demystify the notion of homo œconomicus. The article then examines some aspects of modern philosophical anthropology that show odd traces of Descartes’ thinking and that are regularly applied in economic science as well as in the critique of economic thinking as such. These are the concepts of mutuality, giving, exchange and generosity, and they are regarded as central to the philosopher’s moral doctrine.The author concludes that the philosophical doctrine of generosity has very little in common with the bourgeois ideology of utility which implies an instrumental relationship between subjects: in Caretesian moral philosophy the Other is neither an object of influence nor a means to achieve someone’s personal goals nor a windowless monad. Generosity certainly has its economic aspects, but these do not include accumulating wealth in the bourgeois sense. It is more in the realm of the aristocratic practice of making dispensations. All throughout his life Decartes may be viewed as exhibiting a peculiar kind of nobility in which the desire to give, endow and sacrifice outweighs any selfish interest. The vigorous pursuit of well-being gives way to a quest for the leisure required to pursue intellectual activity, and care for oneself does not preclude attending to and loving the Other, whatever form it may take.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-188

Images of free time are used today to give the impression that alienation from work is being alleviated. As a result, exploitation of the workers who are constantly occupied with “self-realization” becomes even more effective. Free time becomes a fetish — a means of productively engaging people’s energy through various scenarios in which they are (supposedly) enjoying their leisure time pursuits. Is it even possible to undo the fetishization of free time? And if so, how else might we conceptualize it? In seeking an answer to these questions the author continues the discussion of akrasia launched by Michail Maiatsky in his article “Liberation from Work, Unconditional Income and Foolish Will” (Logos, 2015, 25[3]) in which Maiatsky expressed a well-founded fear that a contemporary “post-Nietzschean” person might respond to the “gift of unconditional freedom” with an irrational desire to test the boundaries of that boon and end up as Dostoyevsky said “living by his own foolish will.” A hypothesis to address that fear argues that the intentions behind such an “akratic rebellion” are inherently rooted in the fetishistic logic that dominates both current perceptions of free time and also the debate about providing a basic income. The akratic reaction is a form of phantasmatic acting out of the painful suspicion that efforts to reach liberation could turn into another form of bondage. The roots of this bind can be found in the historically embedded form of economic organization, which is based on a sense of dire emergency. We owe this understanding of the “economic dispositive” to the work of Giorgio Agamben, but it is already discernible in Xenophon. We can find an indication of its dominant position in modern economic thinking in Nikolay Sieber’s (1844–1888) criticism of the postulates of the “subjective school” of economics. Because the economy acquires a sacred aspect within this dispositive, akrasia may be compared with a sacrilegious trespass of its boundaries. However, Agamben proposes that challenging any form of the solemn ceremonies of capitalism’s priesthood in a way that is not merely imaginary must necessarily be a kind of profanation.


1978 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Inoue

This article brings to light the neglected contribution of Grammateus, the author or Ayn New Kunstlich Buech (A New Skill Book) which, although basically a mathematics text, contained a section on bookkeeping in the style of Paciolo's Summa. His work is analyzed to prove the technical competence and the historical nature of the bookkeeping system which he propounded. In order to substantiate the conclusions, the full translation of the first edition (1521) is included in modern English.


2021 ◽  
pp. 146801812110191
Author(s):  
William Hynes

New economic thinking and acting through a systemic approach could outline policy alternatives to tackle the global-scale systemic challenges of financial, economic, social and environmental emergencies, and help steer our recovery out of the current crisis. A systemic recovery requires an economic approach that balances several factors - markets and states, efficiency and resilience, growth and sustainability, national and global stability, short-term emergency measures and long-term structural change. To achieve this, we need to think beyond our policy silos, comprehend our interconnections, and build resilience into our systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document