Beyond the market

By Arsoni Buana


We, put it as economist, kind of have a little concern to the things outside the boundary of market. To that, take the idea of neo-classical point of view, be more precisely the Chicago school, as an example. Another good example, it might be the neo-Keynesianism that appeared partly to correct the failure of the former mentioned school of thought. The construction of two relies on the fact that agent is rational and always maximizes his/her utility. Market is regarded as a place where agent coordinates each other while (s)he behaves to maximizes his/her perceived utility. Even neo-Keynesian approach admit the role of government intervention, a little place has been reserved for this role in the building of the ideal concept of free market competition.

Having a look to the Marxian tradition, it is more on the role of firm rather than that of market that drives all the vehicle of analysis. Through so called wage relation there is known a social relation that one could not find in the market terminology of the mainstream approach. When a laborer agrees to work and to accept certain condition of working given by an employer, there can be found a wage relation that also involves a social relation –not only market relation– between the two because, in that situation, which makes it different with the economy of market, it is known a vertical submission. A delegation of tasks from employer to worker cannot be seen as the same form of horizontal coordination among agent in the market.

If we combine market-type coordination with coordination similar to that of coordination in a firm and also with medium-to-long period of macroeconomic evolution then we will have beyond-the-market economics: School of Regulation.