Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.22394/1726-1139-2018-12-118-127
O. Antoncheva, Tatiana Fpanasenko
Russian Abstract: Предположим, земельная рента была переведена в общественное достояние. Этого хватило для покрытия расходов государственного бюджета, и налоги были отменены. Очевидно, что социальная структура общества вследствие этого изменится. Автор проекта социализации земельной ренты и замены ею налогов Генри Джордж считал, что произойдёт повышение удельного веса частных собственников. Или же только утвердится представление, что повышение удельного веса частных собственников произойдет. Результатом и реального, и только потенциального увеличения количества частных собственников станет сокращение числа безработных. Удельный вес бедных понизится до уровня, диктуемого рыночным равновесием. Количество бедных, чья бедность связана с искаженем рыночного равновесия, сократится до нуля. В статье, таким образом, акцентируется внимание на парадоксе. Поскольку Джордж предлагал перевести капитализируемый объект в общественное достояние, его логично считать социалистом. Однако социальные последствия проекта Джорджа описывались как идеальные общественные условия в доктринах laissez-faire, либертарианства и солидаризма. Провести эмпирическое симуляционное исследование с целью проверки, действительно ли социализация земельной ренты приведет к обществу совершенной конкуренции с преобладанием среднего класса, затруднительно по двум причинам. Во-первых, существуют слишком разные методики измерения земельной ренты. Во-вторых, если проверить эмпирически, достаточно ли социализированной земельной ренты для покрытия всех налогов еще возможно, то предсказать социальную мобильность вследствие понижения барьеров перехода в социальный слой частных предпринимателей, практически нереально. Однако выход есть. Уникальные исторические условия эпохи Перестройки (земля все еще в общественной собственности; механизма ценообразования на землю еще не существует; часть земель уже приватизирована, и сдается новыми земельными собственниками в аренду; механизм ценообразования на аренду земель уже существует) позволили ряду исследователей измерить земельную ренту строго в соответствии с определениями Джорджа. Эти исследователи пришли к выводам, что если заменить налоги социализированной земельной рентой, этого будет достаточно для покрытия расходов государственного бюджета. Проект Джорджа, таким образом, был реализован симуляционным образом в условиях, близких к современным. Следовательно, выводы Джорджа об изменениях в социальной структуре общества вследствие социализации земельной ренты можно экстраполировать на современные условия. Однако с поправками на изменения, обусловленные спецификой постиндустриального общества. В настоящей работе мы ввели в теорию Джорджа новый параметр, обусловленный современными реалиями. Затем мы рассмотрели, как возникшая проблема решается современной экономической теорией, т.е. искажает ли решение проблемы ценности Джорджа или же вписывается в них. В случае положительного ответа на данный вопрос можно было бы сделать вывод о воз
{"title":"Результаты изменения социальной структуры общества при социализации земельной ренты как альтернативы налогообложения (A Socialized Land Rent As Alternative to Taxation and the Change of Social Structure)","authors":"O. Antoncheva, Tatiana Fpanasenko","doi":"10.22394/1726-1139-2018-12-118-127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2018-12-118-127","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> Предположим, земельная рента была переведена в общественное достояние. Этого хватило для покрытия расходов государственного бюджета, и налоги были отменены. Очевидно, что социальная структура общества вследствие этого изменится. Автор проекта социализации земельной ренты и замены ею налогов Генри Джордж считал, что произойдёт повышение удельного веса частных собственников. Или же только утвердится представление, что повышение удельного веса частных собственников произойдет. Результатом и реального, и только потенциального увеличения количества частных собственников станет сокращение числа безработных. Удельный вес бедных понизится до уровня, диктуемого рыночным равновесием. Количество бедных, чья бедность связана с искаженем рыночного равновесия, сократится до нуля.<br>В статье, таким образом, акцентируется внимание на парадоксе. Поскольку Джордж предлагал перевести капитализируемый объект в общественное достояние, его логично считать социалистом. Однако социальные последствия проекта Джорджа описывались как идеальные общественные условия в доктринах laissez-faire, либертарианства и солидаризма. <br>Провести эмпирическое симуляционное исследование с целью проверки, действительно ли социализация земельной ренты приведет к обществу совершенной конкуренции с преобладанием среднего класса, затруднительно по двум причинам. Во-первых, существуют слишком разные методики измерения земельной ренты. Во-вторых, если проверить эмпирически, достаточно ли социализированной земельной ренты для покрытия всех налогов еще возможно, то предсказать социальную мобильность вследствие понижения барьеров перехода в социальный слой частных предпринимателей, практически нереально. <br>Однако выход есть. Уникальные исторические условия эпохи Перестройки (земля все еще в общественной собственности; механизма ценообразования на землю еще не существует; часть земель уже приватизирована, и сдается новыми земельными собственниками в аренду; механизм ценообразования на аренду земель уже существует) позволили ряду исследователей измерить земельную ренту строго в соответствии с определениями Джорджа. Эти исследователи пришли к выводам, что если заменить налоги социализированной земельной рентой, этого будет достаточно для покрытия расходов государственного бюджета. Проект Джорджа, таким образом, был реализован симуляционным образом в условиях, близких к современным. Следовательно, выводы Джорджа об изменениях в социальной структуре общества вследствие социализации земельной ренты можно экстраполировать на современные условия. Однако с поправками на изменения, обусловленные спецификой постиндустриального общества. <br>В настоящей работе мы ввели в теорию Джорджа новый параметр, обусловленный современными реалиями. Затем мы рассмотрели, как возникшая проблема решается современной экономической теорией, т.е. искажает ли решение проблемы ценности Джорджа или же вписывается в них. В случае положительного ответа на данный вопрос можно было бы сделать вывод о воз","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115111597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Factorial surveys became an increasingly popular method in various disciplines of social research, ranging from psychology to sociology to behavioral economics. By combining elements of experiments and surveys, the method allows to study more complex relationships, combining experimental stimuli, personal features, and situational elements. There is a range of established statistical methods to analyze the data obtained from such studies, which focus on drivers of individual reactions to the vignette and its features. We offer and discuss alternative approaches, which allow for a different view on the information obtained from factorial surveys by focusing on the level of the vignette. These approaches allow to identify the latent dimensions underlying the multitude of situational facets chosen by the researcher when designing the vignette universe, to see which vignettes are actually similar to each other, regardless of their content, and to identify factors which structure the underlying space of the vignette universe, which may or may not correspond to the intentions underlying the construction of the vignette universe. Practical cases which construct an ethical space underlying a factorial survey from compliance and ethics research illustrate the alternative methods and their results.
{"title":"Making the Most Out of Your Factorial Survey. Alternative Methods for the Presenting and Analyzing Data Gathered in Within- and Between-Subjects Design Factorial Surveys","authors":"Peter Kotzian","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3493536","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3493536","url":null,"abstract":"Factorial surveys became an increasingly popular method in various disciplines of social research, ranging from psychology to sociology to behavioral economics. By combining elements of experiments and surveys, the method allows to study more complex relationships, combining experimental stimuli, personal features, and situational elements. There is a range of established statistical methods to analyze the data obtained from such studies, which focus on drivers of individual reactions to the vignette and its features. We offer and discuss alternative approaches, which allow for a different view on the information obtained from factorial surveys by focusing on the level of the vignette. These approaches allow to identify the latent dimensions underlying the multitude of situational facets chosen by the researcher when designing the vignette universe, to see which vignettes are actually similar to each other, regardless of their content, and to identify factors which structure the underlying space of the vignette universe, which may or may not correspond to the intentions underlying the construction of the vignette universe. Practical cases which construct an ethical space underlying a factorial survey from compliance and ethics research illustrate the alternative methods and their results.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114906821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pigou’s 1950 reassessment of the major contribution made by Keynes’s General Theory is surprisingly accurate. Unfortunately, none of the supporting materials ha cites from the General Theory to buttress and support his conclusion is correct. Pigou’s main support for his conclusion comes from a reliance on chapters 13,18,and 23,with pages 246-247 of chapter 18 and pages 167-171 of chapter 13 serving as the major sources supporting his conclusion. The only correct foundation for Pigou’s reassessment consists of the appendix to chapter 19, where Keynes demonstrated to Pigou that he had no IS-LM model to determine the rate of interest and hence no way of dealing with the amount of investment or investment multiplier. Pigou also failed to grasp Keynes's chapter 20 and chapter 21, section Four, which contains Keynes’s formal analysis of his IS-LM model on pages 298-299, followed by Keynes’s own critique of his model on pp. 300-303 and his mathematical extension on pages 304-306 that integrated liquidity preference into the Aggregate demand (D)-Aggregate Supply (Z) model of chapter 20 that supported the IS-LM model of chapter 21’s section four.
Pigou’s decision to ignore the appendix to chapter 19, chapter 20 and chapter 21 of the General Theory in his 1950 reassessment, which is the material that actually supports his reassessment on page 65, were probably a result of his recognition that it would just be too intellectually painful for him to have to reconsider material once more that demonstrated Keynes’s complete, absolute and total intellectual superiority over him in the time period of 1935 to 1940.
Pigou appeared to show his grasp of Keynes’s IS-LM(LP) model in section four of chapter 21 with his famous 1950 reassessment that presented a revision of his earlier 1936 review of the GT that made no mention of any such thing as an IS-LP(LM) model:
“Nobody before him, so far as I know, had brought all the relevant factors, real and monetary at once, together in a single formal scheme, through which their interplay could be coherently investigated.” However, this conclusion can’t possibly follow from pp.246-247 of the GT as claimed by Pigou: “The kernel of Keynes’s contribution to economic thinking is to be found, as I have already said, in the short passage quoted from page 246 of his book.”
Pigou’s 1950 reassessment, then, while correct, is supported only by Keynes’s analysis in chapter 21 on pp.298-306 of the GT and has absolutely nothing to do with pp. 246-247 of the GT. There is no formal model of the interplay between the real and monetary factors that can be investigated on pp.246-247 of the GT. Pigou’s supporting analysis for his claim is very misleading because chapter 18 has no formal presentation of Keynes’s IS-LM (LP) model. Only chapter 21 makes such a formal presentation.
{"title":"On Pigou’s 1950 Reassessment of Keynes’s General Theory: Correct Conclusion, but All of the Premises Are Completely Wrong","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3477664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3477664","url":null,"abstract":"Pigou’s 1950 reassessment of the major contribution made by Keynes’s General Theory is surprisingly accurate. Unfortunately, none of the supporting materials ha cites from the General Theory to buttress and support his conclusion is correct. Pigou’s main support for his conclusion comes from a reliance on chapters 13,18,and 23,with pages 246-247 of chapter 18 and pages 167-171 of chapter 13 serving as the major sources supporting his conclusion. The only correct foundation for Pigou’s reassessment consists of the appendix to chapter 19, where Keynes demonstrated to Pigou that he had no IS-LM model to determine the rate of interest and hence no way of dealing with the amount of investment or investment multiplier. Pigou also failed to grasp Keynes's chapter 20 and chapter 21, section Four, which contains Keynes’s formal analysis of his IS-LM model on pages 298-299, followed by Keynes’s own critique of his model on pp. 300-303 and his mathematical extension on pages 304-306 that integrated liquidity preference into the Aggregate demand (D)-Aggregate Supply (Z) model of chapter 20 that supported the IS-LM model of chapter 21’s section four.<br><br>Pigou’s decision to ignore the appendix to chapter 19, chapter 20 and chapter 21 of the General Theory in his 1950 reassessment, which is the material that actually supports his reassessment on page 65, were probably a result of his recognition that it would just be too intellectually painful for him to have to reconsider material once more that demonstrated Keynes’s complete, absolute and total intellectual superiority over him in the time period of 1935 to 1940.<br><br>Pigou appeared to show his grasp of Keynes’s IS-LM(LP) model in section four of chapter 21 with his famous 1950 reassessment that presented a revision of his earlier 1936 review of the GT that made no mention of any such thing as an IS-LP(LM) model:<br><br>“Nobody before him, so far as I know, had brought all the relevant factors, real and monetary at once, together in a single formal scheme, through which their interplay could be coherently investigated.” However, this conclusion can’t possibly follow from pp.246-247 of the GT as claimed by Pigou: “The kernel of Keynes’s contribution to economic thinking is to be found, as I have already said, in the short passage quoted from page 246 of his book.” <br><br>Pigou’s 1950 reassessment, then, while correct, is supported only by Keynes’s analysis in chapter 21 on pp.298-306 of the GT and has absolutely nothing to do with pp. 246-247 of the GT. There is no formal model of the interplay between the real and monetary factors that can be investigated on pp.246-247 of the GT. Pigou’s supporting analysis for his claim is very misleading because chapter 18 has no formal presentation of Keynes’s IS-LM (LP) model. Only chapter 21 makes such a formal presentation.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122761112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960) was path-breaking as a contribution to political economy and penetrating as a critique of the orthodox economics of the twentieth century. As Ajit Sinha recently put it, the book produced a ‘revolution in economic theory’ (Sinha, A Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016; cf. Martins, “The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the Revolution in Economic Theory,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 43 (2): 507–525, 2019), the impact and significance of which continues to be investigated. At the same time, despite the depth and far-reaching implications of Sraffa’s critique of orthodox economics it was ignored by the great majority of economists, and this not only complicates our understanding of its impact on economic theory, but also creates a paradox regarding our interpretation of ‘the’ history of economics. For Sraffa, ‘the’ history of economics dates back at least to Adam Smith and David Ricardo as founders of a subject specifically understood as political economy. Yet economics today is no longer identified as political economy by most people in the field, but is conventionally said to be a science independent of history, politics, and social values, and thus makes little reference to how the social organization of the economy was a distinctive characteristic of the thinking of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and others in the history of political economy.
皮耶罗·斯拉法的《以商品为手段的商品生产》(1960)是对政治经济学的开创性贡献，也是对20世纪正统经济学的深刻批判。正如阿吉特·辛哈(Ajit Sinha)最近所说，这本书引发了一场“经济理论革命”(辛哈，《经济理论革命:皮耶罗·斯拉法经济学》，伦敦:帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦出版社，2016;参见Martins，“The raffian Methodenstreit and The Revolution in Economic Theory”，《剑桥经济学杂志》(Cambridge Journal of Economics) 43(2): 507-525, 2019)，其影响和意义仍在研究中。与此同时，尽管斯拉法对正统经济学的批判具有深刻而深远的影响，但它却被绝大多数经济学家所忽视，这不仅使我们对其对经济理论的影响的理解变得复杂，而且在我们对经济学“历史”的解释上造成了一个悖论。对斯拉法来说，经济学的“历史”至少可以追溯到亚当·斯密和大卫·李嘉图，他们是专门被理解为政治经济学的学科的创始人。然而，今天的经济学不再被该领域的大多数人认定为政治经济学，而是传统上被认为是一门独立于历史、政治和社会价值的科学，因此很少提及经济的社会组织如何成为斯密、李嘉图、马克思和政治经济学史上其他人思想的一个显著特征。
{"title":"‘Openness’ as a Methodological Principle of Sraffa’s Economic Thinking","authors":"John B. Davis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3476662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476662","url":null,"abstract":"Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960) was path-breaking as a contribution to political economy and penetrating as a critique of the orthodox economics of the twentieth century. As Ajit Sinha recently put it, the book produced a ‘revolution in economic theory’ (Sinha, A Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016; cf. Martins, “The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the Revolution in Economic Theory,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 43 (2): 507–525, 2019), the impact and significance of which continues to be investigated. At the same time, despite the depth and far-reaching implications of Sraffa’s critique of orthodox economics it was ignored by the great majority of economists, and this not only complicates our understanding of its impact on economic theory, but also creates a paradox regarding our interpretation of ‘the’ history of economics. For Sraffa, ‘the’ history of economics dates back at least to Adam Smith and David Ricardo as founders of a subject specifically understood as political economy. Yet economics today is no longer identified as political economy by most people in the field, but is conventionally said to be a science independent of history, politics, and social values, and thus makes little reference to how the social organization of the economy was a distinctive characteristic of the thinking of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and others in the history of political economy.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114841947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In designing any causal study, steps must be taken to address both internal and external threats to its validity. Researchers tend to focus primarily on dealing with threats to internal validity. However, once they have conducted an internally valid analysis, that analysis yields an established set of findings for the specific case in question. As for the future usefulness of that result, however, what matters is its degree of external validity. In this paper we provide a formal, general exploration of the question of external validity and propose a simple and generally applicable method for evaluating the external validity of randomized controlled trials. Although our method applies only to RCTs, the issue of external validity is general and not restricted to RCTs, as shown in our formal analysis.
{"title":"Assessing External Validity","authors":"Hao Bo, Sebastian Galiani","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3474280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3474280","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In designing any causal study, steps must be taken to address both internal and external threats to its validity. Researchers tend to focus primarily on dealing with threats to internal validity. However, once they have conducted an internally valid analysis, that analysis yields an established set of findings for the specific case in question. As for the future usefulness of that result, however, what matters is its degree of external validity. In this paper we provide a formal, general exploration of the question of external validity and propose a simple and generally applicable method for evaluating the external validity of randomized controlled trials. Although our method applies only to RCTs, the issue of external validity is general and not restricted to RCTs, as shown in our formal analysis.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128482552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Spanish Abstract: La Economía (o Teoría Económica) ortodoxa o convencional está en gran parte centrada en el entramado de definiciones y marco teórico-neoclásico-matemático que culmina en el paradigma del equilibrio general de mercados competitivos. El conjunto podríamos calificarlo de ‘Modelo estándar’ de la Economía dominante (muy decantada hacia la microeconomía). Y un postulado clave de ésta es, expresado brevemente, el de que «sin intervención alguna por parte de los poderes públicos, el libre mercado en general lleva a que el mercado para cada bien o servicio sea perfectamente competitivo , con empresas eficientes, y en equilibrio. Esto es aplicable a cada bien, servicio o factor. Y el resultado global constituye un óptimo de bienestar social».
El punto de partida del presente ensayo es subrayar que tal paradigma o modelo económico estándar (MEe) descansa sobre unos supuestos deductivos, aparentemente de carácter técnico. Concretamente una determinada teoría deductiva sobre el funcionamiento de las empresas, la pauta general sobre los rendimientos de escala, la fijación de los precios, y las características de los mercados de bienes y servicios. Lo que se suele etiquetar en los manuales como ‘teoría neoclásica de la producción’ y/o ‘teoría de la empresa’ (‘theory of the firm).
Y el objetivo principal es mostrar que tales supuestos deductivos, y consecuentemente la teoría explicativa que se deriva de ellos, resultan claramente irreales al ser confrontados con las extensivas evidencias empíricas fácilmente disponibles al respecto. Es decir, que no vienen sustentados por la observación de la realidad de las economías de mercado; presentes e históricas. Y no en cuestiones de detalle o técnicas sino fundamentales. Una constatación que –y este es un punto decisivo– que ya hace tiempo fue ‘denunciada’ por prestigiosos economistas; pero que viene siendo ignorada por la economía dominante. Con la consecuencia de que ésta, el MEe, no explica propiamente la realidad de cómo funciona una economía de mercado basada en empresas privadas; o capitalista. O no la explica bien para la inmensa mayoría de los casos, bienes, sectores o mercados.
El problema adicional es que esa ‘deficiencia científica’ tiene consecuencias más allá de la Economía. Se trata de algo más que una pura cuestión teórica: Ese MEe (Análisis Económico, centrado en microeconomía, para precisar más) que lleva al postulado resumido arriba, se toma regularmente como marco conceptual de referencia para debatir y definir medidas de política económica. Y en la arena política el neoliberalismo se apoya en ese postulado para defender sus principios de no (o mínima) intervención de los gobiernos en la economía, de no (o mínima) regulación de los mercados, y, en definitiva, para defender lo que está detrás de la conocida máxima de ‘cuanto menos Estado mejor’: mínimo gasto público, mínimos impuestos.
English Abstract: Mainstream or orthodox economics (or e
{"title":"El irrealismo en la disciplina Economía (Unrealistic Assumptions in Economics)","authors":"J. Vergés","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3466129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3466129","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Spanish Abstract:</b> La Economía (o Teoría Económica) ortodoxa o convencional está en gran parte centrada en el entramado de definiciones y marco teórico-neoclásico-matemático que culmina en el paradigma del equilibrio general de mercados competitivos. El conjunto podríamos calificarlo de ‘Modelo estándar’ de la Economía dominante (muy decantada hacia la microeconomía). Y un postulado clave de ésta es, expresado brevemente, el de que «sin intervención alguna por parte de los poderes públicos, el libre mercado en general lleva a que el mercado para cada bien o servicio sea perfectamente competitivo , con empresas eficientes, y en equilibrio. Esto es aplicable a cada bien, servicio o factor. Y el resultado global constituye un óptimo de bienestar social».<br><br>El punto de partida del presente ensayo es subrayar que tal paradigma o modelo económico estándar (MEe) descansa sobre unos supuestos deductivos, aparentemente de carácter técnico. Concretamente una determinada teoría deductiva sobre el funcionamiento de las empresas, la pauta general sobre los rendimientos de escala, la fijación de los precios, y las características de los mercados de bienes y servicios. Lo que se suele etiquetar en los manuales como ‘teoría neoclásica de la producción’ y/o ‘teoría de la empresa’ (‘theory of the firm).<br><br>Y el objetivo principal es mostrar que tales supuestos deductivos, y consecuentemente la teoría explicativa que se deriva de ellos, resultan claramente irreales al ser confrontados con las extensivas evidencias empíricas fácilmente disponibles al respecto. Es decir, que no vienen sustentados por la observación de la realidad de las economías de mercado; presentes e históricas. Y no en cuestiones de detalle o técnicas sino fundamentales. Una constatación que –y este es un punto decisivo– que ya hace tiempo fue ‘denunciada’ por prestigiosos economistas; pero que viene siendo ignorada por la economía dominante. Con la consecuencia de que ésta, el MEe, no explica propiamente la realidad de cómo funciona una economía de mercado basada en empresas privadas; o capitalista. O no la explica bien para la inmensa mayoría de los casos, bienes, sectores o mercados. <br><br>El problema adicional es que esa ‘deficiencia científica’ tiene consecuencias más allá de la Economía. Se trata de algo más que una pura cuestión teórica: Ese MEe (Análisis Económico, centrado en microeconomía, para precisar más) que lleva al postulado resumido arriba, se toma regularmente como marco conceptual de referencia para debatir y definir medidas de política económica. Y en la arena política el neoliberalismo se apoya en ese postulado para defender sus principios de no (o mínima) intervención de los gobiernos en la economía, de no (o mínima) regulación de los mercados, y, en definitiva, para defender lo que está detrás de la conocida máxima de ‘cuanto menos Estado mejor’: mínimo gasto público, mínimos impuestos. <br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> Mainstream or orthodox economics (or e","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133187509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper provides my personal reflections on the development of economic methodology during the 21st century as well as a discussion of the methodological literature immediately preceding it. It is based on my experience – both as an editor and researcher within the field – and to some extent it reflects my own interests and concerns. It provides an interpretative history of the field and the various forces at work within it – doing so with a fairly broad brush, but at times focusing in and being much more specific.
{"title":"Economic Methodology in the Twenty-First Century (So Far): Some Post-Reflection Reflections","authors":"D. W. Hands","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3464759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3464759","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides my personal reflections on the development of economic methodology during the 21st century as well as a discussion of the methodological literature immediately preceding it. It is based on my experience – both as an editor and researcher within the field – and to some extent it reflects my own interests and concerns. It provides an interpretative history of the field and the various forces at work within it – doing so with a fairly broad brush, but at times focusing in and being much more specific.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117344906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims at defending the Austrian causal-realist demand theory which refutes the existence of an upward-sloping demand curve or the Giffen good. The analysis traces back to the fundamental difference between Austrian and neo-classical microeconomics, especially in utility theory. Additionally, this paper also briefly examines and proposes a rejoinder to the criticism of Hudik (2011a).
{"title":"The Giffen Paradox Revisited","authors":"Haibien Nguyen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3480773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3480773","url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims at defending the Austrian causal-realist demand theory which refutes the existence of an upward-sloping demand curve or the Giffen good. The analysis traces back to the fundamental difference between Austrian and neo-classical microeconomics, especially in utility theory. Additionally, this paper also briefly examines and proposes a rejoinder to the criticism of Hudik (2011a).","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127854692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper looks at the history of the theory of production. Before the seventieth century, with the advent of mercantilism, the predominant mode of enquiry was a descriptive/normative one. The frameworks applied were ethical and/or religious. The questions asked were about what production or occupations would find favour with God or what production was ethically justified. The important point is that these normative frameworks did not give rise to a theory of production. Such a theory only began to emerge with the emergence of a positive approach to economic reasoning more generally.
{"title":"Normative versus Positive Analysis in the History of the Theory of Production","authors":"P. Walker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3445853","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3445853","url":null,"abstract":"This paper looks at the history of the theory of production. Before the seventieth century, with the advent of mercantilism, the predominant mode of enquiry was a descriptive/normative one. The frameworks applied were ethical and/or religious. The questions asked were about what production or occupations would find favour with God or what production was ethically justified. The important point is that these normative frameworks did not give rise to a theory of production. Such a theory only began to emerge with the emergence of a positive approach to economic reasoning more generally.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132810234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The world is increasingly characterized by a paradigm of interconnectivity within a complex system. The problems our global community face are complex, interconnected, dynamic and non-linear. Solutions will require boundary-spanning trilateral collaborations able to give rise to new narratives, support evidence-based decision-making and work from a systems perspective. This article integrates cross-disciplinary literature that empirically support the creation of novel platforms for collaboration between science and art. Boundary spanning between these disciplines has been habitually overlooked as a means of forging meaningful trilateral partnerships; however, research strongly points to sciart collaborations for inspiring creative knowledge exchange and expression in novel ways that are engaging for the public. Novel platforms that promote art and science collaboration within multisensory environments offer new hope for the cross-pollination of ideas and the dissemination of powerful data driven narratives able to inspire transformative learning and social change.
{"title":"Collaboration, Complexity and Innovation: The Stories We Tell Matter","authors":"L. W. Jerome","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3449732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3449732","url":null,"abstract":"The world is increasingly characterized by a paradigm of interconnectivity within a complex system. The problems our global community face are complex, interconnected, dynamic and non-linear. Solutions will require boundary-spanning trilateral collaborations able to give rise to new narratives, support evidence-based decision-making and work from a systems perspective. This article integrates cross-disciplinary literature that empirically support the creation of novel platforms for collaboration between science and art. Boundary spanning between these disciplines has been habitually overlooked as a means of forging meaningful trilateral partnerships; however, research strongly points to sciart collaborations for inspiring creative knowledge exchange and expression in novel ways that are engaging for the public. Novel platforms that promote art and science collaboration within multisensory environments offer new hope for the cross-pollination of ideas and the dissemination of powerful data driven narratives able to inspire transformative learning and social change.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130416211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号