Rethinking critical realism: Labour markets or capitalism? (original) (raw)

Rethinking labour markets: A critical-realist-socioeconomic perspective

Capital & Class, 2006

There are currently two main accounts of labour markets: the mainstream labour market (MLM) account, which avoids serious analysis of social structures; and a rather unsystematic SOCIOECONOMIC account, which recognises that labour markets are embedded in social structures, but remains ambiguous vis-à-vis the nature of this embedding. Augmenting the latter with a critical-realist approach serves to reduce that ambiguity, and allows us to break completely with the idea that there are phenomena called ‘labour markets' that are embedded in other phenomena called ‘social structures'— and to move, instead, towards the realisation that labour markets just are, or are exhausted by, the very social structures that constitute them.

Some claims made for critical realism in economics: two case studies

Journal of Economic Methodology, 2004

Instead of examining critical realism directly, this essay critically examines claims made by two prominent critical realists, namely Andrew Collier and Tony Lawson, on behalf of their philosophy. These are (a) that critical realism supports Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and (b) that critical realism is illustrated by the workplace organization theory of the relative decline of the British economy. It is argued that the first claim is false and the second is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, propositions that are rejected by Collier and Lawson are shown in fact to be consistent with critical realism. These two case studies raise important questions concerning the claims made for critical realism on behalf of its adherents. Some questions are also posed concerning the character of critical realism as a movement.

From Labour Market Institutions to an Alternative Model of Labour Markets

Forum for Social Economics, 2014

This post-disciplinary article goes beyond orthodox labour economics and combines insights from the 'socio-economics of labour markets' (SELM), and critical realism (CR), to develop a SELM CR perspective which is then used to create an alternative conception of labour market institutions and an alternative model of labour markets-i.e. the SELM CR model.

“Debating Critical Realism in Economics”, Capital and Class, no 89, June, 2006, pp. 121-29.

While accepting the contribution that critical realism has made in exposing the methodological weaknesses of mainstream economics, this rejoinder to Nielsen and Morgan reasserts the need for critical realism to go much further. In particular, it highlights the need for critical realism's explicit confrontation with-and critique of-economic theory, and the need for it to construct a political economy rooted in the categories of contemporary capitalism. The paper again calls on those who espouse critical realism to undertake the important work of developing a careful exposition of the meanings of structure, relation and tendency, etc., their interrelationships and their historical and social scope and variability-and to provide an explicit account of where critical realism diverges from Marxism and Marxist political economy.

Critical Realism and Industrial Relations Theory

This discussion looks at the possible application of Bhaskarís brand of philosophical realism to the development of industrial relations theory and inquiry . It argues that methodologies that rely solely on the manufacture of experimental conditions of closure must be held to be limited in their ability to explain industrial relations phenomenon and/or produce law-like statements in the form of theories or models . It thus questions orthodox methods commonly employed at the periphery of industrial relations scholarship, namely, in industrial psychology, labour and employment law, labour history, industrial sociology, labour politics, human resource management, economic geography and labour economics. In fields at the core of industrial relations scholarship, where research is typically multi-disciplinary and focused on the institutions and processes that govern employment relationships, it is argued that Bhaskarís realist ontology seems capable of validating and guiding the way in w...

In defence of critical realism

Capital & Class, 1998

I N RECENT YEARS there has been an increased interest in the school of critical realism, and the ideas of Roy Bhaskar in particular, amongst radical political economists. This has occasionally carried over into the pages of Capital & Class, mainly centred on an exchange between Bob Jessop and John Holloway, Werner Bonefeld and Richard Gunn (1988), although there have been other articles, notably Lovering (1990), Kanth (1992) and Magill (1994). The contention of this article is that the debates between Jessop and Holloway, Bonefeld and Gunn, whilst important, are not a reliable guide to merits or demerits of critical realism. In fact the debates are a rather unorthodox introduction to critical realism for a number of reasons. First, because the status of critical realism is not fully examined-it is more often than not simply alluded to without any distinction being made between critical realism as a methodology and its particular application. Second, because that particular application, in the case of Jessop, is to regulation theory. Therefore, critical realism is not examined on its own merits, but usually through the supposed weaknesses of Jessop's arguments and those of regulation theory. Moreover, that Jessop is heavily indebted to critical realism is simply assumed. Actually, he refers to critical realism only rarely and it might be argued that there is an inconsistency between elements of critical realism, and the regulation theory which he espouses.

Capitalism, the regulation approach, and critical realism (in Critical realism and Marxism)

Committed critical realist commentators on the economics discipline have not discussed, as far as I am aware, the regulation approach as an exemplar of critical realism (e.g., Baert 1996; Lawson 1989, 1995, 1997; Pratten 1997; Fleetwood 1999; Nielsen 2000). In some cases this neglect is due to a concern to develop a meta-theoretical critique of orthodox economics and/or to uncover critical realist aspects of heterodox economic theorising. In other cases it is due to a concern to show that Marx’s own work at its best already illustrates critical realism (Bhaskar 1991: 143; Marsden 1998, 1999) or can be re-interpreted in critical realist terms (Pratten 1997; Ehrbar 1998, 2000; Kanth 1999). Where critical realists have shown interest in Marxism, their neglect of regulationism may reflect a judgement that regulationism can be safely ignored as just another current within a critical realist Marxism or, more likely, it occurs because the regulation approach, whether or not regarded as critical realist, simply does not appear within the horizon of those critical realists interested in economics.

Who Encounters What?’ Comment on Kevin Cox ‘Marxism and Critical Realism: A Brief Encounter

A distinctive feature of Marxist method is that analysis of ideas and theories go hand in hand with social relations that produce them. The encounter between Critical Realism and Historical Materialism needs to be located in the transformations of capitalism into transnational monopoly finance capitalism in the beginning of the 20th century, a change that Lenin referred to as a new ‘epoch’. The trajectory of Marxismis also subject to historical materialist methods of analysis. Not taking a historical materialist approach to developments within Marxism renders Marxism into an ideology rather than a living guide to emancipatory political action.

Critical realism, Marxism and the critique of neoclassical economics

Capital and Class, Vol. 35, No.1, February, 2011, 2011

This paper argues that while critical realist insights are important for heterodoxy, any engagement with the economic mainstream must remain faithful to Bhaskar's original formulation with its explicit focus on 'ideology critique'. The article proceeds by distinguishing Bhaskar's more Marxian-inspired realism from the broadly heterodox variety of the 'critical realism in economics' (CRE) project. It then highlights the weaknesses of the CRE critique of the economic mainstream before positing an alternative critique in terms of ideology.

Why Labour Economics is Inadequate for Theorizing Industrial Relations

Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 2014

This article challenges the assumed superiority of neo-classical labour economics as a means of theorizing labour unions by applying a critical realist critique to methodologies typically applied in the field. For this purpose, the critique draws on the work of Roy Bhaskar and other critical realists by first situating critical realism within two broad philosophical traditions: classical empiricism and transcendental idealism. It points out the failure of these traditions to acknowledge the possible existence of autonomous structures and objects which are beyond empirically based calculation and conceptualization, arguing instead that such structures and objects can only truly be revealed through research methodologies that make reference to a layered ontology. The discussion then advances on this by outlining the main features of critical realism’s three-way ontology, before providing an example of how this ontological reasoning diminishes the validity of research of labour unions ...