have scientific progress (Sturn 2011). A differentiation on what can be claimed as
progress is presented by Vogt:
The term progress consists of two components: (a) movement – spatial movement in its
primary literal sense, also temporal movement in terms of development and change;
(b) improvement – an increase in quality; the evaluation criteria is either understood
intrinsically as autotelic or as instrumental. These two components correspond with a
dimension of quantity and a dimension of quality which are both indispensable in the
definition of progress. (Vogt 2016, p. 4)
This differentiation of content-related criteria is very important and quite significant to the purpose of this paper. Specifically, the differentiation of quantity and
quality dimensions, according to Vogt, is essential to any practical definition of
progress. However, it must also be noted that controversy has crept into various
scientific disciplines concerning the “proper orientation or the desired qualities” of
progress. This has led to different evaluations or assessments of scientific progress.
Controversy of this sort has happened before, for example, in economics. Not only
the great controversies of the past like the “Bourgeois economy versus Marxism” but
also the controversy between Monetarism versus Keynesianism emerged in the
1970s. The controversy centered on the issue of what the government can or should
contribute to macroeconomic stability. Consequently, there have been different
assessments of progress in economics. In scientific disciplines like economics, for
example, controversial positions exist, and there is generally no consensus about
progress.
Looking at the current discussion within the framework of economics, it is
possible to observe various schools of thought that lead to different assessments of
economic progress. A few examples, by no means exhaustive, are provided here. On
one hand, mainstream economics is generally rated as being positive, requiring only
marginal “correction” at most. This group of representatives would also rate scientific advances as positive. On the other hand, many economically relevant crises in
the past few decades have led others to question whether the study of economics is in
crisis or, more dramatically, has proven to be a failure. The discussion was especially
aggravated by the global financial and economic crisis but is also heightened by the
worsening reports on the climate crisis. In this context, the book by Lesch and
Kamphausen with the title Mankind aborts itself: Earth gripped by the
Anthropocene is attracting a great deal of attention. Doubt is cast on the whole
concept of economic progress. From a critical perspective, the contribution of
modern economic studies in explaining the economic processes and in solving the
recent challenges is increasingly called into question (Beckenbach et al. 2016, p. 19).
Consequently, both economic students and experienced economists are reflecting on
whether there needs to be a change or expansion of the content of the economics
curriculum. An increasing number of students in many countries are expressing their
discontent with the economics curricula. Some band together in initiatives to
demand a reorientation of economics programs. In Germany, for example, the
“network for plural economies” calls for more pluralism, especially in economics.
The critique is directed mainly at the neoclassical school as the running paradigm in
economics. In the context of the demand for more economic plurality, the literature
2
M. von Hauff
progress is presented by Vogt:
The term progress consists of two components: (a) movement – spatial movement in its
primary literal sense, also temporal movement in terms of development and change;
(b) improvement – an increase in quality; the evaluation criteria is either understood
intrinsically as autotelic or as instrumental. These two components correspond with a
dimension of quantity and a dimension of quality which are both indispensable in the
definition of progress. (Vogt 2016, p. 4)
This differentiation of content-related criteria is very important and quite significant to the purpose of this paper. Specifically, the differentiation of quantity and
quality dimensions, according to Vogt, is essential to any practical definition of
progress. However, it must also be noted that controversy has crept into various
scientific disciplines concerning the “proper orientation or the desired qualities” of
progress. This has led to different evaluations or assessments of scientific progress.
Controversy of this sort has happened before, for example, in economics. Not only
the great controversies of the past like the “Bourgeois economy versus Marxism” but
also the controversy between Monetarism versus Keynesianism emerged in the
1970s. The controversy centered on the issue of what the government can or should
contribute to macroeconomic stability. Consequently, there have been different
assessments of progress in economics. In scientific disciplines like economics, for
example, controversial positions exist, and there is generally no consensus about
progress.
Looking at the current discussion within the framework of economics, it is
possible to observe various schools of thought that lead to different assessments of
economic progress. A few examples, by no means exhaustive, are provided here. On
one hand, mainstream economics is generally rated as being positive, requiring only
marginal “correction” at most. This group of representatives would also rate scientific advances as positive. On the other hand, many economically relevant crises in
the past few decades have led others to question whether the study of economics is in
crisis or, more dramatically, has proven to be a failure. The discussion was especially
aggravated by the global financial and economic crisis but is also heightened by the
worsening reports on the climate crisis. In this context, the book by Lesch and
Kamphausen with the title Mankind aborts itself: Earth gripped by the
Anthropocene is attracting a great deal of attention. Doubt is cast on the whole
concept of economic progress. From a critical perspective, the contribution of
modern economic studies in explaining the economic processes and in solving the
recent challenges is increasingly called into question (Beckenbach et al. 2016, p. 19).
Consequently, both economic students and experienced economists are reflecting on
whether there needs to be a change or expansion of the content of the economics
curriculum. An increasing number of students in many countries are expressing their
discontent with the economics curricula. Some band together in initiatives to
demand a reorientation of economics programs. In Germany, for example, the
“network for plural economies” calls for more pluralism, especially in economics.
The critique is directed mainly at the neoclassical school as the running paradigm in
economics. In the context of the demand for more economic plurality, the literature
2
M. von Hauff