ECTAP
 
HomeDespre ECTAEventsPolitica editorialaTrimite un articolParteneri / link-uri utileArchiveAbonamentContact
 

ISSN 1841-8678   (print)
ISSN 1844-0029   (online)

News

Archive ECTAP

Note: for the period 1994-2003 the archive of the magazine will not be available online

Supplements ECTAP

If you cannot open the pdf file you need Adobe Reader.
download Adobe Reader

Creative Commons License

Theoretical and Applied Economics
No. 4 / 2013 (581)

The nomination of the market

„Compared to the form of economy, whichever this may be after the failure of the alterity of the plan, the market remains invariably a mechanism for the intersubjective certification of efficiency through the transaction of utility, a rational regulator of resource appropriation and of the propensity for prosperity.”

The integrative perspectives contain intermediate situations in the perception of certain concepts within which the form is often mistaken for the essence, the method for the object and where taking the trans-forming path is seen as a de-formation of the content. The case of the single European market is the most significant example.

The integration of the national economies is unavoidably a complex process, without precedent in societal practice. Its completion is the consequence of the instrumentation of evolutional processes, of the pacing of transformations according to sustainability criteria, of the adjustment of goals according to consensual objectives, of the the institutionalization of mechanisms according to the internalization of good practices. It is the construction of a type of economy in a manner which is coordinated by all the agents involved, having rational targets specific to a project for the readaptation to the societal structures which have been radically changed by the cycle of globalization.

Generally, we find ourselves facing the crossing into another paradigm in the evolution of consciousness, when the vertical dependency becomes horizontal, with man dependent on himself as a node in the cooperative human network, leading to him as the true measure of all things, with all things coming from him and everything happening through the force of his consciousness. Secularization through reason ends, while humanization through consciousness emerges. But the very radicalism of the innovative movement constitutes the reason for the adverse, sometimes fierce reactions, which are anyhow being felt in the neurotic dialogue between theories in an inquisitorial manner, which intends to reject at any price whatever is being perceived as the danger of the maculation of the mainstream class conceptual habitudes.

The delicate part is that the European whole, approximated by the integration of national states and economies, confers its component parts roles and functions dimensioned according to the transfer of sovereignty. There is an interval, until the completion of the whole, where the overlaps fuse. The significance of the forward-backward sense is thus the result of partisan positioning. The separation of water from land holds the signification of the beginning of a new world through the lamentations of the old one. There is no doubting the resilience of the upturned vision, the deconstruction of the model of economy structured around the idea of the sovereignty of the national state being a very tense process, even if still functional.

In such conditions, we face the linguistic atavism of the habit of identifying everything and its component parts only according to the place of execution or the particularities of context. And this takes place in a feudal, fragmented reality, which was shaped into the most persistent form of fragmentarism by the incipient capitalist option, by inventing the national state and the national economy. As a consequence, the spontaneous logic had naturally attributed the market with the name of the national state and the national economy, to later - as a reflex - use the various appellatives attributed by ideologies to the societal frame.

The truth is that starting from the ancient Greeks' household/oekonomia, as the prototype for the idea of economy, and until the economy of corporatist capitalism the market has always held the same meaning, its selfish gene passing from one carrier to the next, their difference being only in form and potential. Otherwise, up to the point of the ideological disputes on the supremacy of the visions for societal construction, and of the heated confrontation between the perspectives of capital and of labour - amplified in full revolutionary process in order to help with the creation of the national state and the industrialist consolidation of national economies, the market wasn't attributed with any credentials. The coryphaei of the 19th century (and initial third of the next's) ideologies have initiated the campaign for reinforcing the arsenal of adversity by conscribing the economic concepts - and the market especially - and culminated with the war of puritanical claims during the experiment of soviet planning.

What we now know as the European experience of the coordinated market is, in reality, the founding method for the functioning of the market within integrative parameters, in accordance with the trends of globalization, and not some variety or another type of market. Genetically, the market does not change - only the experience of its use for the functions of the economy is diversified and amplified. It is, in epistemic terms, a transitional phase in the formation of the new, global context of the internal European market which keeps in its new form the ordinary essence of the market as a space of economic rationality. In other words, the coordinated market is the method for turning functional the post-national European economy.

The market remains a regulating mechanism of economicity in any other type of economy but the national one. It does not transform itself in anything different from what it already is. The market is a market regardless of the way in which the evolution of the type of economy unfolds, including the socialist one, if we admit the reality of the Asian post-planning economy.

What is being said about the market, that it could be social, coordinated or socialist is nothing but an identification error with the type of economy or the type of society. Things are similar when the concept of free market is being used, when an ideological phalanx lost in the jungle of its own theoretical hypotheses -structured by the tribalism of appropriation - transfers to an instrument of rationality a defining value for the rational constitution of society. However, it is the society itself who needs to be free to found its projects with discernment, while also using the objective and invariable mechanisms of the market.

The path from market functionality centred on the national economy to the state of pre-eminence and prevalence of the single European market does not change the essence of the market at all, but creates its functional context of a different, integrative type - that of the European global social space. Compared to the form of economy, whichever this may be after the failure of the alterity of the plan, the market invariably remains a mechanism for the intersubjective certification of efficiency through the transaction of utility, a rational regulator of resource appropriation and of the propensity for prosperity.

There is no doubt that the performance of the market would suggest a differentiation of typology, by nomination inclusively. But the semantic solution points to theoretical superficiality and inadequate conceptualization, and often even to the escalation of ideological adversities. The naked truth is that the form is mistaken for the essence.


Contents

The nomination of the market
Marin Dinu

Open acces

ECTAP

Search

BOOKS

The Economicity. The Epistemic Landscape, Marin Dinu, 2016

Partners


ISSN 1841-8678 (ediția print) / ISSN 1844-0029 (ediția online)
© Copyright Asociația Generală a Economiștilor din România (AGER) / General Association of Economists From Romania  (GAER)
Redacția: 010702, București, Calea Griviței nr. 21, sector 1, E-mail: economia.ta@edeconomica.com

© 2006-2019 AGER