Search

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to reexamine the idea currently rampant in the mainstream economics literature that it is relative rather than real income that is of most importance for individual well-being and that both evidence on expressed happiness and individual ‘choices’ in surveys provide strong evidence for that position. Design/methodology/approach - A reconsideration of the theory, extensive new survey results, and presentation of material relevant for individuals' actual choices. Findings - The idea that other's higher incomes leaves others worse off really is not convincing, the evidence from surveys that people really have preferences for living in societies where their relative income is high at the expense of real income is wrong and that people's actual choices reveal them to be interested in real rather than relative income. Practical implications - Those social commentators who deride the negative externalities generated by individual pursuit of higher incomes and who advocate considerably more progressive taxes have still not provided good evidence to make their case. Originality/value - The originality lies in providing an analysis of extensive surveys of positional preferences that allows for the demonstration that responses depend on survey structure and respondent knowledge levels and in shedding new light and doubts on previous attempts to use surveys to attempt to bolster the case that relative income is of overriding importance for individual welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - Within the area of economics, the value attached to highly-ranked journal publications, such as the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Quarterly Journal of Economics, in tenure, promotion, and merit pay processes is often several times greater than that of second-tier publications, such as Economic Inquiry and the Southern Economic Journal. As a result one would expect that author(s) will put forth relatively more production "effort" in order to gain acceptance in a top-tier journal. The additional production effort may come in the form of making the manuscript available to a larger number of outside readers, perhaps via seminars and conferences. This study aims to examine whether the economics research production process differs between top- and second-tier journal outlets. Design/methodology/approach - Data are collected from feature articles published in two top-tier and two second-tier economics journals for the period 1995-1999, inclusive. Means difference tests on various "production statistics" across journals are conducted/presented. Findings - Tests presented in this study indicate that the fraction of the "scientific team" whose contributions are recognized in the acknowledgment footnote of research articles appearing in top-tier economics journal outlets is, on average, greater than that of articles appearing in second-tier economics journal outlets. Originality/value - By examining within-discipline aspects of intellectual property rights assignment in economics, our study extends the work of Laband (2002), which examined interdisciplinary differences (i.e. agricultural economics versus economics) in the assignment of intellectual property rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though Keynes wrote prodigiously, his position in economics is based on The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936). Significant changes have occurred since then in almost every country's economy, and there have been many developments in economic theory. Have these been as great as to render The General Theory obsolete? Or are there still valuable lessons to be learnt from it? It is argued that what Keynes advocated as economic policy has been ignored in the US during the 1970s and 1980s. The policies he advocated have not been employed. Consequently, the experience of those years does not provide evidence for rejecting his theories. In fact, it is claimed that the US economy performed well when Keynesian policies were adopted, and performed progressively poorly as they were abandoned. The search for alternative macroeconomic theories has been misguided and should be abandoned. Instead, The General Theory should be re-examined and its theoretical framework developed. It is argued that the more fundamental methodological considerations that motivate Shackle are overlooked. Such issues as the way in which economic actors acquire knowledge and the nature of economics as a social science are important to him. A more meaningful way of assessing his views is to consider whether they are in sympathy with Keynes's views in such matters. Shackle's methodological perspective and the way in which this has influenced his interpretation of Keynes is examined, followed by a similar look at aspects of the latter's views on methodology. Finally, the argument is taken a stage further by considering Keynes's views on macroeconomic policy. It is suggested that Keynes saw a more limited role to short-term stabilisation policy than many of his subsequent supporters have. Banks, Central Banks, Economic Theory, Keynesian School, United Kingdom The statements made by the central bankers to the Radcliffe Committee are utilised to show how, frequently, they have tak... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]