4th International Conference
“Economic Philosophy”
Lyon, Wednesday 27th – Friday 29th June, 2018
Norms and Normativity
The 4th International Conference “Economic Philosophy”
will be held at the University of Lyon from 27th to 29th June 2018. This
conference is organized by the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, the
Universities of Saint-Etienne, Lyon 2 and Lyon 3 (Triangle UMR5206, GATE Lyon
Saint-Etienne UMR 5824, Irphil EA4187).
We invite economists and philosophers, but also all
contributors working on economic philosophy, to submit papers relevant to the
theme. Papers on other topics are also welcome.
Collective life is structured by norms. Even though such
norms manifest as regularities for those who observe them, they also constitute
rules to follow or ideals to mimic. May these norms be social, moral, or legal,
they organize practices and orient judgments, especially in the economic
sphere. Consequently, they constitute one of the first objects of study for
both economics and philosophy, and more broadly for the social sciences.
From this perspective, at least three kinds of questions
can be asked:
First, from an ontological point of view: What do
constitute the norms? The nature of norms in themselves is debated, since such
norms could refer to behavioral regularities, shared beliefs, incorporated
rules, or intelligible principles, etc. What is their social function, and what
is their role for individual representation and action? According to certain
approaches, such as institutionalist-pragmatist approaches in economics, where
institutions are defined as rules, norms are dynamic mediators between
individuals and society. Norms orient individual behavior, consciously or not,
intentionally or not, imperatively or through incentives, making difficult to
draw a unified picture of their mode of action, making it even more difficult
when such norms interact. What are their conditions of emergence? Norms evolve
with economic and social life, however they can also slow down and orient the
movement of both economic and social life. The origins of norms appearance,
their crystallization, their laying on, or even their effacement towards other
norms are complex and uncertain. What are norms’ conditions of efficacy? For
instance, should the social responsibility of enterprises come under a private
order or a public one?
Second, from an epistemological point of view: How to know
the norms? The delimitation of the normative objects studied largely determine
their conditions of analyses and orient their descriptions, as well as their
explanations, which leads us to question the concepts that economists use to
approach such norms. Which methodologies can guide their identification, their
interpretation, and their explanation? The theoretical frameworks that are
mobilized to highlight the evolution and efficacy of economic and social norms,
from the rational choice theory to the theory of evolution, are multiple and
often appear hardly compatible. Thus, one has to either articulate such
theories together or to separate them. The theoretical framework allowing to
identify such norms come under the social choice theory.
Third and finally, from an axiological point of view: How
to assess and arbitrate conflict among norms? Diverse rationality or moral
requirements are usually given to norms that were drawn from individual or
collective behavior or that were imagined by theoretical models. However, it is
not certain that such requirements offer the possibility to obtain a reliable
and coherent order for these norms. From which value judgments – epistemic,
moral or aesthetic – are they liable? Axiological judgments on norms can be linked
(depending on the meta-ethic or more broadly on the meta-normative position one
endorses) to superior rank norms, to values that would justify them, to
interpretative hypotheses simply postulated, or even to preferences shaped by
social or psychological preferences.
These three axes of questions lead to a reflection on
normativity, that is, on what creates and imposes norms, as well as on the
recognition of a specific dimension of the social and economic life. The
normative, be it imperative or appreciative, distinguishes itself from the
positive. Normativity is in itself the object of plural interrogations.
Is the dividing line between normative and positive
really easy to draw in economic science and public action? It is often argued
that norms are opposed to facts, as well as prescriptive and evaluative
judgments are opposed to descriptive judgments. Some scholars challenge this
dichotomy either by attempting to get rid of such distinction or by proposing
to add a new one, isolating for instance the prudential from both the normative
and the positive.
Can scientific discourses about economics and the economy
really separate the study about fact from a normative reflection? The
articulation of these two dimensions operate differently depending on whether
the evaluative goal or the prescriptive one is assumed, as in welfare
economics, or whether these goals are not assumed, because, for example, such
goals would be contrary to an axiological imperative of neutrality. However,
questions about time consistency or efficacy often lead to axiological questioning.
Can regulated judgments be considered at the origins or
foundations of normativity? Norms or values, especially the moral ones, aiming
to assess economic and social norms can even be described, studied, or assessed
within their conflictual diversity, sometimes using economics tools such as
formalization. The economist is thus steered to enable dialogue between
concepts originally from meta-ethics or within social justice theories.
Furthermore, the economist is pushed to interrogate the power she can have on
such tools, which determine the framework of her own reflection. Besides,
economics as a whole discipline is steered to create a dialog with other
disciplines such as law, political science, and ethics.
Finally, which role can economists play in the production
of appreciative or prescriptive discourses within the public space? Economists
regular interventions in the public sphere obliges one to interrogate the norms
that can regulate the production – intentionally or not – of normative effects
from economics. Consequently, it seems necessary to question the standard for
desirable interventions and the political interpretation of results and
discourses produced by economists, as well as the place they fill in public
consultation, deliberations, and public decisions.
Papers
could be about reflections on norms, normativity in philosophy of economics;
they could also come from any methodological perspective. Among the themes that
could be addressed:
- Norms plurality and economics: social, ethic, legal
norms; moral norms, justice norms; cultural norms; gender norms; linguistic
norms;
- Rationality and norms: rationality norms,
epistemic norms; norms and practical rationality;
- Nature, origins, and foundations of normativity: law,
moral, ethic, politics; functionalism and norms efficacy; scientific expertise
and constructivism;
- Norms dynamics: evolution; conflict of norms;
interaction between different norms; democratic process and norms
- Positive and normative economics: facts and norms;
axiological neutrality and normative aims in economics;
- Universality and plurality of norms: knowledge,
interpretation and explanation of norms; cognitive sciences and norms;
democracy and norms;
- Normativity approaches in economics: political
philosophy, welfare theory and social choice, law and economics,
institutionalisms …
Important
Deadlines:
- Abstract Proposals:
Abstracts (around 500 words) should be
prepared for blind review and sent at sciencesconf.org by November
15, 2018. Abstracts and papers can be written and presented either in
French or in English
- Notification of acceptance:
Notification of acceptance should be sent on February
9th 2018.
- Full paper:
The final version of the paper should be sent
on June 15th 2018
- Registration:
Early registrations will be accepted till April 27th
2018 and late registrations will be accepted till June 15th 2018.
Keynote speakers:
Marc Fleurbaey (University of Princeton)
Uskali Mäki (University of Helsinki)
Hilary Greaves (University of Oxford)
Scientific Committee:
Sonja Amadae (MIT, University of Helsinki)
Erik Angner (Stockholm
University)
Carla Bagnoli
(Universita de Modena e Reggio Emilia)
Elodie Bertrand (CNRS, ISJPS, Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Constanze Binder
(EIPE, Erasmus Rotterdam University)
Kenneth Binmore (University College London)
Geoffrey Brennan (RSSS, Australian National University)
John Broome (University of Oxford)
Gilles Campagnolo
(CNRS, Université de Marseille)
Mikael Cozic
(Université Paris Est Créteil)
Speranta Dumitru
(Université de Paris 5)
Franz Dietrich (CNRS & Paris School of Economics)
Jean-Sébastien Gharbi
(Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne)
Muriel Gilardone
(Université de Caen Normandie)
Sandye Gloria-Palermo
(Université Nice Sophia-Antipolis)
Axel Gosseries
(Université Catholique de Louvain)
Caroline Guibet-Lafaye (CNRS, ENS, Centre Maurice
Halbwachs)
Conrad Heilmann (EIPE, Erasmus University of Rotterdam)
Cyril Hédoin (Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne)
Herrade Igersheim
(CNRS, Université de Strasbourg)
Laurent Jaffro (PHARE, Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Fabrice Le Lec (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne,
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Caterina Marchioni (TINT, Helsinki)
Harro Maas (Centre Walras-Pareto, University of Lausanne)
Patrick Mardellat (CLERSE, Science Po Lille)
Claude Ménard (Centre
d'Economie de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Emmanuel Picavet
(NOSOPHI, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Claire Pignol (PHARE, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Julian Reiss (Durham University)
Bénédicte Reynaud (Université Paris Dauphine)
Don Ross (University of Cape Town)
Miriam Teschl (EHESS,
Université de Marseille)
Stéphane Zuber (CNRS et PSE)
Danielle Zwarthoed (Chaire Hoover, Université Catholique
de Louvain)
Organization
Committee:
Antoinette Baujard (GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne, Université
de Saint-Etienne), Olivier Brette (Triangle, INSA), Alexandre Chirat (Triangle,
Université Lyon 2), Véronique Dutraive (Triangle, Université Lyon 2), Judith
Favereau (Triangle, Université Lyon 2), Charles Girard (Irphil, Université Lyon
3), Pierre Leviaux (Laet, Université Lyon 2), Christophe Salvat (Triangle,
CNRS)
