ABSTRACT
Introduction When studying the philosophical basis of contemporary Economics in Asia and Europe, we need to take as a point of departure the impact of a number of wellknown philosophers on the concept of ‘Man’, as they then referred to humanity, as in the universe, society, or group of individuals. All these thinkers in the East and the West were born at around the same time: Laozi and Confucius, on the one hand (both born in China in 571 bc and 551 bc respectively), and Plato and Aristotle, on the other (both born in Greece in 427 bc and 384 bc respectively). We will argue in this chapter that whilst Asian and European philosophy schools have impregnated the Chinese (Asian) and European (Western) mindsets, as well as their political and economic systems respectively, the contemporary literature on the conceptual and philosophical roots of Economic thought and policy-making is filled with references to Confucianism and to a lesser extent to Daoism (or Taoism) in the case of Asia,1 whereas the Platonic and Aristotelian heritages seem to have been forgotten by both Economic thinkers and policy-makers in Europe and the West. Asia’s opening to the rest of the world since the nineteenth century has facilitated the historic infiltration of the dominant Western-born ‘Neoclassical’ paradigm into economic policy-making and teaching in Asian countries, including a recalcitrant China. As will be discussed, this is the new ‘scientific’ paradigm imposing itself in the area of Economics and Economic policy-making, in a similar way as other scientific paradigms may have won out in other fields, albeit after a period of hesitation and controversy, such as for example the theory of ‘Relativity’ in Physics (see Kuhn, 1962: 102). These preliminary remarks lead to the enquiry into how Economic ideas going back to Greek philosophy have been overshadowed by other schools of thought emerging all along Europe’s history in the case of Europe – and how contemporary policy-making in Asia, despite its strong classical philosophical tradition, could increasingly ‘accommodate’ the dominant paradigm. In order to do so, this chapter has two main objectives: first, to explain how and why the legacy of Plato and Aristotle has been overshadowed in Europe, and second, to analyse the mutual interaction between the Asian and European philosophical
bases, in particular the increasing influence of the dominant Western Economics paradigm on economic policy-making in Asia noted above, in spite of a strong philosophical tradition in East Asia. This second objective will be met by referring to the ‘role of the State’ in the analysis. In the first section, we will first explain how contemporary Economic policymaking in Europe, and in the West in general, has gradually been shaped by theories that have increasingly aspired at being seen as ‘scientific’, or devoid of any references to ethics or moral judgements. A second section will first use some core elements of Asian philosophy, in order to explain the philosophical foundations of the Asian economic ‘specificity’. The second will also try to highlight the similarities and differences existing between the early European and Asian philosophical schools, when we appraise them in shaping Economics in both cases. This section will then succinctly discuss the growing convergence of Economics in East Asia towards the Western dominant paradigm. With this step, the analysis will be framed by the focus on the role of the State and it will highlight what is so specific about the type of policy-making shaping the capitalist systems in East Asia. Finally, some conclusive avenues to make sense of the above will be suggested in a final section.
