Search

This article looks at 33 economics books that were published before 1750 and appeared in ten editions or more before 1850. This is a period – before Physiocracy and before the works of Adam Smith – which has been largely neglected in the history of economic thought. The article sheds new light on the early bestselling contributions of German and Italian economists, and on an internationally famous Spanish economist at the time. Also of interest is that three of the bestselling English economists of the period are so forgotten that they do not even have an entry in Wikipedia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The economic literature is giving new attention to Lionel Robbins' main contributions to economic theory, confined for several decades to the Essay, systematically misunderstood as the manifesto of the epistemology of neoclassical economics, where its underlying ontology characterized by rational maximizing agents, social atomism and a positivistic approach to economics is systematized and laid down. This paper aims at verifying ‘which’ Robbins was received in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s and what was the attitude of Italian economists, from the manifold approaches that characterized the debate in Italy in that period, towards him. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Gul and Pesendorfer provide the best-known and most strident of a set of recent backlashes by economists against methodological revolutions promoted by some behavioural economists and neuroeconomists. Philosophers are likely to read these responses as merely reactionary, especially as their rhetoric goes beyond what their explicit argumentation validly supports. The present paper identifies the accurate insight on Gul and Pesendorfer's part that explains the impact of their philosophically ragged polemic. This centers on importantly different concepts of choice in the psychological and economic literatures. The psychologist's idea of choice descends from a culturally familiar folk construct generally thought to lie within everyone's unreflective personal acquantance. By contrast, the economist's concept of choice refers to abstract sensitivity of behavioral patterns to changes in incentives, typically at the statistical level of populations. It is reasonable to regard this abstract idea as the basic subject matter of economics, just as Gul and Pesendorfer assert. Appreciating the difference between psychological choice and economic choice is crucial for understanding the methodologically schizophrenic character of neuroeconomics. Much of it merely identifies neural correlates of elements from models in the psychology of valuation. However, the neuroeconomics worthy of the name, as constructed by Glimcher and his collaborators, aims to unify economics and neuroscience. It so far fails to do so in an entirely satisfactory way because it falsely assumes that the conception of choice in psychology and economics is already shared. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose -- This paper seeks to contribute to the study of the relationship between savings and investment in a panel of five South Asian countries. Design methodology approach -- A number of unit root tests such as Levin, Lin, and Chu or LLC, Breitung, Im, Pesaran, and Shin or IPS, Fisher-type tests using ADF and Fisher-type tests using PP tests are conducted that confirm the non-stationarity of data. Then the paper applies maximum likelihood-based panel cointegration method to examine the relationship between savings and investment using data on investment and savings for five South Asian developing countries, namely, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka over the period 1973-2007 compiled from the World Development Indicator (WDI) Database 2008 CD-ROM. Findings -- The results obtained suggest that savings and investment are cointegrated, which implies that the Feldstein-Horioka (F-H) puzzle does not hold in this region. It is also found that most of these countries have maintained an international solvency condition. Originality value -- This is another contribution that would enrich the existing literature on the F-H puzzle. The paper includes data that involve the longest sample period. No other study, as of now, has employed the panel cointegration method to study the savings investment relationship in this region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we briefly review the work of Wassily Leontief, in respect for his memory and appreciation of his accomplishment. His work encompasses and redirects the entire field of economics, including pure theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reader subscription pricing mechanism is the dominant method by which the publication of scholarly journals in economics is funded. This occurs despite the fact that the use of an author charge pricing mechanism, when used in conjunction with a reader charge pricing mechanism, is described in the neoclassical economics literature as a more efficient method for financing journals. The division between the actual financing of economics journals and the theoretical understanding of how journals should be financed highlights deficiencies within the neoclassical economists' understanding of the financing of scholarly journals. In this paper I discuss this divergence in theory and practice in how economists finance their scholarly communication process and the brief attempt by some neoclassical economists to bridge this divide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keynesian concepts of probability and uncertainty emphasize the basis of knowledge available to economic decision makers. Conditions of uncertainty, which involve missing evidence or doubtful arguments, are distinguished from probable risk. Beyond this, on the basis of the claim that the future is yet to be created, some authors argue for further distinctions among different kinds of uncertainty. The paper reviews this particular argument, distinguishing it from Keynesian uncertainty theory generally, and provides a critique of its implication that, due to innovation, objective distributions of possible events do not generally exist at the time of economic decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the paper is to explore the potential for using fuzzy logic to analyse economic decision-making under Keynesian uncertainty, and in particular in circumstances where variety of opinion is important. Fuzzy logic is shown to apply where expectations may differ because the nature of the subject matter impedes any 'crisp' way of describing the underlying variables. The particular case of the speculative demand for money is considered, since it explicitly reflects variety of opinion as to whether interest rates are 'high' or 'low'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We comment on the Shoham, Powers, and Grenager survey of multi-agent learning and game theory, emphasizing that some of their categories are important for economics and others are not. We also try to correct some minor imprecisions in their discussion of the economics literature on learning in games. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper examines the distribution of economic research as catalogued in the Journal of Economic Literature across countries of the world and attempts to explain those patterns. We report the number of articles published on each country and estimate a series of regressions to understand this pattern. We find that measures of a country's size (physical and economic), connections with the outside world and data availability explain much of the pattern of research. We also find that tourism receipts, whether English is an official language, and the number of economic research institutions are significantly correlated with the amount of research done on a country. After controlling for all the variables, we find only three regions (all in Africa) with significantly less research published by economists in Journal of Economic Literature cataloged articles than North America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Despite many years of active research in the field and a number of fruitful applications, agent-based modeling has not yet made it through to the top ranking economic journals. In this paper we investigate why. We look at the following problematic areas: (i) interpretation of the simulation dynamics and generalization of the results, and (ii) estimation of the simulation model. We show that there exist solutions for both these issues. Along the way, we clarify some confounding differences in terminology between computer science and economic literature. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]