01.
Approaches
02.
Methods
03.
Target analysis
04. Means analysis
05. Promoter analysis
06.
Political economy
07.
Welfare economy
08.
Order analysis
09.
Order conception
10.
Order dynamics
Structure:
1
The question of the economic theory
2
The question of the teaching of the economic policy
3
The question of the political economics
4
The question of the welfare economy
5
The question of the order theory
6
Economic complementary sciences
4
The question of the welfare economy
The
economic theory sees itself as a positive thus not as a normative discipline.
It wants to explain events and not judges. It wants to explain what actually
happens and not which developments are desired. If the economic theory of the
hypothesis assumes that businessmen generally make their decisions
profit-oriented, then this shall be regarded as an observation of an actual
behavior at first and also nothing is said about how this has to be assessed.
Superficially
it seems as if this identification just does not apply to the teaching of
economic policy. The politician wants to carry out changes because he is
convinced that the present relations lead to unwanted and mostly also to unjust
results. So he starts out consciously from an assessment: anyone who wants to
change does insinuate silently that the current conditions are unsatisfactory.
At
first this only applies to the politician, not necessarily for the teacher of
the economic policy. For him the behavior of the politicians is a predefined
fact which he examines in the same way as the pure economic theorist
understands the behavior of the producers and consumers as a predefined fact.
Even
if the aims of the politicians are regarded as a predefined fact for the
teacher of the economic policy, the economic policy teaching wants to advise
the politician on which way he can carry out his targets. Well, it is part of
the tasks of the economic policy teaching, that this branch of science judges
the individual measures of the politicians e.g. to point out that certain
action has to be regarded as unwanted.
On
closer inspection assessments of single targets of the economic policy even
take place in the context of this discipline. Taking the target of the monetary
stability as example, the adherence to the target of the monetary stability is
considered as necessary and measures which hurt this target are judged as
dangerous.
If
we ask why the biggest part of the economic policies teacher
judge
the conscious driving to inflation (and thus a responsibility to the objective
of price stability) as undesirable, so we come e.g. on the finding of the
neoliberals, that means that economic growth is at risk for inflation or that
inflation alignment of production to the consumer wishes hazardous because with
the rise in prices at the same time - at least temporarily - the price ratios
are distorted and thus no longer reflect the scarcity relationships correctly.
However,
at such a consideration the monetary stability is not so very regarded as a
target but as a means at all. Nothing is said about whether the goal of
monetary stability is pursued for its own sake, so it has an intrinsic value,
it will only be noted that monetary stability is required in order not to
jeopardize super ordinate objectives. And such a philosophy does not differ
from the assertion put forward by Keynes that to achieve full employment the
increase of deficit-financed expenditure of the State is necessary.
Of
course one can wonder, why in connection with the monetary stability is spoken
about targets, although obviously monetary stability is only striven because of
unwanted effects on other, primary targets. This is related to the central bank,
which the task of monetary stability was applied and is not able to determine
the price level.
It
can only indirectly have influence on the price level by the fact that it
changes either the amounts of the banknotes or the interest rate at which it grants
private banks loans.
So
that we, however, can speak about a means which uses the central bank it must
be ensured that the central bank has also immediate access to the variable
described as a means. This is not the case and the price level can be influenced
only indirectly, so one speaks here about a target of the monetary stability
although no intrinsic value is awarded to this target as this is the case at
other aims normally.
Even
though the economic policy teaching centrally judges the measures of the
politicians and gives advice how to reach certain targets; nevertheless one can
classify the object of this discipline as positive and explanatory. As we have
seen above, the target means relations derive socio-technically from the cause
effect connection of the economic theory. Once again: There exist the same
facts if the economic theorist explains the change in the occupation by a
change in the demand of goods and if it is noticed in the economic policy
teaching that for an increase of the occupation an increase in the goods demand
is necessary. For the realization of a target it requires a certain means and
this observation says no more than you explained already in the economic theory
about this connection.
However,
if it is that way, the teaching of the economic policy also must be described
as a discipline which confines itself to explanatory, not to normative
statements. It seems only externally as if the recommendation of a means
represents an assessment for the attainment of a target. The deficit in the
national accounts budget is not seen as a value in connection with a Keynesian
job creation scheme. For this question no statement is given at all. It is
noticed merely that the reduction of unemployment as a target will be achieved by
the fact that the state finances its expenditure in deficit.
However
does an assessment play a role in the political advice in the background
anyway? Can’t you ask a responsible scientist to give advice only to
politicians who trade according to his moral concepts? And don't we get reviews
this way finally?
We
will see in the next chapter about the method quarrel in economics that a
positive, explanatory science also carries out assessments and that the demand
of Max Weber for an unbiased science only refers to quite certain assessments.
Quite generally one will be able to find sufficient room within the old daily
discussion of the parties for a piece of unbiased advice, too, when one
declines the advice of dictators for conscience reasons.
With
regard to the welfare theory quite contrary to the teaching of economic policy
at first glance it seems as the welfare theory as well is understood like the
economic theory as an explicative discipline. Discovering the regulation
reasons of the welfare of a population is the task of the welfare economy. It
seems formally that it is here just the same method like e.g. in the growth
theory in which the regulation reasons of the economic growth are searched for.
There
is nevertheless an essential difference between the two knowledge disciplines.
If the growth theorist examines the question, on which causes a rapid growth or
also the sudden non-appearance of a growth has to be traced back he comments in
no way on the question how this change has to be judged. If on the other hand
the welfare theorist tries to prove that just in a market economy the best
conditions for an optimization of the overall welfare are met, an assessment is
always connected. They want to express that posed by a market-based regulation
than satisfactory effects start from this.
If
the demand formulated by Max Weber for an unbiased science is assumed now, then
you have to ask whether the occupation with welfare problems is compatible with
the general principles of scientific work. We will show in the next chapter as
the traditional welfare economy tries to solve this contradiction. At this
point we want to confine ourselves to the fact that the welfare economy surely
includes much less from any assessment than this can be said by the pure
economic theory and also by the teaching of the economic policy.
5
The question of the order theory
Another
approach faces us in the order theory. While the everyday politics pursues
single, concrete targets and serves particularly the elimination of
mismanagement, the regulatory policy is for the coordination of the interests
of the individual and single actions. The modern social systems stand out by
the fact that you act on the principle of the division of labor and that the
individual members of the community are specialized. Here it is necessary to
fix the rights and duties of each person.
What are the responsibilities of each individual and what tasks come to
the State.
Particularly
in a market economy it requires a coordination of the interests of the
individual. The production is not carried out according to a central plan but
results from thousands of individual decisions of the businessman and the
private households.
However,
it would be wrong to think that only a market-based society system requires
coordination, coordination is necessary in every major system, even in the
so-called centrally planned economy in which the Control of production is
carried out according to a central plan. However, since the dictator is never
able to the formation of the central plan and to make the allocation of
individual responsibilities to the individuals as well as the control over the
fulfillment of the obligations, the dictator needs at the forefront of the
centrally planned economy a large army of officials and bureaucrats who steer
the economy. The head of government or head of that authority then is
essentially limited to the definition of some fundamental decisions.
Every
order is a set of rules while in the principle the measures of the everyday
politics consist of individual decisions. The transitions are flowing. Every
law represents an order from the view of the single citizen, which regulates
the individual actions of the citizens who appears again and again on one side.
At the same time they are mandatory for all citizens almost always for a lot of
people, according to the principle.
It
is the great fault of the traditional teaching of the central economy that this
coordination need was not seen. It has acted as if it was just the will of the
political leader given in state planned economies, as if to bend all the
bureaucrats and citizens one hundred percent to the will of the dictator.
Just
because the state planned economy stands out by the fact that everything is
regulated from above and the danger of an abuse that only very few liberal
decisions are granted to the single citizen is here much higher than in a free
market economy. In a market economy it therefore requires with this primarily
lower control because everybody shall do exactly what is in its own interest.
An
order defines the highest values, which must be true within a community and
provides a variety of incentives that the individual citizen as well as the
government officials and politicians do not infringe these values. We already
indicated above, that an order is to delineate the liberties one each against
each other. The freedom of others is always the largest fine of its own
freedom.
And
it is therefore not enough, as the older liberalism has submitted to shake off
by a single act, the state constraints. Rather, it requires a continuous
monitoring that this order will not leave again. Both the politicians and the
individual economy subjects have a heavy interest in turn to limit the
competition in its favor which shall guarantee this liberty.
These
incentives can on the one hand, in the positive sense as an incentive, provide
a reward in the event that the individual is behaving as it is in the interest
of all. However, these elements are in
order the majority of cases of negative incentives, disincentives to prevent
abuse their individual freedom and act, which prevents the coordination of
individual interests.
Just
as there was a fatal error if the trailer went out a centrally planned economy
of the error, a state planned economy needs no coordination, as well it would
be wrong if we were to assume, in a free market economy, the individual must do
whatever is in its interests and there is next to the well-being of individual
citizens at all no overriding common good of all. Every social system requires
an order and the characteristic of every order just consists that it is fixed
in an order what is forbidden and which obligations are required.
The
presence of prohibitions stands the target of a liberal order not in the way.
Even if individual acts such as robbery and murder are forbidden, generally
remains a variety of alternatives, between which the individual can choose. Not
the bans but the commandments are the enemy of the liberty.
Whether
the order theory an explicative or normative discipline appears, an ambivalent
character of this theory proves with regard to the question. On one side we
notice that the liberalism and the scientific socialism have begun both around
stand up for the introduction and the receipt of a certain order. You do not
confine yourself to it to describe certain connections between order and
behaviors and between the individual organizational elements, but they defend the
system described by them and propagated firmly.
Every
order concept also contains, however, a variety of observations on the other
side which say nothing about if certain actions are desired and how to judge
certain results but which hypotheses can be build and which can be checked
empirically for their degree truth.
If
e.g. Adam Smith voiced in favor of a liberal market economy in which has to
decide the particular about its interests, then Adam Smith did not come to the
declared belief of a market economy only due to an ethical attitude. He was
convinced also deeply that the market like an invisible hand can just manage
the coordination of the interests of the individual much better than every
planning starting out from the state. Science has to be obviously proved in the
principle very well while there is no possibility however in the context of an
empirically oriented science as people have to behave and the results of the
market have to be judged like themselves, to check the validity of interdependencies.
6 Economic
complementary sciences
Altogether, our previous considerations dealt with
approaches which are assigned to economics in the narrower sense. But also not
economic disciplines deal with economic and political-economic questions.
Here economic
history would have to be mentioned first. The economy historian also deals with
entrepreneurial or political activities. Unlike the economic theorist the
economy historian is not that much interested in general legitimacies. He rather
wants to find out the behaviour of outstanding personalities, how the concrete,
historical events and actions can be explained and how these have influenced
lastingly the complete events of a country and a particular time period.
His sources are
therefore also less economic theories although of course he cannot disregard
the knowledge of economics completely at the explanation of certain actions. In
a very first line he refers to the literary sources which verify the actions
and motives of the agents. If he reports about effects, then it is primarily
the events which in turn can be verified with historical sources, and less
theories that represent, what effects actually could be expected.
This difference in
the approaches gets particularly clear between economic theorist and economy
historian. If the economic theorist examines the behaviour of the entrepreneurs
under competition conditions, he speaks about profit maximization. The
entrepreneurs were eager to align all of its important decisions by whether
they lead to an increase or a reduction of the total profit and the
entrepreneurs in general would only make such decisions that lead to an increase in profits, or at least
not to a reduction profits.
The economy
historian, however, operates motive research. He examines, which motives have
led famous researchers as e.g. Zeiss or Nobel to invent new technical methods and to apply them in
practice. Here it is not talked of profit motive and greed, but of the desire
to give people new opportunities for development.
Although it
appears at first sight as stood the
theses of economic historians in sharp contrast to the assumptions of economic
theorists, and as would the results of historical research lead to a
falsification of profit maximization hypothesis. In reality the research
results of both knowledge disciplines are not in a clear contradiction to each
other. It is rather different approaches.
The economic
theorist does not want to do any motive research. For the description of a free
enterprise process the question due to which motives a single person became
finally an entrepreneur is not of importance at all. The decisive factor is
only that intense competition among entrepreneurs is forcing them to take
advantage of all possible chances of winning. An entrepreneur, who again and
again has given away possibilities to win, is very soon driven out of business and forced to
bankruptcy. The profit maximization hypothesis therefore does not refer to a
possible motive, but refers to an incentive system prevailing in the
competition.
He must always
expect that his possible rivals save costs because of new technology and that
therefore they can offer their goods at lower prices and this way more and more
customers leave those entrepreneurs who do not participate in this competition.
If there is fierce competition then it is not about a little more or less
profit, in reality it is about all or nothing. Who does not seize every chance
of winning, is in danger to completely withdraw from the market because of
losses.
How strong the
points of contact between economic history and economic science are in the
narrower sense, also depends on the scientific method that is engaged by the
individual researcher in his studies. The pure theoretical method was, for
example, found at Carl Menger, a main representative
of the neoclassical economy, which set out from the conviction that in the
context of economic sciences, it is about the investigation of universal laws
the same way as in the natural sciences.
Gustav Schmoller, the head of the (recent) historical school,
however, was convinced that economic actions like all human behaviours in no
way follow similar laws like those of natural events. The human has a free
will, therefore, it could never be predicted with absolute certainty how the
individuals will behave. Therefore one could not explain economic events, but
only make the attempt to understand human action afterwards.
Here the economist
moves into the proximity of the methods used by the historian and just for
these reasons it was spoken of the historical school in connection with these
researchers. We still will deal with this historical philosophy very detailed
in the next chapter in which it is spoken about the method quarrel in economics
and explain which consequences this procedure had for the success of economics.
The economic law
counts in second place of the not economic disciplines which deal with economic
objects. The part of jurisprudence which refers to economic rights also starts
out basically from the same studies object as economic sciences.
The majority of
government activities must be brought into a legal form. This applies to the
laws which pass the parliaments, for the ordinances which are disposed by the
state bureaucracy on the basis of these laws and to the decisions of the
courts, with which they administer justice.
Laws and ordinances
constitute the rights and duties of the government agencies and the individual
citizens of a community of states. If we can assume also that under normal
conditions the vast majority of citizens comply with the laws and the
government particularly respects their limits laid down in the constitution, we
must always expect that law will be broken sometime, also otherwise quite
responsible citizens are not perfect and sometimes commit violations of the
law.
In a constitutional
state every citizen to whom has been done wrong has the right to invoke the
courts and to let clarify, whether there is a violation of the law and to
ensure that justice is administered. And whenever contraventions of the law
violate general jurisdiction seriously, the public prosecutors always have the
duty ex officio to pursue the contraventions of the law even, if the citizens injured
by breach of law would not take any legal action.
The individual laws
and ordinances are partly very narrowly connected with each other; by the very same action several laws can be broken
now and then. Primarily, the laws
mustn't contradict themselves. There are several reasons for that in reality
very often it must be ascertained in the first place through courts, whether
laws are broken in detail and, if necessary, which rights were violated.
Firstly, with the
increasing complexity of the social systems a job sharing and specialization
became necessary also in politics with the consequence that the individual laws
are worked out by different ministries, also in the parliaments the
parliamentarians specialize with the consequence, that the general overview is
lost now and then and the is a risk that the laws partly contradict themselves.
Secondly, most
governmental entities are part of superior communities. In the Federal Republic
the municipalities subordinate themselves to the federal States, the
federation is in turn the European
community. All states are finally a member of UNO, which is the international community. Here is to be
calculated with the risk that inferior and superior bodies of laws partly
contradict due to ignorance. So e.g. the constitution of the federal state
Hessen particularly provides the ban on a lockout, in turn the constitution at
least in opinion of most employment law experts allows limited measures. So it
has to be clarified here, whether the constitution precedes in doubt or whether the state law must be
respected in every case.
Thirdly, the
increasing complexity of the matters of fact to be regulated in the laws also
contributes of course that in the laws very well important real facts are
overlooked. This is especially true because we live in an open society in which
changes permanently arise so that in the drafting of the specific laws by no
means always, even in the majority of the cases, it cannot be gone back to
already proven regularities.
The main task of
jurisprudence also therefore consists in paying attention to it, that the
individual laws yield a counter-saying free complete system, so that the
individual laws fit in the frame sketched out by the constitution and do not
contradict themselves mutually. The task of the jurisdiction, however, consists
in checking how far a specific right is violated, which laws have to be used
and, then which measures become necessary in the individual case for the
restoration of the right.
Since most means carried
out by the state are carried out in the form of laws and ordinances as said,
economics and jurisprudence, as far as it deals with the economic law, start
off from the same studies object. So e.g. the teaching of the economy and
social policy deals with the national insurance which is regulated in a body of
laws of its own.
The philosophy of
both knowledge disciplines is different, though. In the context of economic and
social policies it is, how shown, about the question of whether the targeted means
are suitable actually to help to realize the objectives, for which these laws
are enacted, and what negative side effects have to be expected on other policy
objectives.
The jurist, however, has to check at the writing the necessary body of
laws, whether the primary laws, first and foremost the limitations fixed in the
constitution were observed. With this the legal scholar has to check primarily
whether the law in question also adheres to the equality before the law and
whether the legal certainty is not perhaps violated. Namely if there is
disagreement about how certain legal facts are to be interpreted, on one hand
the risk arises that parallel court cases are decided by different courts
differently and right therefore the principle of equality before the law is
violated. And on the other hand just because of the uncertainty how single laws
have to be interpreted arises an additional uncertainty at the individual
economy subjects which manifests in an increase of the production costs and a
decline of the productivity.
Although the
philosophies of the economy and jurisprudence specialists are different, both
also require the knowledge of the respectively other discipline. At the check
of the question whether a determined to be checked action legally contradicts a
law, also the question must be settled, whether the aim of the law was violated
by this action. Every economy law, however, purports to achieve a quite certain
effect in the reality and, if obviously this effect is just prevented by certain
actions, this knowledge has to be taken into account also at the legal review.
However, the
teacher of the economic policy also has to take into account at his
recommendations to the politics, that certain measures which perhaps are
considered right and desired within itself, nevertheless can and may not be
carried out on the other hand, since a law forbids these measures. A convinced
supporter of the Keynesian teaching still may
be so convinced that the aim of the full employment presupposes a high deficit
in the national accounts budget; if the valid constitution particularly forbids
a new national debt, the economist also has to respect these limits at his
political consultations. Indeed, he can indicate that this part of the
constitution contradicts economic necessities; he also can support that according to the rules provided by the
constitution this section of the constitution is changed. However, As long as
such a constitutional amendment has not been carried out, these limitations
must be adhered to also by the economist.
The economy ethic
and economic philosophy is mentioned in third place of non-economic sciences
relevant for our question. Economy ethic and economic philosophy are in the
principle different from economic sciences in the narrower meaning, by the fact
that economics sees itself as a positive discipline, explaining the economic
events while the economy ethic is examining normative problems.
Now we had seen
that some parts of the narrower economics meet very well also normative
statements and this applies particularly to the welfare economy as well as to
the order theory. Both disciplines do not confine themselves to the
clarification of facts as indicated already, but furthermore judge very well
the described economic systems.
And as moral concepts
the economy ethic actually cannot be justified
empirically, the economy ethic always starts out from a metaphysical bases. No matter how much it may be
noticed that ethical norms are broken by people again and again, from this fact
alone it can never be deduced, that these norms shall therefore be given up and
have no more value. Conversely, from the assessment that people in the majority
act egotistically, can be already derived that these behaviours are therefore
also good in the ethical meaning. Likewise it can be noticed that the
liberalism assesses the liberal decision of the members of a national community
highly. The most important activity of the liberalism is that liberals also try
to prove that liberal social systems reach the welfare of the people so much
better than ever so very - meritorious
behaving - dictators.
Thirdly, just for these last reasons a difference between the
economy ethic and the parts of economics, which meet normative statements, can
be seen in that the economy ethic tries primarily to work out these ultimate, straight no longer provable basic
maxims. Controversially the welfare economy as well as the order theory views these ultimate maxims as given, not further
justifiable on the bottom of empirical sciences. Therefore they concentrate on
the question, which evaluated conclusions can be drawn from these maxims for
the economic tasks.
Fourthly, economy
sociology as well as economic psychology also deals with economic social systems as well as economic
behaviours. These two disciplines therefore deal superficially with the same
studies object as the economics in the narrower meaning. Economic theory and economic sociology are analysing e.g.
the market society systems and examine the observable regularities in economic
daily life. In the same way applies that even just the microeconomic part of
economic theory (so the household theory and company theory) again has in
common with the economic psychology the studies object, namely the economic
practices within households and things.
The difference
between economy theoretical philosophy and sociological philosophy is in that
the economic theorist always analyses economic social systems for how far the
economic basic tasks of the mastering of the scarcity in the material resources
are accomplished and where the causes are located, if in the reality the
economic social systems fail again and again. The sociologist, however, deals
primarily with questions on which way the different economic systems organize
social life, and how far these economically oriented subsystems are different
of the other, primarily of the political as well as cultural subsystems of our
society.
A similar work
sharing could be suspected for economic theory on the one hand and
business psychology on the other
side. And such a work sharing is standing to reason, assuming the data wreath
as part of the basic questions of economy developed by Walter Eucken. There
Walter Eucken leads all economic activity of consumers and producers back on
six predefined facts, predetermined sizes for each actor, which represent
precisely data in this sense, which, although largely determine the behaviour
of economic persons, - at least in the short term, thus in the respective
period - itself can no longer be changed.
Walter Eucken
counts the three factors of production as one of these 6 data: soil or nature,
labour as well as capital, furthermore the needs as well as the applied
production engineering and finally the order put by the State.
At such a
philosophy it seems reasonable to take these six data of the economizing
individuals also as data of the scientific analyses. This would mean for the
present problem that the need structure of the individual economizing
individuals for the economic theorist can be considered a predefined date and
that it is not the task of the economic theorist to examine the legitimacies
appearing in the need structure itself. The determining factors for the needs
expressed by the consumers would rather be investigated by economic psychology
and provided to the economic theorists.
The economic
theorist then has to start out from the need structure of the individuals and
to show in a model of thought, which logical conclusions for the course of the
prices and amounts of goods finally have to be concluded of the needs
investigated by the psychologists. In the same way the economic theorist
confines itself to not examining the development in applied technology and to
leave the question of the regulation reasons of applied technology to technical
sciences.
Such a labour
sharing between the single knowledge disciplines is extremely inexpediently
since it basically hinders the scientific analysis extremely. Therefore it was also denounced by Hans Albert as model Platonism.
Such a procedure
has the consequence that no economic theorist can take conclusive position for
the concrete questions to science. He only can point out that the conclusions
drawn by him have to be expected when it can be started out from a certain need
structure (or also technique). Whether the assumptions about demand structure
and technique actually correspond to reality, the economic theorist is no
longer able say something about this case, he must point out that this question
is rather the subject of another science (psychology in our example) and his
statements are limited to that very specific results for the course of the
quantities of goods and prices of goods can be assumed, if necessary structure and technology have
assumed characteristics in turn.
And such a labour
sharing is then unsatisfactory therefore because the psychologist or also
technologist namely does not give a thought at all to function as a
complementary science for the economic theory and to examine the actions of the
consumers or the development in the techniques whether they develop as it is
necessary for a success of the economic subsystem.
This, however,
necessarily means that no systematic empirical verification of the developed
hypotheses in economic theory is possible. Thus, the task of every economic
science is questioned with that. The economic theory gets like any science,
which seeks to analyse empirical situations, to knowledge only by formulated
tentative hypotheses because of certain empirical observations in a first step,
which must then be empirically tested in a second step.
The attempt then is
made with several examinations, to falsify these hypotheses through cases found
in which this hypothesis cannot be confirmed. Only then if it has not turned
out well despite repeated attempts to disprove these hypotheses, it can be
spoken of a temporary confirmation, the hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.
But also in this case it only can be spoken about a provisionally verified theory,
we always have to expect that we do not have a perfect knowledge at any time,
we always must expect that the found results are only therefore correct because
there were certain still unknown determining factors which will probably be given no more in future in an environment which is
open and changing permanently.
Considering these
relationships, it is much more expedient if every science only finishes their
research when the formulated hypotheses are empirically verified for validity.
Only the science which has formulated these hypotheses thus has the interest and ability, to the validity of these hypotheses.
In this sense, it
is not appropriate that the economic theorist trusts that the psychologist him
provides the hypotheses that are needed to answer the questions of economic
theory. The task of verifying the individual hypotheses should rather come from
the economic science itself, only this has an interest just to the hypotheses
formulated by itself.
Though this conclusion not means that one and the same person always formulates
hypotheses as an economic theorist and tests them also empirically. It is
rather more expedient that hypothesis formation as well as hypothesis
verification is carried out by different persons. Yes, the theorist is heavily
interested in that his hypotheses are confirmed and the risk would consist in
the case of a self-affirmation that the results are manipulated, and only such cases are examined
empirically or are announced, which lead to a confirmation.
The competition
between theorist and empiricist leads, though, automatically to that the
empiricist is very well interested in that
hypotheses are disproved. So the risk of the manipulation is crucially lower at
this labour sharing. But there even is a labour sharing between the
empiricists, which deal with economy theoretical hypotheses and such, which
deal with psychological hypotheses.
Fifthly, the
economic geography also deals with economically relevant questions. The economy
geographer examines primarily the question in which working areas certain
material resources are found, as the different qualities of work are
distributed spatially and by which determining factors metropolitan areas of
the production and consumption are to be explained.
Now at first it may
be of minor importance how the raw materials stores are distributed spatially or in which working areas special trained workers are
settled particularly. For the growth standard and for the future development
opportunities of a national economy it is primarily of importance how many a
country disposes of Energy sources or other raw materials, and how the
educational level of its workers is compared with other countries.
If we are, though,
interested in the distribution of the material resources beyond national borders, the spatial distribution of
production factors gains a decisive importance. Since, without raw materials only few goods
(predominating only services) can be made. In this case, the missing raw
materials must be imported. The imports must be paid with foreign currency
which is generally only then obtained if goods are exported to the same value
and in turn this export itself presupposes that a country without essential
material resources disposes of industry in which high-quality investment or
consumer goods can be produced.
Even if we are less
interested in the overall result of a national economy, but wonder at the
distribution of the welfare on the individual working areas of a country, the
distribution of the resources is of a decisive importance of course. The
further question under which conditions an optimal working area can develop,
thus can only be settled satisfactorily with knowledge of the spatial
distribution of the factors of production.