Search

Market rules, changes in regulations for users and producers, technological innovation and economic development are important factors shaping energy transitions. Therefore, explaining energy transitions requires a multidisciplinary insight to investigate these factors. The study of energy transitions faces an analytical and methodological challenge, particularly in communicating trends shaping the energy systems in developing economies. The existing literature is not consistent in identifying these disciplines nor proposing how they can be combined. In this sense, this paper proposes a new and simple methodological path to assess variables and theories. It conceptualizes energy transitions as a co-evolution of two types of systems: system innovation with its roots in evolutionary, institutional economics, science and technology studies (STS); and energy systems with its roots in neoclassical and evolutionary economics. From how to conduct a systematic literature review, to how best integrate theories and the analytical framework in which key questions can be answered, the paper elevates the role of political science, as policies play a prominent role in shaping energy transitions. This paper responds to those who have pointed out that the political economy of energy transitions is a vastly understudied area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Hayek: A Life, 1899–1950" is a biography that provides a comprehensive account of Friedrich August Hayek's life and career. It explores his family background, education, and experiences during World War I. The book focuses on Hayek's intellectual development, particularly his work in economics and his association with the Austrian school. It also delves into his interactions with other economists, his contributions to economic theory, and his involvement in the debate on economic planning. The biography offers valuable insights into Hayek's life and contributions, making it a valuable resource for those interested in his work. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Gharee for Economics & Administration Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

But before getting to these criticisms, it is necessary to understand Tang's main target: the New Institutional Economics (NIE). By putting more focus on individual self-interest and bottom-up development than their OIE predecessors, it has been argued that NIE economists implicitly make the case for a government that is limited to the protection of property and contract enforcement. In I The Institutional Foundation of Economic Development i , Fudan University Professor Shiping Tang presents a detailed description of the way institutions impact economic development. [Extracted from the article]

Daly and Erickson are also among coauthors of I Ecological Economics i (Farley et al., [3]), a popular textbook, and Daly wrote the foreword to I The Progress Illusion. i Daly passed away last year, leaving Erickson as one of the leading proponents of steady state economics and values-based economic thinking. Erickson zeroes in on the need to move away from a growth mentality to the closed loop economy: "Economics clings to growth as the solution to the very problems created by growth" (p. 191). What we need instead, Jon Erickson contends in I The Progress Illusion i , is a new "ecological" economics in which economists make ethical judgments and respect nature. [Extracted from the article]

In order to grasp some of the key intellectual developments and trends that shaped the global politics of twentieth century and continue to shape our own world—neo-classical economics, modernization theory, deterrence theory, the democratic peace, among others—it is necessary to explore the history of the human sciences. It is important, in other words, to examine the role of the modern research university in producing and diffusing ideas about the self, society, the economy and world order. International Relations (IR), and political science more generally, played a significant role in this story. In recent years we have seen a growth of interest in the history of IR, though it is still an underdeveloped area of research. Among other things, scholars have shown that many of the foundational myths of the discipline—the views that inform textbook understandings of the past and present—are deeply flawed. This article first surveys this recent work, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and then proceeds to offer some thoughts on future directions for research. It identifies a range of questions and topics that have yet to be adequately addressed, and draws on the latest methodological work in intellectual history, highlighting some new interpretative approaches that can enrich scholarship in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For five years of his premiership, Jun’ichiro Koizumi bravely fought against politicians, bureaucrats, and interest groups to promote his structural economic reform. Fortunately, by the time he retired, Japanese economy got out of the depression. But the tide changed. In the July 2007 Upper House elections, the public was opposed to structural reform that Koizumi and Abe had advocated. Now it is not clear where Japanese political economy is likely to go. This paper will take a long-term view on the evolution of Japan’s political economy, and try to understand Jun’ichiro Koizumi’s structural reform in that long-term context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of Africa has been undermined by attempts to develop and apply theories that claim universal relevance as "objective" science, whether neoclassical economics, rational-choice theory, dependency theory, or some versions of Marxist theory. Such efforts at a scientistic universalism leads to "one size fits all" theorizing that have been found historically fallacious, intellectually misleading, and politically disastrous. The creation of a universal theory has been rejected as the end and purpose of social science and history, and, instead, tried to employ theory as a conceptual toolkit that makes possible the analysis of the similarities and differences between real world cases, with the belief that understanding lies in the explanation of complexity and contingency in a small universe of cases with distinctive idiosyncrasies and trajectories of change.