Editorial
We start the year with a special edition in which the thinking behind this journal and the editorial perspective that underpins it is made clear. We have done this for several reasons. Firstly, to put flesh on the fact that an editorial team and a shared perspective have been gradually developing, and with both self-subsisting, not given by the publisher.
Secondly, to set the stage for the kind of dialogue that has begun to arise with readers concerning the journal's background thinking, about which we seldom speak directly. Pages 6 and 7 carry the latest such discourse.
Thirdly, to provide an opportunity for each editor to say why he thinks and writes - in short, edits - the way he does. For also as between us there is no whip or party line. Much of what we do as editors is the result of a back-and-forth process, often rewriting one another's texts, but able to sign off on the end result as if it were one's own. Where this happens we tend to publish anonymously, such as in the editorials themselves or in the introductions to items.
In this way, we are experimenting with the possibility that an associative approach to modern life can influence (if not become!) tomorrow's wallpaper, as readily understandable and as generally conducted as market economics is today. The accent is not on prescriptions, therefore, but on descriptions of changed behaviour, be that a change in the way money, in particular, is treated or a change in the way economic life is thought about more generally.
The piece by Christopher Houghton Budd (p2) provides an overview of associative economics in the context of today's general debates. Arthur Edwards follows (p4) with a close-up on our editorial philosophy, and the challenge we offer our readers. Stephen Torr (p5) shares the insights that inform the approach to his regular column and indeed to accounting generally.
We hope these contributions lead to a good postbag...
