Norman Macrae -The Economist pro-youth economist -bravo sir fazle abed & jack ma
Massive Collaboration (open source, win-win models across borderless planet, networks as systems of open systems, digital death of disatnce, mobile life critcal apps ....) is the only way the net generation economy www.wholeplanet.tv can grow beyond the scarcity economics of the extractive- industrial thing economy-
|.Top 10 quotes from economist leaders of value exchange curriculum ..|
so why is massive collaboration entrepreneurship the most risky innovation challenge of these 2010s
..Risks to massive collaboration entrepreneurs- caused by :
|Sir Fazle Abed ,BRAC, Budapest 2013- 20th Open Society Laureate chosen by George Soros
After my country’s independence, I began working to try to help the poor in Bangladesh. My early colleagues and I initially thought that BRAC would be a short-term effort. But the realities of entrenched poverty soon changed our minds. We began working in a host of areas – agriculture, healthcare, human rights, microfinance, education – wherever the poor faced obstacles.
We found that poverty was so entrenched that only a long-term effort of social and economic transformation would uproot it. And this task became my life’s work.
I have learned much along the way. Perhaps the most important thing I learned was that when you create the right conditions, poor people will do the hard work of defeating poverty themselves.
I learned the importance of having lamps to illuminate your path, even when the precise course is unclear. For me, one of these lamps was Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, who wrote a book called Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which had a profound effect on me. Freire's idea of conscientisation, or raising critical consciousness, informed us in our belief that poor people, especially women, can be organised for power, and that with right set of organisational tools, they can become actors in history.
This, to me, is the meaning of an open society – a society where everyone has the freedom to realise their full potential and human rights.
We’ve seen that without scepticism, scientific inquiry, and the constant questioning of one’s assumptions, the highest ideals will falter when tested against reality. In the words of Karl Popper, among the enemies of open society is the notion of “prophetic wisdom,” the type of knowledge that leaves little room for doubt. In contrast to utopian goals, Popper embraced “piecemeal social engineering” – solutions that are effective, even if they are not the most elegant.
There is an element of that in BRAC – in its willingness to adapt, in its constant innovation, and in its willingness to learn from its own mistakes. After more than 40 years, we are still a learning organisation.
The vision of BRAC is a world free from all forms of exploitation and discrimination. I am sometimes asked if such a world is really possible – whether I believe that poverty can be truly eradicated. The truth is, I believe it can be.
Ladies and gentlemen, we can see today that poverty is on the retreat. Recent statistics from the World Bank show that in every region of the world, the number of people living in extreme poverty is dropping for the first time in recent memory.
But to borrow Popper’s phrase, there is no prophetic wisdom in this fact. The eradication of human poverty remains an ongoing and arduous task rather than historical certainty, and much work remains. And I invite you to bring your own creativity and potential to this task.
please help us maintain top 10 frames of economist concerned with value exchange curricula -firstname.lastname@example.org
Kenneth Boulding 1968 : The historical significance of capitalism is precisely a society in... which exchange has become a more important source of power than threat -from book of lectures to teachers on what teenagers needed to know about - Economics as a ( Systems) Science
Keynes quote selected from this wonderful compilation:
"I should... conclude rather differently. I should say that what we want is not no planning, or even less planning, indeed I should say we almost certainly want more. But the planning should take place in a community in which as many people as possible, both leaders and followers wholly share your own moral position. Moderate planning will be safe enough if those carrying it out are rightly oriented in their own minds and hearts to the moral issue. This is in fact already true of some of them. But the curse is that there is also an important section who could be said to want planning not in order to enjoy its fruits but because morally they hold ideas exactly the opposite of yours, and wish to serve not God but the devil."
We believe that Kenneth Boulding was the world's number 1 economist and transparent systems-forward business models- We love to hear of other nominations email@example.com
Long amplification of Boulding's Framework of value exchange by Caruso (see attached):
To Boulding, the social system can be divided into three large,
overlapping and interacting sub-systems: exchange, threat and integrative
system. All human institutions and relationships involve different
combinations of all three. Exchange relationships constitute the usual domain
of economics. In its simplest form, two parties agree to exchange something
with something else, usually money with goods and services. It is commonly
understood as a positive sum game in which parties can be better off after the
exchange is concluded. However, it still retains co-operative and competitive
elements. The threat system, in its simplest form, is also a relationship between
two parties and one party is capable to affect the other party behaviour
through coercion. It is summarised in the statement: “If you do not do something
(or you do) I shall do something nasty to you”. Economic activity is full of
examples. It is common sense that an executive can threaten a worker of firing.
The government threatens individuals of expropriation if they do not pay
taxes, or a state can threaten a tariff retaliation if another state (or a group of
states) does not comply with some obligations. The threat system is less
productive than exchange systems simply because exchange of goods
encourages the production of goods, whereas threat discourages the
production of goods. To Boulding, there are several feasible reactions
threatened agents can set in response: submission, defiance, counter-threat, flight,
and integrative response. Threat systems are pervasive in many human and
institutional interactions. Boulding argues that all threat systems experience a
basic long-run instability. The well-known threat system of deterrence,
therefore, is unstable in the long run2. When a breakdown in deterrence occurs
the subsequent outcome could take the shape of submission or defiance. If one
party decides to carry out the threat, and the other party also decides to
counter-threat a feasible outcome could be the occurrence of a war.
By contrast, a more stable response to threat appears to be the integrative
action. Using Boulding’s words: “the integrative response is that which establishes
community between the threatener and the threatened and produces common values
and common interest” (Boulding 1963a: 430). Examples falling into this category
of responses are more difficult to find out. It commonly appears mixed with
one of the other responses: Gandhi and non-violent resistance, for instance,
seem to be a mixture of defiance and integrative response. In international
systems a counter-threat response might appear together with an integrative
The integrative system involves many other different concepts. Among
individuals, an integrative relationship involves a complex spectrum of
feelings, such as respect, love, affection and so on. It also involves other
terms, an integrative system needs a convergence and interdependence of
utility functions of parties involved. An example of integrative relationship is
giving a gift. To Boulding, by abstracting the pure form of giving a gift, there is
neither exchange nor barter. I give you something mainly because of love,
affection or sympathy. Even if integrative relationships appear to occur mainly
among individuals, they also work within other scenarios. In international
interactions, for example, foreign aid flowing from a richer country to a poorer
one can be included into integrative systems.
Cornerstone of the integrative system is the theory of ‘grants economics’
which is exactly the subject of The Economy of love and Fear (hereafter ELF). In
the first two chapter, both micro and macro theories of grants are expounded.
In general terms, a grant is supposed to be a unilateral transfer from an
individual, a group or a social unit to another. When it occurs, the donor agent
does not receive anything in return. In a simple two-actor scenario, it involves
the grantor or donor on one hand and the recipient on the other hand. Note
the deep difference from the exchange system, where an agent A gives an
agent B something for something else. By contrast, a unilateral transfer occurs
only when there is an integrative relationship between actors. A powerful
example of an integrative system could be considered the modern nation-state.
On one hand, states are usually committed to provide grants in different forms
to their own citizens; on the other hand, citizens are expected to pay taxes,
duties and excises. In particular, “the grants economy represents the heart of
political economy, because it is precisely at the level of one-way transfers that the
political system intervenes in the economic system” (Boulding et al. 1972: 21).
Therefore, the existence of GE is a matter of institutions which inform and
govern the economic life of individuals, groups and organizations. Different
institutionalized scenarios contribute to shape different economic systems. The
existence, the measurement and the classification of grant elements in modern
economics ought to be considered as pivotal element in the regular framework
Grants can take different shapes. Grants can be either ‘negative’ or
‘positive’. That is, negative grants imply that the utility of grantee diminish
instead of increasing. Using Boulding’s words “Negative grants, unfortunately,
are still an important element in the world system, especially in international system
where the defense industries of the various countries are mainly concerned with
producing the capability of making of negative grants to other countries” (Boulding
1973: 22). Negative grants are costly for both actors. First the ‘negative’ grantor
employs an amount of resources that could be employed in productive
activities. Secondly, the recipient actor ‘the grantee’, is expected to suffer an injury
More on Boulding's context is explained by John B Davis
1. Locating Boulding’s Critique of Value-free Economics
Kenneth Boulding presented his famous “Economics As A Moral Science” paper
(Boulding, 1969) that rejected the idea that economics is value-free as his Presidential
Address to the American Economic Association in December 1968 at the height of the
War in Vietnam. Understanding something about Boulding’s personal history and
circumstances will help us to understand what lay behind his thinking. The previous
year when he had moved to University of Colorado some members of the University
Board of Regents had opposed his appointment because Boulding had been involved
in a arranging a teach-in against the War when he was at the University of Michigan.
But Boulding said of this: “They thought I was a dangerous radical. Actually, I am a
dangerous conservative” (Mott, 2000, p. F436).
Indeed, the next year Boulding accepted the post of faculty advisor to the campus Republican club at Colorado, and changed his voter registration to Republican – which he retained until the early 1980s
when Ronald Reagan began a new arms build-up, and he then changed his registration
to Democratic. So Boulding was not left-wing in his politics nor involved in the
radical economics of the time. In fact he was always hostile to Marx’s theory of
capitalism and its emphasis on class conflict. What he did feel strongly about was the
cause of peace, having become a Quaker early in life, and having been active
throughout his career in a variety of ways in the cause of peace. Moreover, he himself
saw peace and conflict research as his largest area of work (Boulding, 1989), and
regarded his involvement in the founding of the
Journal of Conflict Resolution and the
International Peace Research Association as important lifetime achievements.
This tells us, then, one thing about the thinking behind Boulding’s Address and
famous paper and critique of economics, namely, that it did not spring from the
radical, Marxist, or neo-Marxist view of the time that standard economics was
essentially as an expression of capitalist ideology. Indeed, Boulding was well known
in the profession for having written a fairly conventional economics text,
Economic Analysis (1941), and he never hesitated to say that economics was a legitimate science.
His complaint, rather, was that it had mistakenly come to be seen as a value-freescience when it should rather have been seen as a moral science in the tradition of
Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall. Thus the conventional view in the economics
profession when he gave his 1968 Address, that economics had advanced by purging
values from the subject, was for him a retrograde development and a decline rather
than an improvement in the scientific character of economics.
Economics was consequently not only a science in his estimation, but a science which could not
function properly when investigated without attention to the values that he believed
inevitably operated within it. What did he mean by this? A second important clue
lies in the fact that Boulding did not believe that economics was exceptional in this
regard. His view, then, was also not the well known critique of the idea of a valuefree
economics others had recently advanced (e.g., Myrdal, 1953, 1958), namely, that
economics and the social sciences in general should be contrasted with the natural
sciences in virtue of involving human actors, so that they could be understood without
attention to human values. Rather he believed that “no science of any kind can be
divorced from ethical considerations” (Boulding, 1960, p. 2). That is, he held that all
science is inescapably value-laden.
Yet even this view of science does not get us entirely to what was behind Boulding’s
thinking, since he also denied that value-ladenness was even something especially
characteristic of the scientific process. Rather his larger view was that science was
only one dimension of human culture, and that human culture in general was always
guided and sustained by values.
Science is a human learning process which arises in certain subcultures in
human society and not in others, and a subculture as we seen is a group of
people defined by acceptance of certain common values, that is, an ethic
which permits extensive communication between them”(
The common value system of science is indeed distinctive in various ways from the
common value systems of other human subcultures. In the sciences, high value is
“placed on veracity, on curiosity, on measurement, on quantification, on careful
observation and experiment, and on objectivity” without which “the epistemological
process of science would not have arisen” (
Ibid.), and the common values of other
subcultures, such as the military, were clearly quite different. But for Boulding the
main point is that all human activities are types of culture, and thus necessarily valueladen.
Culture, he believed, is distinctive of human life, takes on many forms, and is
always structured by values appropriate to our activities in the many different
domains of life. Thus to understand Boulding’s critique of economics as a moral
science and as a value-laden activity we need to understand something about his view
Here, however, we find ourselves needing to look more deeply into the
foundations of Boulding’s thinking in connection with his broad systems theory
approach or general systems theory way of looking at the world, which represented an
intellectual commitment for him equal to his commitment to peace.
2. General Systems Theory and the Impossibility of Personal Tastes
From early in his career at the University of Michigan Boulding was first active in a
transdisciplinary general systems theory movement that aimed to explain the world in
a holistic, non-mechanistic manner in terms of entire systems of relationships. Many
people contributed to postwar general systems theory, which is often identified with
one of its pre-eminent proponents, Ludwig von Bertalanffy (cf. 1968, 1974; László,
1972). However, Boulding’s involvement in the movement should not be
underestimated, since Bertalanffy, Anatol Rapoport, Ralph Gerard, and Boulding
together established the Society for General Systems Research in 1954 (renamed the
International Society for Systems Science in 1988), and Boulding remained
committed to a systems approach throughout his career.
The basic conception general systems theory involves is that phenomena in all domains of life are interconnected through sets of relationships that exhibit common patterns and properties that can be observed across the different sciences. The major concern its proponents had was that
the different sciences had become too narrowly focused on their separate concerns
and subjects, and that greater attention to shared constructs, principles, and properties,
even if abstractly represented, would make desirable communication between
scientists more possible. This did not imply that all sciences should be reduced to
general systems accounts; rather the view was that the different sciences retained their
specific areas of investigation while they simultaneously exhibited similar systemic
features. Thus general systems theorists argued for framing the specific areas of
investigation in different sciences, where possible, by consideration of shared crossscience
general structures in the interest of promoting development across and within
the different sciences. In this sense, general systems theory was a version of the
classic unity of science view that science advances through increasing unification (cf.
Oppenheim and Putnam, 1958).
Boulding made such an argument in his own early contribution to the approach,
“General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science,” where he argued, for example,
that “a specialist who works with the growth concept – whether the crystallographer,
the virologist, the cytologist, the psychologist, the sociologist or the economist – will
be more sensitive to the contributions of other fields if he is aware of the many
similarities of the growth process in widely different empirical fields” (1956, p. 198).
It is interesting, then, that we can see this same point in his American Economics
Association Presidential Address in regard to the many subcultures that make up
human society. Subcultures are always defined in terms of the sets of common values
that people accept and rely on for communication within them. Though two sciences,
say economics and immunology, might appear to be very different from one another,
they can nonetheless be understood to be similar systems in both relying sets of
shared values that structure communication of scientists in each field. Thus
Boulding’s point that economics is value-laden was not just that this is true of
economics as it is true of other sciences; his general systems view of the world was
that value-ladenness was one of the fundamental cross-science general structures that
we ought to investigate to promote development within the different sciences.
We can see more of what was involved in this view if we look more closely at
Boulding’s early general systems thinking. Thus when it came to the question of how
one should go about explaining general systems, Boulding believed that one approach
proceeded by arranging particular empirical fields in a hierarchy of increasing
complexity, which corresponded to the increasing complexity of the ‘individuals’
studied in different types of scientific research.
What we see from Boulding is not only a hierarchical organization of systems of
increasing complexity, but a view of all systems as homeostatic in nature. That is,
Boulding’s general systems view was grounded in the idea that a system has an
integrity and cohesiveness that derives from its self-regulating and self-organizing
properties. This goes beyond the simpler holism idea that systems can be associated
with observable sets of interconnected relationships in that it ascribes an active
principle to such systems that ensures their continued functioning as systems
Of course by the standards of much science of his time, and especially economics,
where more mechanical views of the world were central, this sort of ascription of an
inherent active principle would have seemed implausible and unjustified.
4But Boulding and the general systems movement were in fact part of a much larger
development in postwar ideas that would come to have tremendous impact on human
society in subsequent decades, namely, the idea of cybernetic systems, such as
emerged in the technology of computers, which, as originally conceived by such
individuals as Alan Turing, Norbert Wiener, William Ross Ashby, Warren McCulloch,
Margaret Mead, and John von Neumann, relied on and shared the same view of
holistic systems as self-regulating and self-organizing (see Heims, 1993). Boulding
and others in the general systems theory movement were well aware of this
development, and saw themselves as contributing to a general philosophy to explain it.
So when he gave his famous Presidential Address, he may well have believed himself
a forerunner bringing general systems theory into economics.
Wikipedia on boulding
Wikipedia on boulding part 2
Boulding Wikipedia part 3
Boulding part 4
Boulding part 5