Search

Neoclassical economics has become the predominant school of economic thought, influencing scholarship on management, organizations, and business ethics. However, many feminist economists challenge the individualist and positivist foundations of neoclassical economic epistemology, arguing instead that purportedly gender-neutral and value-free methods routinely and systematically leave out and undervalue women. Extending this proposition, this article introduces the epistemic foundations of feminist economics and illustrates how they can produce novel insights relevant for business ethics. In particular, by examining economic phenomena from the point of view of the people they affect, feminist economic epistemology is able to elucidate the ways in which power asymmetries and gender norms that constitute the social world can be reflected in business practices. I apply this methodological insight to three case studies of global supply chains to challenge the neoclassical assertion that including women in labor markets necessarily catalyzes gender equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we develop the idea of the Sraffian Supermultiplier, presenting it as an alternative to traditional neoclassical thought about economic growth and economic policy. Thus, a brief introduction is made about the importance of economic growth for classical economists, followed by the development of Harrod's model and the different solutions that have raised for sorting the problem of instability. Finally, we present the supermultiplier model of Serrano together with international empirical evidence that supports it and some proposals of economic policy are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the resurgence of the Socialist Calculation Debate due to the rise of digital platforms and Big Data. Topics include the historical exchange between Austrian School economists and socialists on economic planning and pricing, with an emphasis on the adaptation of neoclassical economics by socialist proponents; and role of organization with the concept of workers' councils the significance of representation and visualization.

Copyright of Revista de Economía is the property of Universidade Federal do Parana 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.)

Sraffa rescues the classical analysis and puts it in discussion with mainstream theory. The thesis of this paper is that his ontological analysis, specified in the market snapshot, allows us to understand Sraffa's theoretical position and, in turn, is a method to assess his traditional interpretations as well as the new perspectives arising from the reading of his drafts. Its position is not entirely precise, so it is necessary to include conventions, which open the way to institutional analysis. Finally, starting from the contrast with other interpretations, it proposes to defend the coherence between the vision of the world and the ideas developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Investigación Económica is the property of Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Facultad de Economia 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.)

The article focuses on Edmond Malinvaud and growth theory in the 1950s and 1960s and shared perception of the inhabitants of those economic lands who were concerned with economic growth in the 1960s. It mentions growth in the context of planning and economic policy and economists organizing the developments in the field of economic growth. It also mentions same opposition between neoclassical and Keynesian growth models.

The article focuses on Robert Solow which belongs to the generation of economists who elaborated and promoted the postwar Keynesian mainstream. It mentions neoclassical synthesis was a two-way street with influence between Walrasian and Keynesian ideas flowing both ways. It also mentions distinguish between Walrasian enthusiasts and Walrasian skeptics within the seminal authors of the neoclassical synthesis.

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 argues that the coronavirus is the result of excessive human pressure on the biosphere, and that the effects of the pandemic it has caused in the world have been aggravated by policy recommendations derived from conventional economic thought, whose advocates - to keep their paradigm safe - will argue, just as in the 2008 financial crisis, that the current health crisis was not predictable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peter Boettke's F.A. Hayek Economics, Political Economy, and Social Philosophy (Palgrave 2019) is a nuanced treatment that examines the historical context of Hayek's work as well as its contemporary context. Boettke's major argument is worth emphasizing at the outset: Hayek, he argues, is an epistemic institutionalist. To Boettke, I would add that economists moved away from a preoccupation with institutions earlier than Boettke allows. For Hayek, people are fallible but they learn within the context of various institutional arrangements. For the early neoclassical economists, by contrast, the theorists who know better have the authority to ensure that the inferiors optimize. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of providing a scientific account of human behavior has driven a great variety of research programs in the social sciences since their disciplinary formation and institutionalization. Arguably, the most dominant mode of social scientific discourse in the last century has been economics. Economists have given various answers to the possibility of providing a scientific account of human action. The most dominant school of thought, neoclassical economics, has answered this in the affirmative. However, the neoclassical model of human agency placed the rational chooser, or homo economicus, at the foundation of this scientific account. Homo economicus has been subjected to a wide variety of criticisms, including from within economics itself. Recently, this critique has taken shape in the work of behavioral economists such as Daniel Kahneman. However critical this rival theory may be, it remains the case that both schools rest upon an understanding of the methods and aims of economics that was the target of both John Dewey and Ludwig Wittgenstein. This article draws out several consequences of examining both rival economic schools from Dewey's reconstructive understanding of inquiry and Wittgenstein's therapeutic treatment of intellectual problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavioural economics provides a more realistic model of man than neoclassical economics. But 'behavioural economic man' likewise has his shortcomings. An important aspect is the neglect of social contingency. This article sheds light on the conceptions of the 'social' invoked in different strands of behavioural economics and explores their policy implications. Based on different interpretations of the rational choice paradigm and deviations thereof, a distinction is drawn between mainstream approaches and alternative approaches to behavioural economics and within 'mainstream behavioural economics' between its cognitive and its social strand. Whereas the cognitive strand of behavioural economics has quite a limited understanding of the social, which yields a narrow form of behavioural politics, the social strand offers a richer account of social variability and dynamics, which in principle leaves more room for politics. However, both approaches lay emphasis on our human nature rather than the specificities of modern culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavioral economics has long defined itself in opposition to neoclassical economics, but recent developments suggest a synthesis may be on the horizon. In particular, several economists have argued that behavioral factors can be incorporated into standard theory, and that the days of behavioral economics are therefore numbered. This paper explores the proposed synthesis and argues that it is distinctly behavioral in nature – not neoclassical. Far from indicating that behavioral economics as a stand-alone research program is over, the proposed synthesis represents the consummate conversion of neoclassical economists into behavioral ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen is one of the most famous Romanian economists. From the point of view of the schools of economic thought, his writings are not part of the orthodox typology. An original and unconventional spirit, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen is at the same time an important representative of the mathematics economics and "a profoundly humane and wise philosopher" as Paul Samuelson described him. His work is so atypical especially given the way he analyses economic phenomena and processes seen in connection with the processes taking place in the immediate environment. The economic and philosophic concept of entropy, based upon the second law of thermodynamics, is indissolubly linked to Georgescu-Roegen's name, him thus becoming a paradigm creator. In his turn, the term of bio-economics rests upon Georgescu-Roegen's idea that there is an analogy between the biological and the economical worlds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nature of the challenge to mainstream economics needs to be carefully considered. This article presents an overview of the challenge, emphasizing that it is not just a matter of heterodox economists developing non‐neoclassical economic theories. The embrace of a pluralist method and pedagogy is equally significant. The development of a transdisciplinary approach adds further to the breadth of the challenge. Weaving these elements together as political economy provides an alternative paradigm to mainstream economics. Extending its influence requires focus on adult education, the media, and public policy, as well as sustained efforts within universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of the article is to criticise neoclassical economics from the behavioural economics perspective on the example of Poland’s reform of the retirement system (the possibility of earlier retirement). The creators of the reform assume that people are rational and will choose the best option and save enough for retirement. Thanks to conclusions from psychology we know that people cannot discount utility in time, but they behave in accordance with hyperbolic discounting. This situation leads to the conflict between preferences in time. To resolve this conflict, the concept of multiple selves is presented. Different preferences in time are not the problem for neoclassical economics, which assumes that people choose what is best for them (revealed preferences). The criticism of this assumption is presented along with the limitations of perceiving rationality in the instrumental sense. Thanks to axiomatic assumptions, neoclassical economists could dismiss conclusions from behavioural economics which concerns human irrationality. It proves that people do not always make the best choices, which is observable on the example of people who take early retirement. The concept of libertarian paternalism is presented as a way of helping people to make the “right” choices. The possibility of early retirement is presented as the default option. The author comes to the conclusion that this state is a flawed choice architecture because, despite its negative consequences, many people will choose early retirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses a controversy among marketing students, some who believe that economic theory encompasses marketing theory, and others who think that there is little application of economic theory to marketing problems. The author of this article refers to neoclassic economic literature, particularly that of Alfred Marshall, to prove that economists are aware of the impact that selling efforts and costs have on economic activity, as well as the relationship between increasing returns and selling costs. The article discusses Marshall's work and his treatment of marketing issues and conditions, concluding that the claim that economists have not considered marketing conditions is false.

Many stalwarts have characterized Adam Smith as the "pioneer" of neoclassical economics as he prefigured the formal-analytical structure of theorizing in it. What follows examines their claim that he is a pioneer of its analytical structure. It upholds the view that the claim is unjustifiable because of the importance of some notions in Smith's analysis that are decreed nonsensical by the said economists, as also of some broader theoretical issues. The scientific philosophy of logical positivism, its impact on the methodology of neoclassical economics, and the difference between the latter and Smith's thought are accordingly discussed below. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reexamines the prevailing perception of traditional economics as the science of rational choice among contemporary economists and sociologists, especially rational choice theorists. It proposes that conventional economics is not exclusively the theory of rational choice but also one of irrational choices in the economy. The article aims to contribute toward a fuller understanding and appreciation of classical and neoclassical economics, especially among sociologists, as composite rational choice-irrational choice theory and in that sense a multi- rather than single-paradigm science, thus no different from sociology and other social (and physical) sciences. This may be relevant or interesting to sociologists given that their rational choice colleagues, like economists, extol the “virtues" of conventional and modern economics as a single-paradigm, theoretically unified science around “rational choice” and criticize the “vices” of sociology as plagued by competing paradigms and theoretical disunity. The article supports many economic sociologists’ view or intuition of conventional economics as complex rational-irrational choice theory and multi-paradigm science, and disconfirms rational choice theorists’ interpretation and generalization of it as “rational choice theory” only and single-paradigm unified science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

János Kornai rejected the relevance of Walrasian equilibrium and considered only disequilibrium states to be compatible with reality in his Anti-Equilibrium. His research was guided by the belief that reality and theory should form an integral unit. Neoclassical economists did not accept his anti-equilibrium theory, which motivated Kornai to relentlessly provide additional evidences. The article follows this exciting and noble struggle from a new perspective in the context of scientific theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experimental economics challenges the mainstream by arguing that only social rational agents will produce a socially desirable outcome in competitive interactions. However, the solution of Das Adam Smith Problem provided neo-classical economics with its own cover: self-interested people can be socially minded and only among ethical self-interested agents will competitive interaction succeed. I will challenge both assertions in this paper. I will argue that what experimental economists would call as social may not be such and that socially minded individuals are not likely to be the self-interested agent depicted by neo-classical economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interview with economist Lee E. Ohanian is presented. Topics discussed include his paper entitled "Neoclassical Models of Aggregate Economies," the departure from the traditional business cycle approach which respond to shocks from technologies and government policies, and the recommendation on reforming immigration for highly skilled workers who wants to start business in the U.S.

Possible negative effects of increased competition for land include pressures on biodiversity, rising food prices and GHG emissions. However, neoclassical economists often highlight positive aspects of competition, e.g. increased efficiency and innovation. Competition for land occurs when several agents demand the same good or service produced from a limited area. It implies that when one agent acquires scarce resources from land, less resource is available for competing agents. The resource competed for is often not land but rather its function for biomass production, which may be supplanted by other inputs that raise yields. Increased competition may stimulate efficiency but negative environmental effects are likely in the absence of appropriate regulations. Competition between affluent countries with poor people in subsistence economies likely results in adverse social and development outcomes if not mitigated through effective policies. The socioecological metabolism approach is a framework to analyze land-related limits and functions in particular with respect to production and consumption of biomass and carbon sequestration. It can generate databases that consistently link land used with biomass flows which are useful in understanding interlinkages between different products and services and thereby help to analyze systemic feedbacks in the global land system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A literary criticism of the book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," by Thomas Piketty (TP) is presented. It explores similarities and differences between TP's book on economic inequality in the U.S. and Henry George's "Progress and Poverty." It elaborates on TP's critique of contemporary neoclassical economics. It comments on a recommendation that global tax on wealth is the only solution for growing inequality.

The article discusses the attempts made by economist Robert Solow to develop the models for medium-run macroeconomics and his struggles with other models of macroeconomics. Topics include Solow's contributions to economist Paul Samuelson's views on the neo- classical synthesis, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) and Solow's involvement in it, and Solow's views on Keynesian and neoclassical economics and their synthesis.

The goal of the economists and ecologists who laid the conceptual foundations for ecological economics in the 1960s and 1970s was to create a scientifically informed discipline that could serve as the basis for coordinating economic activities in environmentally responsible ways. The aim of this article is to make a convincing case that the history of neoclassical economic theory provides a coherent basis for understanding why ecological economists must finish the journey begun by these economists and ecologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses two theses that economist Arthur Cecil Pigou submitted for fellowship competitions at King's College, University of Cambridge, "Robert Browning As a Religious Teacher" in 1900 and "The Causes and Effects of Change in the Relative Values of Agricultural Produce in the United Kingdom During the Last Fifty Years" in 1901. Topics include Pigou's interest in wealth and welfare, his views on philosophy and poetry, and neoclassical economics in relation to the moral sciences.

Stephen Marglin and Tariq Banuri argue that the debate between neoclassical and ecological economists over the limits to growth cannot be resolved by appealing to their empirical analyses, but by using the framework of environmental justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights on the condition of the capital controversy as of 2012. He highlights the ideas by Italian economist Piero Sraffa on the topic, which have been written in his book "Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities." He also discusses the concept of capital endowment and neoclassical theory's key points.

The standard view about the relationship between the Marshallian and the Walrasian approaches is that they are complementary to each other. My aim in this paper is to show that, on the contrary, they constitute alternative sub-research programmes within the wider neoclassical paradigm. I make my point by contrasting the two approaches against the following benchmarks: the purpose of economic theory according to Marshall and Walras; their views as to the role of mathematics; their specific ways of tackling complexity; the conception of equilibrium underpinning their theories; and, finally, their trade organisation assumptions. [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]

This article examines the life and thought of Thomas Balogh and Nicholas Kaldor, two Hungarian-born British economists, to suggest how the personal background and émigré status of these economists changed their view of the British economy and the economic policy recommendations they put forward as high-profile government advisers in the post-1945 period. This article combines research on inter-war intellectual migration and the history of British economics and economic policy making after the Second World War. It shows how the large scale migration of Central European intellectuals to the English-speaking countries affected the academic, intellectual and cultural lives of the host countries; it also suggests how economics, a relatively young social science discipline, has been crucially enriched by the contributions of exiles from old Europe, and how the mainstream paradigm of modern economics, the so-called neoclassical synthesis, was the result of the cross-fertilisation of ideas facilitated by the physical movement of academics and thinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

How do ecological and heterodox economists differ, if at all, from each other and from neoclassical economists addressing environmental problems? In 2009 we probed this question by conducting an international survey across these communities, namely at conferences of the European Society for Ecological Economics, the Association for Heterodox Economics, and the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. The research was designed to gain insight into the extent to which ecological economics can be described as heterodox and a distinct field from orthodox environmental and resource economics. Conflicting visions of ecological economics have led to a prevalence of neoclassical articles and thought mixed in amongst more heterodox work. We introduce a novel classification of work in the field of environmental policy in order to test for the existence of differences in terms of methodological and ideological approaches. How heterodox economists understand environmental issues is also an important question to answer if there is to be more collaboration between them and ecological economists. The findings have implications for cooperation and the future direction of both ecological and heterodox economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the social impact of financial crises and why economists and the media use the term economic crisis rather than disaster during the 21th century. It discusses several theories including the neoclassical economic theory and the regulation theory. Topics include capitalism, neo-liberal regimes of accumulation, and how society is affected and deals with financial crises.

With the release of Treasury papers from the 1970s under the 30-year rule we have a much more complete picture of the dispute in the 1970s between the Treasury and the Cambridge Economic Policy Group (CEPG), especially given the role of three Cambridge economists—Nicholas Kaldor, Wynne Godley and Francis Cripps—as ministerial advisers at the time. The records show some eventual closing of the gap between the Treasury and the CEPG regarding the latter’s proposition of stable private-sector NAFA (where NAFA stands for net acquisition of private sector assets) and its implications for demand management and the balance of payments. In contrast, the initial differences on counterinflation policy and, above all, on import controls versus free trade were wider at the end of the decade than at the start of it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in light of changes that have occurred within neoclassical economics and in light of the rising hegemony of mainstream economics in economics departments. Various strategies are considered, among which is more engagement with orthodox dissenters, but it is concluded that the majority of heterodox economists ought instead to engage more with other heterodox economists and possibly other social sciences, developing and expanding their own agenda around real-world problems. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article features economic theory critics Piero Sraffa and John Maynard Keynes, and comments on their views on marginal theory. A comparison between the important elements of their analysis and criticism of marginalist theory is presented. According to the author, economics can be considered as a dismal science or discipline and its dismal state is being applied not just to the discipline as a whole but to the neoclassical economics.

Abstract: This article develops an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Moreover, it is argued that under the neoclassical paradigm there are no elements with which to foresee the long-term existence of this phenomenon. The objective of these arguments is to demonstrate that the Jevons effect can be used to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economics describing the social appropriation of nature. This is elaborated in two steps. First, we show the importance of the thesis that the economy cannot be cut off from the biophysical materiality of what is produced to give consistency to the so-called Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. It is made clear that this supposition is exogenous to the neoclassical paradigm. Second, the supposition of the biophysical materiality of what is produced is utilized to make an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Afterwards, a comparison is made between the neoclassical and the ecological economic perspectives. This comparison leads to the following conclusions: (i) the persistent presence of the Jevons effect in the long run is an anomaly in the neoclassical paradigm; (ii) the observation of the non-existence of the Jevons effect is a refutation of the supposition that economic growth and biophysical materiality are not separable, a central thesis defended by ecological economists. This situation makes possible to use the Jevons effect as a ‘laboratory test’ to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economic paradigms to describe the social appropriation of nature. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

(Reviewing: Great Thinker in Economics, Series Editor, A. P. Thirlwall, selection consisting of P. Groenewegen, Alfred Marshall, 2007; P. Davidson, John Maynard Keynes, 2007, 2009; G. Fletcher, Dennis Robertson, 2008; A. Roncaglia, Piero Sraffa, 2009; G. C. Harcourt and P. Kerr, Joan Robinson, 2009; J. E. King, Nicholas Kaldor, 2009, Palgrave Macmillan)Six volumes in the Great Thinker in Economics Series were chosen by the Editors for this review, which focuses on The Cambridge School of Economics, so very different from the mainstream theory of general economic equilibrium which gives formal expression to Lionel Robbins’ famous definition of the subject as the allocation of scarce means among alternative uses. In recognition of a distinct Cambridge School, the authors of these volumes present a variety of arguments within which three overlapping themes can be discerned: the relationship between ethics and economics; the role of stocks and flows in economic analysis; and the epistemic problem surrounding the role of creativity, which has eluded the skills of formalists. The once pervasive influence of Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, Dennis Robertson, Piero Sraffa, Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor can only be recovered with some such set of general themes in mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the neoclassical era in economics has ended and is being replaced by a new era. What best characterizes the new era is its acceptance that the economy is complex, and thus that it might be called the complexity era. The complexity era has not arrived through a revolution. Instead, it has evolved out of the many strains of neoclassical work, along with work done by less orthodox mainstream and heterodox economists. It is only in its beginning stages. The article discusses the work that is forming the foundation of the complexity era, and how that work will likely change the way in which we understand economic phenomena and the economics profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the so-called Cambridge post-Keynesians from the point of view of one who was exposed to them as an undergraduate, with the addition of some mature thoughts. As confirmed by Luigi Pasinetti in his 2007 book Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A "Revolution in Economics" to Be Accomplished, there was never a unified school. A major theme, particularly for Joan Robinson, was the theory of investment advanced by Keynes in his General Theory. This in turn is examined critically. The post-Keynesian group, with the notable exception of Nicholas Kaldor, proved to be remarkably unproductive. This is explained by an essentially negative approach and by a tradition of self-righteous intolerance that goes back to Keynes himself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Política & Sociedade: Revista de Sociologia Política is the property of Revista Politica & Sociedade 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.)