Explaining the concept of popular economy from the dual perspective of the originality of the individual and society

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Faculty of Economics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

2 teacher / tehran university

10.30497/ies.2023.243514.2120

Abstract

Social thinkers are faced with the conflict between the individual and the society from various viewpoints, on the one hand, there is concern about the loosening of social ties and endangering the life of society, and on the other hand, about individual freedoms and their suppression by governments. The objective realization of the first view has been in the form of socialist states or welfare states; And the second view has appeared in the form of support for the free market and minimal government. In this article, the explanation of the dual bases of the market and the government is discussed regarding the difference of views on the originality of the individual and the society. Despite the disagreement of Islamic scholars regarding the originality of the individual and the society, the Hekmat-e-motealiyeh that considers the originality of both the individual and the society has been used in this article. Based on the selected basis, the only way to reduce the conflict between the individual and the society is to bring the culture and thought of the people closer to each other. Liberalism will be an obstacle to cultural unity. By intensifying the conflict, liberalism provides the ground for violence and the loss of real freedom. The objective realization of the selected basis in the field of economy is explained in this article under the title "Popular economy". It seems that popular economy has the ability to respond to both the concerns of individual freedom and social solidarity.

Keywords

Azizi, S. M. (2017). LIBERALISM AGAINST COMMUNITARIANISM; LIBERAL'S CRITIQUES AGAINST COMMUNITARIANS. POLITICAL QUARTERLY47(2), 451-470. (In Persian)
Bouzarinejad, Y., Soleimani, K., & Talebzadeh, E. (2021). Individual and Society; Controversy Over the Views of Contemporary Muslim Philosophers. Islamic Philosophical Doctrines15(27), 47-72. (In Persian)
Bowels, S. (1991). What Markets Can and Cannot Do. Challenge Magazine, 34 (4), 11-16.
Buchanan, J. (1986). Prize Lecture, The Constitution of Economic Policy. Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel.‏
Commons, J. (1950). The economics of Collective Action. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.
Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional Economics. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Geraei, A., & sharifi, A. H. (2019). The Application of the Explanation Method in the Political Philosophy according to Mulla Sadra's Theory of Unity within the Very Multiplicity. Journal of Hikmat-e-Islami6(20), 79-100. (In Persian)
Groenewegen, John, Antoon Spithoven and Annette Van den Berg (2012). Institutional Economics: An Introduction, Translated by Aslaan Qoodjani, Trhran: Majlis Research Center. (In Persian)
Izanloo G, Cheshomi A, Khodaparast Mashhadi M, Malek Sadati S. (2019). Analyzing the Costs of Collective Actions for Political, Administrative, and Economic Agents to Facilitate Investment . qjerp; 27 (90) :165-194. (In Persian)
Kallhoff, A. (2011). Why democracy needs public goods. Lanham, MA: Lexington, a Division of Rowman & Littlefield.
Kazemi, H. (2015). From Market Defeat to Government Defeat: Market-inclined and Government-inclined Controversy in Modern Age. Pizhūhish-i siyāsat-i nazāri, 18(10), 1-10. (In Persian)
Medema, S. G. (2009). The Hesitant Hand: Taming Self-Interest in the History of Economic Ideas. Princeton University Press.‏
Nash, K. (2011). Contemporary Political Sociology. Translated by Mohammad Taghi Delfrooz. Tehran: Nashr-e Kavir. (In Persian)
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E., Chang, C., Pennington, M., & Tarko, V. (2012). The future of the commons-beyond market failure and government regulation. Institute of Economic Affairs Monographs.‏
Prinos, I. & Manley, J. (2022). The Preston Model: Economic Democracy, Cooperation, and Paradoxes in Organisational and Social Identification. Sociological Research Online.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762). The Social Contract. Book III, chap. 15, translated by G. D. H. Cole(London: J. M. Dent and Sons).
Sandel, Michael J. (1996). Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
Skidelsky, R. (2018). Money and Government: A Challenge to Mainstream Economics. Penguin UK.
Tabatabai, A. R. (2017). Critical Analysis of Michael J. Sandal’s Philosophy of Political and Social Affairs. Pizhuhish nāmah-i intiqādī-i mutūn va barnāmah hā-yi ̒ulūm-i insāni (Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences)17(5), 15-34. (In Persian)
Taylor , Charles (1995). Philosophical Arguments. Harvard University Press.
Thomas, Emma F; Winnifred R.Louis (2013). Doing Democracy: The Social Psychological  obilization and Consequences of collective Action. Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 7, No 1.
Titmuss, Richard M. (1971). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. New York: Pantheon.
Walzer, M. (2005). Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism. Yale university press.
Whitaker, J. K. (1975). The early economic writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890. Palgrave Macmillan.‏