Moral inclusiveness of imponderable variables in the wellbeing function and its evaluation

Imponderable variables are the mainstream conceptual and modelling of so-called non-quantifiable variables that are at best treated to convey their exogenous effects. Contrarily, the wellbeing model system (4.1)-(4.6) develops an innovative approach to assigning quantitative parametric values to such variables and endogenizes all the inter-variable relation in their circular causation equations. We formalize this new approach in the following way.

As an example, we write equation (4.1) in its quantitative form as,

included in the x-vector are the M-variable and F-variable. All valuables are induced by ‘0,’ with 0 < 0 < 1. Let an xk-variable be the so-called imponderable variable subject now to its quantification in the wellbeing function and the circular causation equations.

Table 4.1 Evaluating the joint wellbeing function with observed data and imponderables

1

2

3 . .

"I

evaluated empirical values by CC

Wellbeing SI, S2 Total W

Observable data (Set 1 for observation i=l,2,.,m)

ordinal values of tabular

6-values for Set 1

Survey data (Set 2 for survey data J=l,2,. ,n2)

ordinal values of tabular

6 values for Set 2

In the example of possible data extract in Table 4.1 the total set of data is divided into two segments. Set 1 comprises the observable data. This data set is used to evaluate the wellbeing function W,(0) for data Set 1 along with its entirety of methods using the circular causation and the final empirically evaluated wellbeing function given by say 0].

The other segmented data set is gathered by a questionnaire survey. The empirical version of the wellbeing function corresponding to the data Set 2 is likewise entirely evaluated as 02. The full theoretical system of circular causation equations (CC), say ‘n’ in number, is likewise evaluated by the segmented systems of n, and n2 (rq + n2 = n) number of equations corresponding to the two separately empirical wellbeing functions, 0, and 02.

Finally, the joint empirical version of the wellbeing function comprising the observable and the surveyed segments is given by 0 = 0,.02, allowing for interaction, integration, and evolutionary learning properties of the total wellbeing function. A weaker IIE-fomt of the total wellbeing function with such properties would be 0 = 0, + 02.

The derivation of 02 from the questionnaire survey is straightforward. The Likert responses to the number of questionnaires can be averaged over the number of respondents. These Likert averages point out the importance attached to the specific questionnaires. The resulting averages are then further averaged to obtain the wellbeing index. This version of the wellbeing index can be computed by geometric average of the individual Likert averages by specific questionnaires over numbers of respondents. The geometric computation formula is shown in Table 4.1.

In the detailed empirical evaluation of the wellbeing function ‘Qf with the system of circular causation equations the algorithmic approach can be used to generate the data points of {0’n, 6’i2> q’13, • • .,0’ш}- In this case we generate by pro-rata, 0’ц = (хц/хц*).0ц*; x1;* denotes the most prefened observed variable value for which 01;* is assigned the most prefened value. This method of generating evaluated values of {0’^} is generalized for the whole data Table 4.1 across (i, j)-values. The value of 01;* is of ordinal nature and can be selected by appropriate choice for the whole table of x(0)-data.

The empirical wellbeing predictor is evaluated for each of the observed x(0)-variables with data from the Excel-sheet by rows like for the choice of 0* = 1 for x*-values in ever}' column of x(0)-values. Other ordinal values of 0* can be similarly selected.

This computation is repeated over all values by rows of x(0)-values across columns.

A generalized expression of the w ellbeing criterion in unity of pandemic treatments by their scientific, economic, and societal moral inclusiveness

The expressions (4.1)-{4.8) form a generalized system of pandemic treatments and scientific, economic, and societal moral inclusiveness towards attaining normalcy and sustainability. These expressions can be included together in the following schematic Figure 4.3. The figure exhibits the ontological correctness of the multidimensional conception of unity of knowledge underlying its logical formalism. The overarching propexty of multidisciplinary ensemble and multidimensionality of the generalized logical formalism of the world-system in unity of knowledge establishes the socio-scientific worldview of universality and uniqueness. The pandemic treatments model is one such model. The property of universality is established by the generalized and most extended application of the concept and formalism of the stated model to all categories of pandemic towards attaining normalcy. The property of uniqueness is established by the singular existence of conscious phenomenological inclusiveness in the formal model, unlike its absence in all existing forms of pandemic treatments and curative models to date.

A generalized schema of pandemic reversal to normalcy by the model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness

Figure 4.3 A generalized schema of pandemic reversal to normalcy by the model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness

The nature of the generalized pandemic normalcy model summarized in Figure 4.3 invokes a full list of epistemological explanation. The most important of the epistemic attributes is that such a model denies the axiom of rationality as otherwise is ingrained in mainstream economics (Sen, Summer 1977).17 By the existence of the axiom of economic rationality in the mainstream model, this geni e of utilitarian models ignores the problem of moral inclusiveness. Such a constraint especially denies the study of multidimensional issues with evaluative factors. The problem persists in all of mainstream economic models. The result then is their inability to study science-economy-society morally embedded kind of endogenous circular causation relations. These are otherwise required for algorithmic study of pandemic control towards attaining normalcy by way of the complementarity of endogenous relations of moral inclusiveness between the scientific, economic, and social variables.

Another example of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness: socio-economic development indicators in the wellbeing objective criterion

Indexing millennium development goals (United Nations, 2015)n

The millennium development goals (MDGs) are calculated independently of each other by averaging of data within particular domains that are of interest. These variables are 1 poverty alleviation; 2 universal primary education; 3 gender equality; 4 reduction in child mortality; 5 improved maternal health; 6 combat diseases; 7 environmental sustainability; and 8 developing global partnership. The averaging computational approach in these indicators can be seen in the example of measuring poverty gap (PG) in the following way:

Where z denotes poverty line of income; y, denotes income of individual ‘i’; q denotes number of poor people; and n denotes size of population.

An alternative way for measuring PG is used:

Where T denotes income ratio calculated as

It is noted in each of the previously mentioned indexes that the study of socio-economic development by using such averaged indicators does not give the interactive and complex interrelations between critical variables that together define the idea of sustainability. In regard to such complex interrelations of the development paradigm the South Coimnission Report remarks on the sustainable development worldview. South Commission (1990, p. 13)19 defines the meaning of socio-economic development in its broad sense encompassing economic, social, and human factors as follows: “To stun up: development is a process of self-reliant growth, achieved through participation of the people acting in their own interests as they see them, and under their own control.” The central implication and context of the South Commission’s definition of socio-economic development is to construct a vastly relational process for determining what human choices are appropriate within a participator}' and codetermined perspective of development. Such a principle is particularly prescribed for the developing countries in view of the potential that they can jointly share in, and can be enacted, to realize justice in the global arrangement of ownership and management of resources towards determining self-reliance. This relational view of dynamic complementarities among the various potential that the developing countries can together render now becomes the premise of a new praxis of development as an organically relational process in respect of the ontology of unity of knowledge. Within this worldview, the interactive and consensual phenomena (integrative) of markets, economies, institutions, and policies assume their nature, formalism, objectives, and viability.

The MDG-indicators are included as complementary inter-causal relations in the wellbeing objective criterion. If now we extend the MDG- indicators into the model of moral inclusiveness issue of socio-economic development in COVID-19 episode, the surest way for such a realization in analytical and ethical equivalence is the extensively complementary perspective. This extension would be across diverse systemic wellbeing quantifications that are then compounded together, as explained in the section comprising Table 4.1. We write this compound quantification in systems S,(0,) with their individual wellbeing measures, W^S^SJ), in the form of the following compound expression: The wellbeing problem is Evaluation W(n,S1(01)) = 0 = nfl1=1n01 = пПР1=1п(х,(0)), as geometric mean. To a second best this expression can be an additive case. Circular causation equations in the system-specific variables apply. Thereby, we obtain a large number of wellbeing indicators and their induced vectors, with n = I,n, number of equations segmented by the system-specific wellbeing values and their systemic compounding.

Monetary and fiscal effects in the moral and social inclusiveness of millennium index according to the wellbeing objective criterion

It remains to be discussed whether monetary and fiscal effects are purely macroeconomic factors or whether there is a theoretical microeconomic implication underlying macro-micro coordination. The answer to this impending question further penetrates into that of micro-money (Choud- hury, 2018)20 and to the more bewildering issue of whether there really is a macroeconomic field that is embedded in microeconomic foundations and capable of the study of moral inclusiveness. The answer to this deeply theoretical query is much more than simply that covered by the field of microfoundation of macroeconomics (Phelps, 1970).21

First, to answer the question of the exclusive nature of ethico-econom- ics, the entire study of the economic problem is vested with its embedding of moral inclusiveness in microeconomics. There exist no aggr egation of microeconomic preferences, microeconomic aggregation of variables, and decision-making transcending microeconomics to macroeconomics. Thereby, ethical variables, which are microeconomic entities, camiot be transferred into macroeconomics. The theoretical derivation of the model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness for addressing the pandemic problem in generalized terms is of a distinctly different genre. Neither the existing microeconomic nor macroeconomic conceptual mould is adequate to address the multidimensional issues of the pandemic episode.

Yet again, even though preferences and choices of ethical types are to be found in microeconomics they are exogenously datum in nature. Consequently endogenous ethical preferences and variables cannot be found in any sort of science-economy-society complementarities in macroeconomics. Thus all of the interactive, integrative, and evolutionary learning dynamics of the inter-systemic complementary nature in the learning socioeconomic world-system does not exist in either mainstream microeconomics or macroeconomics and in science and social studies as endogenous factors. The end result is that an economy-wide concept with its ethico-eco- nomic description abides in the economy-wide sense of knowledge-induced complementarities in the wellbeing context with a distinctive conception. It does not exist either in mainstream microeconomics or macroeconomics.

In the ethico-economic theory, its model and application as a whole, and with money and fiscal factors converge into their endogenous forms pertaining to the model of science-economy-society-wide moral inclusiveness as explained by inter-variable circular causation complementarities between the variables of the wellbeing function as objective criterion. Thereby, in this kind of endogenous science-economy-society-wide transformation, money and fiscal variables assume their complementary coordination with the ethical meaning of organic pairing. This pervasive complementary properties of money and fiscal variables as endogenous variables and in regard to all other variables overarching the science, economic, and social sides have the singular meaning of ethical, social, and moral inclusiveness relations in respect of economic and other multidimensional general evolutionary equilibrium convergences. Such a theoretical construct relating to scientific, economic, and moral inclusiveness is not found and cannot be misconstrued with the existing theory of micro-foundation of macroeconomics, based as this area is in the neoclassical treatment of preferences and the axiom of economic rationality. Such properties do not conform with the socio-scientific epistemic theory of unity of knowledge with its IIE-leaming properties in the generalized model of wellbeing with materiality and ethics as morally inclusive choices at the exclusion of contrary ones.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >