Search

Amartya Sen is often described as an insightful critic of mainstream economics, and in particular, his work in development economics, alongside the construction of the capabilities approach, has been associated with endeavors to revisit both the theory and practice of the discipline. Despite his in-depth criticisms of certain aspects of mainstream economics, Sen's extensive use of formal methods is suggestive of an ontological tension, one identified by Thorstein Veblen when commenting on some of his contemporaries and originally introducing the term "neoclassical." Veblen argued that the work of these economists involved both an implicit recognition of a causal processual social ontology he associated with modern, thoroughly evolutionary, approaches and a commitment to a taxonomic conception of science—the latter relying on a set of methods that presupposed an associationist ontology of event regularities. For Veblen, the adherence to taxonomic methods was the classical feature of their work, and the commitment to an evolutionary viewpoint was the neo aspect. This article argues that the same tension runs through Sen's contributions and that he is neoclassical in this specifically Veblenian sense. The assessment of the ontological inconsistencies in Sen's work is shown to shed light on its reception within the economics academy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a relational theoretical model of economic organization that offers new insight into the organizing dynamics of economic systems. Neoclassical and complexity economics are, in their Western cultural origins, based on an assumption of the primacy of the discrete individual. Collectivist economic traditions are based on the principle of collective interest rather than self-interest. We attempt a rapprochement of individualist (especially free market) and collectivist (especially centrally planned) economic cultures and traditions by modelling economic organization as arising from individual and collective dynamics and the relationships between them. Structure, process, function, and content are four fundamental inter-related properties of our model of economic organization. We posit the existence of micro, meso, macro scales of economic organization in all of structure, process, function, and contents. To operationalize our relational model, the conventional bottom-up process of self-organization is reconceived to involve relationships within micro-, meso-, and macro-economic organization. In turn, the new concept of socio-cultural organization is construed to involve relationships between and among economic organization, across micro, meso, and macro scales. Our model of relations provides a structure for complex-realist exploration, making cross-scale inter-relationships explicit and by providing a structured language for description of these relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reliance of current economic systems on economic growth is increasingly being questioned by academics and environmental organizations in the context of the climate emergency and rising social inequalities and conflicts. While political backing for post-growth initiatives has been limited to date, advocacy work by the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) aims to shift narratives around the purpose of the economy away from a focus on economic growth. WEAll also facilitated the formation of the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGos). Early research in the field indicates that while WEGos have made some steps toward adopting wellbeing economy narratives, limitations to full adoption remain. What these barriers consist of remains poorly understood by researchers. With the aim to contribute to research on understanding (barriers to) social transformation, this article compares the wellbeing economy narratives that WEAll and WEGos have adopted and then examines reasons for differences between them. We find that disparities in narratives exist: while WEAll promotes the deprioritization of economic growth as a policy objective and criticizes capitalism, WEGos remains more narrowly focused on complementing GDP as a measure of performance with other indicators. The dominance of neoclassical economics training within policymaking institutions, siloed and short-termist approaches to policymaking, and the role of vested interests emerged as the main barriers to the adoption of more radical wellbeing economy narratives among WEGos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines causal relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows and economic growth in Tanzania during 1990–2020. As financial development and trade were not incorporated in extant studies, we included them as intermediate variables because of their intermediation role in this study. FDI inflow is considered an important economic growth catalyst in developing economies. Neoclassical growth theories claim that it enhances economic growth by augmenting capital stock and technology. According to the neoclassical theories, FDI does not enhance the long-run growth rate but instead is related to the level of output. However, empirical evidence is rather mixed, with some supporting the neoclassical theoretical views on economic growth, while others opposing them. We employ the autoregressive distributed lag model and Granger causality tests to analyze the relationship. The results indicate that there exists a long-run relationship among the variables under considerations in Tanzania. Furthermore, the finding reveals positive and statistically significant unidirectional causality running from FDI inflow to economic growth in Tanzania in the long and short run. Hence, we conclude that Tanzania should emphasize FDI-led growth policies to enhance economic growth to realize the desired economic objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precise multi-scenario projections of future economic outputs based on localised interpretations of global scenarios and major growth drivers are important for understanding long-term economic changes. However, few studies have focussed on localised interpretations, and many assume regional uniformity or use key parameters that are recursive or extrapolated by mathematical methods. This study provides a more intuitive and robust economic framework for projecting regional economic growth based on a neoclassical economic model and shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) scenarios. A non-uniform version of SSP2 (the middle-of-the-road scenario) was developed, and more detailed population projections for China were adopted using municipal-level data for 340 districts and parameter settings based on China's recent development. The results show that China's GDP will vary substantially across SSPs by 2050. Per capita GDP ranges from 19,300 USD under SSP3 (fragmentation) to 41,100 USD under SSP5 (conventional development). Per capita GDP under SSP1 (sustainability) is slightly higher than under SSP2, but lower on average than under SSP5. However, SSP1 is a better choice overall because environmental quality and equity are higher. Per capita GDP growth will generally be higher in relatively low-income regions by 2050, and the upper-middle-income provinces will become China's new engine for economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heterodox economics emerged because of dissatisfaction with the high level of abstraction of neoclassical economics and its excessive reliance on mathematical modelling. Instead of ontological and epistemological references to the natural sciences, heterodox economists turn their attention to the social sciences and biology. The article aims to contribute to the discussion of methodology of heterodox economics and original institutionalism in particular. It explores the potential of content analysis for empirically oriented research in heterodox economics. Content analysis is widely used in the social sciences (sociology, linguistics, political sciences, legal studies) to analyze qualitative data (texts, images, videos) but is relatively unknown to heterodox economists. Content analysis takes several forms: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. It is argued that content analysis is not only compatible with the methodology of heterodox economics through critical realism but has a potential to contribute to its further development. With the help of content analysis, heterodox economists would be better equipped to collect and process qualitative data that prevail in social realms. A content analysis of a sample of articles published in Journal of Economic Issues (N = 763) in 1967–1969 and 2010–2019 informs the discussion of applications of content analysis to heterodox economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often argued that Richard Nelson and Sydney Winter's evolutionary theory is an alternative to neoclassical economics and is compatible with or complementary to Veblenian evolutionary economics. This article subjects such arguments to critical examination. I argue that while Nelson and Winter's theory provides a more realistic account of the firm behavior than Marshallian-neoclassical theory does, it is a neoclassical evolutionary theory in much the same sense as Marshall's economics is quasi-evolutionary, "neo-classical" economics according to Veblen. Therefore, Nelson and Winter's evolutionary theory is in fact a protective modification of neoclassical economics and is antithetical to Veblen's evolutionary economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

He was highly critical of the ideological structure behind capitalism with liberalism putting property over people (Losurdo [35]; Henry [27]) and neoclassical economics being one, among other, frauds used to justify the capitalist socio-economic order (Henry [12]). I Erik Olsen i Recollections of John F. Henry I first encountered John in an Economics of Racism class at California State University-Sacramento in the summer of 1976. If one bases their analysis on social foundations, John argues, an ensuing theory cannot be natural, normal, and universal (which are the characteristics of neoclassical economics that John considered the "illusion" of our epoch). A festschrift in Dr. Henry's honor, I Marx, Veblen, and the Foundations of Heterodox Economics: Essays in Honor of John F. Henry i , was published in 2015 (Jo and Lee [31]). In particular, I'm thinking of John's essay on Keynes as a Neoliberal (Henry [30]) and a piece on Frank Knight, "Ethics and Economic Theory" (Henry, unpublished manuscript). [Extracted from the article]

The institution of private property forms the basis for ecological disaster. The profit-seeking of the vested interests, in conjunction with their modes of valuing nature through the apparatuses of neoclassical economics and neoliberalism proceed to degrade and destroy life on Earth. I assert that the radical, or original institutional economics (OIE) of Thorstein Veblen, further advanced by William Dugger, have crucial insights to offer the interdisciplinary fields of political ecology and ecological economics which seek to address the underlying causes and emergent complications of the unfolding, interconnected, social, and ecological crises that define our age. This inquiry will attempt to address what appears to be either overlooked or under-explored in these research communities. Namely, that the usurpation of society's surplus production, or, the accumulation of capital, is a parasite that sustains itself not only through the exploitation of human labor, but by exploiting society and nature more broadly, resulting in the deterioration of life itself. I shall argue that the transformation of the obvious predator that pursues power through pecuniary gain into a parasite, undetected by its host, is realized in its most rapacious form in the global hegemonic system of neoliberal capitalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Richard Langlois supports the contribution of New Institutional Economics (NIE) to Economics, contrasting the following assertions: (i) Original Institutional Economics (OIE) wanted institutions but without theory; (ii) Neoclassical Economics (NE) wants an economic theory without institutions; and (iii) NIE wants both institutions and theory. This article uses the approach of Critical Realism with the aim of counteracting the suggestions of Langlois, who considers the advances of institutionalist schools by contrasting the theoretical (scientific) and anti-theoretical (naive empiricism) institutionalism. Instead of sustaining a criterion of scientificity founded on the assumption of a world composed of isolated and atomized events, Critical Realism treats the real unity of human activity and social structure as a condition of knowledge in the social domain. This implies the adoption of a structured ontology that deals with the opening of social systems, the existence of emerging phenomena, and the rejection of the notion of cause as a constant conjunction of events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mainstream or neoclassical economics view that labor is rewarded according to its productivity has been extended to managers and management teams as justification for the levels of compensation that they receive. Additionally, the management concept of "span of management" or "span of control" has been used to explain the total number of and per employee number of managers in any organization along with the assumption that the appropriate span of management is where the marginal productivity of the last manager employed should equal his/her marginal cost, or wage. Or, at least, this is supposed to be the case in competitive industries in the short run, or in all industries in the long run. On the other hand, heterodox economists hold different views of the roles and purposes of managers within organizations and attempt to explain these through either the view of managers exploiting workers on behalf of owners or the view of managers exploiting both workers and owners in order to advance their own agendas. This article examines managerial compensation and intensity from both traditional/mainstream and alternative views (mostly using David Gordon's theory of a "bureaucratic burden" existing in most U.S. industries). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights the inadequacy of classical and neoclassical theories for understanding the set of changes experienced by economic systems in their process of development. The institutional dimension concerning the issue of well-defined rules (through the introduction of economic policies) and involving all stakeholders in the regulatory process (starting from the firm), seems to better interpret micro- and macro-economic aspects of the evolving capitalist model. This means questioning the complicated economic governance and society in the transition from the nation-state to a world society (or world state). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are a number of analytical conundrums in the neo-classical theory of the emergence of private ownership rights, which is closely associated with Demsetz’s works. Reconsidering the internal logic of private ownership rights, the paper argues that, first, the emergence of “modern” private ownership rights should be the subject of analysis rather than ownership rights per se. Second, at least for some latecomer countries, modern ownership rights typically emerge when feudalistic multi-layered proprietary rights over land are abolished and replaced by ownership rights for the purpose of ensuring tax revenue, prompted by pressure from and/or the intrusion of a colonial power, rather than as an efficient response to changes in resource prices. Third, the socio-economic aspect of ownership rights that related to the manner of social formation tended to be concealed in the universal aspect of private property rights that focuses on the materialistic relation between a person and a thing. These arguments urge the bringing of social relations into the basic layer of analysis of ownership rights theory, as the original institutional economists such as Ely and Commons considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents the thought of the political philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis on economic methodology and the neoclassical and Marxian traditions. Castoriadis suggested that the scope of economic theory includes the identification of “local” regularities and not the search for invariant “laws.” He criticized the use of equilibrium and the utilitarian framework in the neoclassical tradition and proposed to approach human agency based on the Aristotelian concept of the “social individual.” In addition, he criticized the deterministic nature of the Marxian “laws.” According to Castoriadis, the use of concepts such as the “production function” and “capital” presents a number of caveats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marginalism has deeply shaped neoclassical concepts and analytical tools that are applied to development economics. With a static notion of efficiency defined for a state of competitive equilibrium, neoclassical economists study development in equilibrium frameworks, regarding underdevelopment as the consequence of market failures. How might one, who is not equipped with marginalist lenses, look at development processes as they unfold in history? Prior to the emergence of marginalism such observations abounded in the works of the so-called “protectionists,” where ever-evolving production complementarities figure prominently, and there were considerations of indivisibility. In the postwar era, this is present in the works of some early development economists, especially Albert Hirschman in his employment of backward and forward production linkages to characterize development processes, which are viewed as unfolding series of disequilibria. Historical sequences of events reflect path-dependence and they feedback on each other to exhibit circular and cumulative causation. One thing leads to another, or some things lead to others and so on, including institutional changes. However, the activation of linkages could encounter obstacles, with “technological strangeness” being one, in which case sequential policy intervention could be warranted. This article briefly considers differences with the neoclassical approach in generating policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern heterodox theories of money reject the neoclassical conception of money as primarily a medium to facilitate exchange. These heterodox theories of money all have as common starting point an analysis of credit-debt relations in which production is a central feature, with these economies organized along capitalistic design. The Keynesian-Marxian framework describing the process of monetary circulation, traditionally referred to as the theory of the monetary circuit (TMC), perhaps best represents this comprehensive vision. This broad TMC analytical framework is compatible with institutionalist theories of money that also point to the importance of credit-debt relations. The question, however, is whether this more unified heterodox theory of money, which describes sequentially monetary relations under capitalism, can be used to understand pre-capitalistic monetary institutions. By conceptualizing money as a means of payment rather than medium of exchange, Karl Polanyi’s analysis offers social scientists crucial insights to understanding monetary relations in all types of societies in which credit-debt relations have emerged historically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Culture matters for economic development. This postulate has been a main conceptual concern for “old” institutional economics (OIE) and has lately also been tested through neoclassically inspired econometric techniques. This conceptual foundation has been confirmed in several quantitative studies on developed countries, in particular cases from the USA, Germany, and Italy. In less developed regions with a wealth of cultural heritage, particularly in South-East Europe, this postulate is still an underexplored issue from the perspective of advanced econometric approaches. Our goal is to examine the impact of the so-called South-East European cultural corridors on welfare — and especially on total employment — at the local or regional level. Accounting for gross value added and sectoral specialization, we examine the effect of such corridors by considering the distance to a cultural corridor: namely, the East Trans-Balkan Road (crossing Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece) as an explanatory factor for regional development, particularly employment. Using the European University Institute (EUI) European Regional Dataset (ERD), as well as the geo-data from the Cultural Corridors of the South-East Europe website, we estimate a regression model using a 2SLS instrumental variable (IV) approach, with a pooled dataset at the NUTS 3 level (Eurostat) from 1980 to 2011. We then triangulate the results by using the distance to the cultural corridor concerned as a treatment effect in a propensity-score-matching and difference-in-differences exploratory analysis. The findings confirm the importance of distance to the cultural corridor under investigation as a strong predictor for local socio-economic development. The results further suggest that the slow evolution of culture over time is likely to lead to the gradual emergence of new geographical cultural centers and a new cultural path-dependence build-up of persistence chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In spite of its use to explain market processes, neoclassical economics still has not integrated entrepreneurship into its analyses. This explanatory gap is the consequence of the analytical closed-endedness of the “market” processes described by the neoclassical framework, where social interactions do not result in new unpredictable information. However, entrepreneurship as profit-seeking under uncertainty is an open-ended process characterized by a creatively reflexive and emergent interactive behavior in society. This open-endedness involves the generation of novel, complex, and extensive future information that is not what anyone intended it to be. Neoclassical economics, with its predetermined assumptions on economic behavior, cannot really account for the fundamental uncertainty of open-ended processes because it cannot explain reflexivity or emergence. Therefore, it cannot explain entrepreneurship as either an innovatively cohesive or disruptive behavior that converges toward future market situations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Economics entails a study of institutions regardless of the school of thought, and it is inherently an analysis of institutional transformation with a vision toward creating positive social change through economic arrangements. However, the conceptions of institutions, identity of individuals, human nature as it pertains to economics, identification of the economic sphere, its concerns, and studying its evolution, all vary substantively across schools of thought. We examine the following issues: (i) the differences in the ontological identity of the individual between heterodox approaches, new institutional economics (NIE), and the neoclassical school; (ii) the central point of divergence between original institutional economics (OIE) and NIE, despite both schools being committed to the project of an "institutionally" centered approach to economics; and (iii) the absence of a cohesive project to explore foundational theoretical congruencies among those heterodox approaches that have a shared vision, values, and a common ontological identity of socially embedded people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Harry M. Trebing has made substantial contributions to the understanding of social control of economic enterprise, particularly in the regulation of public utilities. Imbued with institutional economic ways of knowing, he sustained the construct of progressive-era public interest regulation during a period of neoclassical economic assault on regulatory institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including financialisation, Global Crisis, and neoclassical economics.

Don Lamberton asked many questions about the nature and role of information, without expecting to be able to provide tidy or neat answers. The issues he raised have not gone away or been resolved. Some have re-appeared in modified or new form. This paper first focuses on the analysis of information at the macro-level, starting with the ill-fated ‘information sector’ studies and leading on to current attempts to use neoclassical economics to measure macro-level capital stocks in the context of the debate about sustainable development, also known as ‘wealth accounting’. Wealth accounting has no place for information-as-capital that goes beyond very primitive proxy measures for intangible capital other than human capital. Often, information-as-capital is neglected completely by denoting such capital stocks as ‘enabling assets’ that are assumed to be reflected in what turn out to be unmeasurable shadow prices. Next, an issue mostly neglected by Don Lamberton is discussed – the normative assessment of information and innovation. It is argued that neither mainstream economics nor evolutionary economics, information studies, innovation studies and so on currently has an appropriate normative theory of innovation. Increased output, innovation counts, productivity, competitiveness and consumption-related utility (what economists call ‘welfare’) are poor indicators of what really should be measured, which is the objective and subjective impacts of innovation on people’s well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study is an attempt to test the hypothesis "international trade contributes to economic growth through its effects on human capital accumulation." To assess the hypothesis empirically, we employed the extended Neo-Classical growth model that reflects some features of the endogenous growth models. We thus ended up with a model in which the change in human capital is sensitive to change in trade policies. Unlike conventional approaches, the model serves to assess and determine the impact of international trade on the accumulation of human capital. The empirical analysis estimates dynamic panel growth equations by using a data-set of nine Asian countries, over the period 1972-2012. The overall evidence substantiates the fact that in countries under consideration, international trade enhances the accumulation of human capital and contributes to economic growth positively through human capital accumulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an analysis on the factors that caused the 2008 global financial crisis in the U.S. It discusses various explanations of the crisis and the solutions offered by economists from the four schools of thought which include Neoclassicals, Keynesians, Institutionalists and Marxists. It also provides useful insight and view from the different schools of thought regarding the government's response to address the problem and the economic imbalances of the nation. Furthermore, it explores the Marxists' concept on the systemic causes of the crisis and its suggestion on the need for the government to initiate investigations and interventions.

The core of the world financial system is based on large investment and commercial banks which are located in leading financial centers. This core both holds and routes significant amounts of the world's financial funds considering the needs of their respective countries. On the other hand, peripheral countries with persistent current account deficits have to manage with the surplus funds of core countries or, worse, during times of financial turbulences be obliged to feed the core with their capital or absorb the excess funds of the core. In most cases, this dilemma creates an asymmetrical relationship between these two groups of countries. As financial crises mostly emerge in core countries, due to lack of domestic funding, they necessarily spread to the periphery as well. Thus, the Tobin Tax frequently gains popularity as a protective measure in the periphery. This study intends to redefine financial crises with their asymmetrical and endogenous aspects as well as to draw attention to the internal imbalances of peripheral countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2007/2008 crisis revealed the inefficiency of markets' self-adjustment mechanisms and the inability of related regulatory policies to keep markets on a consistent path. Something went wrong with the free market myth. From this perspective, the paper brings to the fore the regulatory roots of the crisis and highlights the importance of the cognitive bias as well as the incompatibility between micro-rationality and macro-stability in the occurrence of crises. It then analyzes the endogenous instability of finance-led capitalism in a Minskyian vein to point out the crucial role of regulatory structures for macro-stability. The paper then argues that financial stability calls for fundamental modifications of the institutional structure of markets and for new policy principles. Macro-prudential regulation must replace market-oriented supervisory approaches to prevent shortsighted speculative activities and to direct financial markets toward funding productive activities in ways other than though neoclassical market-based incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines the contributions of J.M. Clark to institutional economics. Clark is sometimes seen as standing between institutional and neoclassical economics, but I argue that this view is not accurate. Clark was intimately involved in the definition, promotion, and defense of institutional economics in sessions of the American Economic Association and in a variety of other forums. No other member of the institutionalist group was as much involved in the professional discussion of institutional economics as J.M. Clark. In addition, Clark made a number of key contributions to institutionalist theory in the areas of psychology and economics, the costs of decision-making, overhead costs and business-pricing behavior, the accelerator mechanism and business cycles, workable and effective competition and competition policy, and social control. These contributions, together with the graduate students he trained at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, serve to place him in the center of the institutionalist movement and not on its periphery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a neoclassical economic model of the human right to water using a nonrenewable resource model inclusive of a backstop technology. The right is interpreted as a minimum consumption requirement the government is obligated to fulfill in the event that any one household cannot do so independently. Differing by income levels, households maximize utility by purchasing a composite consumption good and water from two distinct, government-owned sources. Facing physical and financial constraints, the government uses fiscal policy to address potential human rights violations. Reducing the analysis to two periods, we develop a novel approach to compare total welfare levels from a joint human rights and neoclassical economics perspective. We define a human rights welfare standard and discuss cases in which traditional social welfare measures would exceed, violate, or meet this standard. We thus offer a unique way to merge economic analysis with human rights research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hodgson's review of our books argues against us that marginalism neither adopted methodological individualism nor excluded the social from economics. Thus, he finds a partial solution to sickonomics in abandoning the term methodological individualism and using both structures and individuals as analytical starting point(s), revisiting Marshallian marginalism dressed up in socio-institutional clothing. He also denies any relationship between the current malaise in economics and the marginal revolution, as we claim, focusing exclusively on institutional developments since the Second World War. We show Hodgson is either partial or wrong on all of these counts. Firstly, his alternative to methodological individualism is untenable. Secondly, institutions, although implicitly present in Marshallian and Walrasian economics, play no substantive analytical role and as such are superfluous. Finally, although institutional factors help explain the sickness of modern economics (in addition to socioeconomic, ideological, political, and intellectual factors), the intellectual roots of this decay lie in the conceptual framework established around the marginal revolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of co-operatives has been (and is) influenced by ideas and conceptions first developed by mainstream economics, yet there is commonly claimed to be a disinterest (or misunderstanding) among economists relating to the advantages and challenges posed by co-operative organisations. Yet a broader perspective demonstrates that whatever distance between the economic profession and the co-operative movement may exist today, there has certainly been a close association throughout most of their shared history. This paper, therefore, seeks to illuminate the perspectives adopted, and insights into co-operatives developed, by leading economists since 1776. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their recent analysis of the alleged decay in modern economics, Ben Fine and Dimitris Milonakis claim to find its source and origin in the 'marginal revolution' of the 1870s. They argue that this development led to 'methodological individualism' and the detachment of economics from society and history. I contest their account of the marginal revolution and of the role of Alfred Marshall among others. They also fail to provide an adequate definition of methodological individualism. I suggest that neoclassical economics adopted a denuded concept of the social rather than removing these factors entirely. No such removal is possible in principle. It is also mistaken to depict neoclassical economics as the science of prices and the market. In truth, neoclassical economics fails to capture the true nature of markets. I consider some sketch an alternative explanation of the sickness of modern economics, which focuses on institutional developments since World War II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By exploring the implications of the linkage between Knight and Pragmatism, some non-trivial implications can be argued to exist. Specifically, section 2 outlines the T.C.E. literature, and how it exists in an atmosphere mixed with Marshallian competition and Knightian uncertainty. Section 3 then considers the disparate philosophical positions behind the work of Knight and Marshall. Knight's critique of Marshall is seminal, not because of any trivial technical innovations that Knight may have inspired within economic theory, but because Knight grounds his work on a philosophical viewpoint that effectively devastated Hegelian philosophy: American Pragmatism. Section 4 then links together the previous two sections by considering how the T.C.E. literature exhibits a dependency on both Pragmatism and Hegelian philosophy. The non-trivial implications of understanding the T.C.E. literature as a branch of Marshallian economics, which recognises Knightian uncertainty, are developed in section 5. Possible conclusions and a summary of the argument are provided in section 6. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When used in those spheres of life where attaching a price tag or making an economic calculus is impossible or loses any meaning, markets usually under perform and disappoint. In addition to empirical shortcomings of markets, the unrealistic theoretical assumption and poor predictive and explanatory value of neoclassical equilibrium theory provides fertile ground for critics of the institution of markets. Complexity theory provides a theoretical framework that enables us to analyze the role of markets from a radically different perspective than that offered by neoclassical equilibrium theory and, therefore, to reach very different conclusions about the role of markets in industrialized economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1963, the North Dakota Legislature amended the North Dakota Century Code to ensure that all licensed community pharmacies in the State are majority owned by pharmacists registered in the State. During the 2008-2009 legislative session, a debate arose about whether this law should be repealed. Those in favor of repeal attacked the law using the neoclassical arguments of efficiency, competition and lower prices. Those opposed to the law's repeal argued that pharmacists must own pharmacies in order to protect the public's welfare. This paper explores the arguments made for and against this law and draws two major conclusions. First, the arguments made by both sides are flawed because neither side fully incorporates the historical, physical and cultural characteristics of North Dakota communities into their analyses. Second, North Dakota legislators voted overwhelmingly to retain the law. Moreover, prima fascia evidence indicates that the legislators based their decisions on Institutional considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing the question why Economics as a discipline is not subject to evolutive processes itself, we explain the paradigmatical dominance of neoclassical theories in Economics as a path dependent process. Recognizing economics as "locked into neoclassical thinking," we first identify three positive feedback mechanisms leading to strong barriers to paradigmatic change: coordination, complementarity, and learning mechanisms. In a second step, we show how actors strategically enforce these mechanisms via distinct "amplifiers." We then try to use this theoretical perspective to cursorily describe potentially path-breaking strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of the relative efficiency of the free market and government intervention in handling economic woes. It mentions that the emergence of the financial and economic crisis has resulted to discussions over the virtues of the free market system and the role of the government in economic stabilization. Laissez-faire economics has turned into a neoclassical monetarism recommending policies such as the free market. It stresses that the government and market need to coexist and complement one another toward sustainability.

This study examines the neoclassical long-run and the Keynesian short-run effects of investment on output and tests the null of noncausality between investment and growth in India. The long-run model is estimated using the single-equation and maximum-likelihood system estimators. All of the estimators suggest the cointegrating relationship between investment and output, and the results are robust to the choice of estimator. The conventional and new cumulative sum (CUSUM) tests show the long-run stability of equilibrium residuals and reinforce the cointegrating relationship. The error-correction model suggests bidirectional Granger causality between investment and growth. The investment constitutes around one-fourth of the total weight in aggregate demand and, as corollary of such major weight and the significant effects, it remains a potential source of short-run economic fluctuations. A sustained acceleration of investment is essentially crucial for the acceleration and sustainability of economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Has neoclassical economics gone too far? This economist says yes. She provides some telling examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the neoclassical growth theory, higher saving rate gives rise to higher output per capita. However, in the Keynesian model, higher saving rate causes lower consumption, which may lead to a recession. Students may ask, "Should we save or should we consume?" In most of the macroeconomics textbooks, economic growth and Keynesian economics are in separate, sometimes unsequential, chapters. The connection between the short run and the long run is not apparent. The author builds a bridge between the neoclassical growth theory and the Keynesian model. He links the Solow diagram and the IS-LM curves and depicts the short-run to long-run transition of the economy after changes in saving and other macroeconomic policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author draws key distinctions between current neoclassical economics and post-Keynesian economics, in which the exercise of power plays an integral role. In contrast to the traditional view, in which firms respond to or are controlled by the market, post-Keynesian economists see firms seeking to control the market and frequently succeeding. When firms' economic power is recognized, its undesirable social, political, and environmental effects may be constrained or mitigated by collective political action. Keynes rejected the idea of a self-adjusting economy and argued that the state could and should address economic issues. The author describes the debate between the two theories and names key advocates, including James Buchanan and John Kenneth Galbraith.

The authors offers a post-Keynesian economic analysis of the genesis of power. They argue that power arises from two elements: the presence of hierarchy among economic agents and a world in which the future is uncertain. Uncertainty about changes in demand in the near future causes agents at all levels to attempt to exert more control over their environments to try to obtain a greater share of income. Uncertainty leads to the formalization of conventions, such as laws governing the economic system, in an effort to guard against uncertainty. During periods of radical uncertainly, such as globalization, new powers emerge before conventions--and subsequent regulations--have developed. The authors compare their approach with those of classical and neoclassical economists, and mention game theorists.

In this paper, a series of empirical tests are conducted comparing the explanatory power of the neoclassical approach (in particular, purchasing power parity and the monetary model) with that of a long-run exchange rate model based on Post Keynesian premises (the tests use annual data for the dollar-deutsche mark and the dollar-yen from 1975 through 1998). It is shown that, despite the shift in time horizon and the biasing of the tests in favor of the neoclassical approach, the Post Keynesian approach still shows a much tighter fit to the historial facts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents an interview with Philip Mirowski, philosopher of economic thought, on the history and development of economic theory. Relationship between orthodox economics and morality; Origin of his interest in the sources of economic theory; Difference between neoclassical economics and neoliberalism.

This paper has two goals. First, it seeks to show a logical inconsistency in Sraffian theory. The theory, it is argued, is conceived as a long-period approach but is unable to identify a long-period position. Second, the paper tries to show that even if we drop some of the building blocks of Sraffian theory, it is still possible to build a coherent alternative to neoclassical theory using (some of) the ideas of the classical economists. It suggests that we put the indefensible long-period method to one side, and build short-period equilibrium models with probabilistic prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Symbolic utility involves appreciation and esteem and expressed by symbolic products (gifts), while substantive utility entails ordinary welfare satisfied by substantive products. For neoclassical theory, both utilities are symmetrical or fungible and, hence, substitutable along the uni-dimensional utility function. If they are substitutable, though, why would agents be judged as "crass" if they intentionally remind the recipient of the cost of the substitution? For normative sociological theory, the judgment of "crassness" would arise if the agent mixes moral norms with non-moral substantive interests. The two are supposed to be non-fungible, stemming from multiple selves. If both utilities are non-fungible and stem from multiple selves, though, why do we call agents who spend on gifts beyond their means "fools," while those who spend very little "cheapskates"? It seems that there must be a supervising, single self that makes decisions on the proper division of the budget between substantive products and gifts. But this invites the single-self idea from the back window, reverting back to the neoclassical approach. We would be caught in a vicious cycle of anomalies. To get out of the cycle, this paper identifies the critical issues and suggests an alternative, complex-self view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]