Integral Economist, Metatheorist, Professor

Introduction:

I teach economics at the college level and have been teaching for over a decade at schools such as Augsburg College and Loyola University Chicago. I've developed a metatheoretical approach with interactive technologies for teaching standard and progressive economic theory and evidence. I serve on the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice. I've mostly taught undergraduate macroeconomics, microeconomics, international economics, and economic development with integral economics components. My publications are in three categories: endogenous economic growth, integral economics, and integral theory.

Previously, I've worked as an economist providing consulting services to firms involved in international trade disputes. I've also worked in consumer finance and as an community development planner. Below is my contact information and summaries of my scholarly publications.

Integral Theory:

I have extended Ken Wilber's (highly influential) integral theory in various ways. In my integral scientific pluralism, this is accomplished by formally integrating new elements with the pre-existing dualities and spectra that build and orient integral metatheory. Among other things, this helps clarify Wilber's methodology in constructing his model, and helps analyze dynamic events with it. Integral scientific pluralism significantly adds to the internal consistency of Wilberian thought. It also formally synthesizes Wilber's integral methodological pluralism with Esbjorn-Hargens' integral ontological and epistemological pluralisms within the extended elements. The subject-action-object triad and the health-pathology and internal-external dualities are formally integrated with Wilber's interior-exterior and individual-collective dualities and vertical spectrum creating 48 horizontal realms per level of development. Each realm is shown to have roots in the scientific literature across disciplines for an unprecedented degree of integration and differentiation within a metatheoretical model.

These benefits are furthered with the extension of Wilber's dynamic drives while relating them to the static dualities of Wilber's (AQAL) model. This is done in my holarchical development model. I then integrate it formally with integral scientific pluralism to construct holarchical field theory. This helps to merge another meta-theoretical line of research (field theory) with Wilber's such that multiple subjects and objects can be analyzed within their fields of interactions. The fundamental component of reality becomes holarchical fields, which transcends and includes the two fundamental units in Wilber's approach (holons and perspectives).

Here are the abstracts to all of my articles. Here are the full integral theory articles.

Integral Economics:

My mathematical integral neoclassical economic growth model augments the Solow growth model with the post-disciplinary approach. This takes integral theory into the heart of mainstream macroeconomics on its terms while my integral political economy approach works from the other direction. It orients many orthodox and heterodox schools of economics using various metatheoretical lenses (without mathematics).

A series of articles has flushed out the integral political economy framework. It treats political-economic understanding as a learning line of development in which individuals and groups can have conservative, liberal, or radical typologies. Each type can have less and more developed versions. Allowing for the developmental component per type helps expose common fallacies, which tend to prevent reconciliation across types.

Various economic theories and schools are contextualized metatheoretically to help foster their more appropriate and complementary uses. I also show how a collective pathology may exist in the political-economic learning line that inhibits sound economic policy. This is in contrast to healthier stakeholder interactions as understood by many developmental indicators. Some game theory and case studies contribute to the analyses.

The integral neoclassical economic growth model allows for a broader and deeper understanding of human, social, and cultural capital accumulation for economic development and human needs satisfaction since it imports into economic growth theory methodologies not currently used (such as structuralism and ethnomethodology). Tools of economics such as marginal analysis, complementary investments, and diminishing returns are made more accessible to integral theorists.

Here are the entire integral economics articles. A good portion of the integral political economy framework is described in this 2010 interview with John Schmidt on his progressive business internet radio show. You may read quotes from what Ken Wilber and other scholars have said about my integral theory and integral economics.

Endogenous Economic Growth:

The endogenous invention, innovation, and diffusion models are the first to include invention, innovation, diffusion, and human capital formation within each mathematical version. There are three cases, i) the U.S. case as a technological leader, ii) the developing countries case: high-inequality versus low-inequality countries, and iii) the U.S. versus continental European countries case (as invention versus innovation specialists).

The U.S. case matches recent trend changes in U.S. economic growth and the relative wage while solving a Card and Dinardo (2002) puzzle. The model explains the technology slowdown and partial recovery along with rising inequality as related to (invention, innovation, and diffusion) phases of the uneven transition from the late industrial to early informational stages of economic development. There remains a concern that the U.S. is not adequately investing in the lower distribution of human capital to spread and mature the information-age economy.

The developing countries case explains how high inequality has been detrimental for growth in developing countries consistent with data that has contradicted previous models in the literature (such as Alesina and Rodrik, 1994). Inequitable human capital investments have prevented high inequality countries from adequately diffusing level-appropriate technologies and providing income growth for middle class families to self-finance human capital investments.

The U.S. vs. Continental Europe case (co-authored with Sarinda Taengnoi) provides a novel theoretical explanation for (the unexplained portion of) the higher returns to skills in the U.S. relative to other developed countries (beyond wage setting institutions, experience, and the variance of skills). As a large technologically-leading country, the U.S. must have a higher share of its skilled workforce pushing out the knowledge frontier.

The European country can specialize in applying, rather than initially creating knew knowledge, which better diffuses the technologies. This creates a smaller gap in productivity and wages between skill levels.

Integral economists should be interested in these models, particularly their ascending and descending currents of investment, multiple levels of skill and knowledge stocks, inter-sector linkages by higher versus lower developmental-intensity, and phase-specific transitions between developmental stages.

The accumulation of human capital and shared knowledge capital by level is most elegantly modeled in the U.S. versus Europe case. Yet the comparative statics and propositions are consistent across all three models and articles. The other two articles best explain the theory and its changing trends of productivity and inequality as they relate to the comparative statics of the models.