Full-Spectrum Economics: Toward an Inclusive and Emancipatory Social Science (Routledge Frontiers of Politic) Paperback – Import, 23 Apr 2012

A brilliant academic work on the inevitable evolution of economics, from the inside. As a non-economist I learned the nuanced history of the field and its inherent shortcomings that are so obvious to those of us not constrained by that world-view. Would have liked more examples on the likely practices of the next evolutionary phase.

This is a GREAT book. In 50 or 100 years (if humankind is still around then!), economic historians will identify this work as the start of “Real Economics”. Longstanding critiques and the crisis of 2008+ have evoked calls for a radical overhaul of economic thinking-and-acting. But the most-publicized responses (e.g. Stiglitz; Keen; Piketty; Mason) are nowhere near radical enough. Arnsperger’s vital contribution explains why and points out what is still missing. Then, it identifies some constructive, remedial paths.ARNSPERGER’S CENTRAL ANALYSIS: ECONOMICS IN SERVICE OF BONDAGE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arnsperger starts with the “AQAL” (All Quadrants, All Lines) construct from Wilber’s Integral Theory. First, he uses it to say what “economics” is (a surprisingly tricky task, nicely finessed). Then, it's employed to analyze leading schools of economic thought. Arnsperger’s analysis starts with “orthodox” neoclassical thinking. (This is roughly what’s taught in business schools and undergraduate econ courses). He goes on to what he calls the “post-orthodox” approaches. These are game theory, complexity-based modelling, and behavioral economics (including neuroeconomics and experimental econ). This post-orthodox group are the professional economists’ main responses to critiques of orthodox approaches. He also discusses North’s promising version of Institutional Economics.His basic point is that all these schools suffer from various versions of “Right-Hand Reductionism”. This is the description of economic agents (i.e.: human beings!) as machines lacking a genuine interior (i.e.: consciousness!). He goes on to point out that reductionism of this kind can perpetuate unawakened existential bondage. It broadcasts a story of the human condition (“we are machines”). And it recommends particular economic systems and institutions that treat humans as machines. This leaves them exhausted, dispirited, and unable to question the story.ARNSPERGER’S CRITIQUES OF POSITIVE ECONOMICS; WHAT IS TO BE DONE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Devastatingly, he points out that “mere description of the way things are" can be a complete desertion of ethical behavior. (Note that "mere description" is supposed to be a virtue of so-called "positive economics".) In fact, “us economists just describing the machine-like condition that exists everywhere” can be an act of violence. Violence is my description not his. But it's appropriate, if 'mere description' quashes the emergence of unambiguously-better systems and institutions. (I’m going to avoid a debate about “unambiguously” here. This is just a completely-subjective assessment that *I* am making. Trolls please move along – there’s nothing to see here.)Arnsperger then identifies, by construction, a pivotal role for what he calls the “economic epistemologist”. This is someone who makes everyone aware of potential deficits in proposed paradigms. Notably, he emphasizes again the reductionist deficiencies in all orthodox and post-orthodox approaches. This points towards the necessity for what he terms “post-post-orthodox” theories. Here, the “emancipatory” economics of the subtitle comes into full play. A post-post-orthodox theory could support liberation from ignorance, instead of perpetuating bondage.CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS OF ARNSPERGER’S WORK------------------------------------------------------------------------------There are a bunch of constructive criticisms one could make about Arnsperger’s approach. First, he emphasizes the epistemologists' role in helping economists keep perspectives clean. But he perhaps under-emphasizes the need for the epistemologist to look at *herself*. Second, the uncritical acceptance of Wilber’s approach in its current version is not likely to be an enduring foundation. (For a bit more on this, see the closing paragraph below.) Finally, as other commentators here have noted, it would be great to see a concrete example of an AQAL paradigm. As Arnsperger himself owns, post-post-orthodoxy at this point is an epistemological critique-of-paradigms. It does not also propose a concrete, AQAL-valid, alternative paradigm-in-itself. (To be fair, that “paradigm-in-itself” was not Arnsperger’s original goal. In fact, he wants to make a container for *assessing* paradigms, in the first instance.).However, it would be petty, small-minded, and plain wrong to use these points to demean Arnsperger’s contribution. He covers a vast amount of terrain in a succinct way. So neglecting full address of these points was perhaps necessary.ECONOMICS (AND INTEGRAL THEORY) NEEDS A REAL SCIENCE-OF-CONSCIOUSNESS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In my (subjective) opinion, there *is* a *vital* point unaddressed in Full-Spectrum Economics. However, this deficiency (opportunity?!) originates in Wilber’s work. A “genuine” interior must be able to *influence* the dynamics of exteriors. (Consciousness must be able to affect the matter-of-the-body. There must be an "I" that can genuinely act. And that "I" can't itself just be movement-of-molecules.) Otherwise Right-Hand Reductionism is *entirely* appropriate. Consciousness *is* just a passive property-of matter. We are not just “machines now”: we’ll never go beyond this state,as a fact-of-nature. It’s not possible, I think, to gloss over this point with a Wilberian “include [science] and transcend” manoeuver. There is real work to be done at the frontiers of consciousness science to address this point. This work would likely empower both the Integral approach and Arnsperger’s Full-Spectrum Economics. Again, it would be wrong to use the need for this future advance against Arnsperger’s visionary contribution. But it would also be a disservice to neglect those critical points that can bring his vision to life in a full and sustained way.