经济学中“创造性”商品概念的起源:西托夫斯基和霍特里

IF 0.1 Q4 ECONOMICS History of Economic Thought and Policy Pub Date : 2017-05-01 DOI:10.3280/SPE2017-001001
A. Bariletti, Eleonora Sanfilippo
{"title":"经济学中“创造性”商品概念的起源:西托夫斯基和霍特里","authors":"A. Bariletti, Eleonora Sanfilippo","doi":"10.3280/SPE2017-001001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion of ‘creativity’ has taken on growing importance in the recent economic literature on happiness, motivations and life-satisfaction. Starting from the seminal contribution by Scitovsky, the effects of ‘creative’ goods and activities on consumers’ well-being, in connection with cultural, sociological, psychological and educational aspects, have been analyzed. An increasing interest in these concepts has also recently been shown by policy-makers and international institutions (see, e.g., the UNCTAD/UNESCO Reports on Creative Economy, 2010, 2013, 2016). On the other hand, a clear analytical definition of this category of goods and activities and searching investigation into its peculiar characteristics in comparison with other types of products and activities, broadly defined as comfort or defensive ones, is still lacking in economic literature. This is why, despite its wide use, the nature of the distinction and the role it should play in economic analysis still remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. The aim of this paper is to provide a contribution to help clarify this distinction by reconstructing and comparing its original meaning and purpose in the works of Scitovsky (1976, 1992) and Hawtrey (1925) - the first economists who attributed a fundamental role to the notion of ‘creative’ goods in their analyses of consumption behavior.","PeriodicalId":40401,"journal":{"name":"History of Economic Thought and Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"5-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"At the origin of the notion of ‘creative’ goods in economics: Scitovsky and Hawtrey\",\"authors\":\"A. Bariletti, Eleonora Sanfilippo\",\"doi\":\"10.3280/SPE2017-001001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The notion of ‘creativity’ has taken on growing importance in the recent economic literature on happiness, motivations and life-satisfaction. Starting from the seminal contribution by Scitovsky, the effects of ‘creative’ goods and activities on consumers’ well-being, in connection with cultural, sociological, psychological and educational aspects, have been analyzed. An increasing interest in these concepts has also recently been shown by policy-makers and international institutions (see, e.g., the UNCTAD/UNESCO Reports on Creative Economy, 2010, 2013, 2016). On the other hand, a clear analytical definition of this category of goods and activities and searching investigation into its peculiar characteristics in comparison with other types of products and activities, broadly defined as comfort or defensive ones, is still lacking in economic literature. This is why, despite its wide use, the nature of the distinction and the role it should play in economic analysis still remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. The aim of this paper is to provide a contribution to help clarify this distinction by reconstructing and comparing its original meaning and purpose in the works of Scitovsky (1976, 1992) and Hawtrey (1925) - the first economists who attributed a fundamental role to the notion of ‘creative’ goods in their analyses of consumption behavior.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Economic Thought and Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"5-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Economic Thought and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3280/SPE2017-001001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Economic Thought and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/SPE2017-001001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在最近关于幸福、动机和生活满意度的经济文献中,“创造力”的概念变得越来越重要。从Scitovsky的开创性贡献开始,从文化、社会学、心理学和教育方面分析了“创造性”商品和活动对消费者幸福感的影响。政策制定者和国际机构最近也对这些概念表现出越来越大的兴趣(例如,见贸发会议/联合国教科文组织关于创意经济的报告,201020132016)。另一方面,经济文献中仍然缺乏对这类商品和活动的明确分析定义,以及与其他类型的产品和活动(广义上定义为舒适型或防御性产品和活动)相比,对其独特特征的深入调查。这就是为什么尽管这种区分被广泛使用,但其性质及其在经济分析中应发挥的作用仍然有些模糊和模棱两可。本文的目的是通过重建和比较Scitovsky(19761992)和Hawtrey(1925)的著作中的原意和目的,为澄清这一区别做出贡献。这两位经济学家在分析消费行为时,将“创造性”商品的概念作为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
At the origin of the notion of ‘creative’ goods in economics: Scitovsky and Hawtrey
The notion of ‘creativity’ has taken on growing importance in the recent economic literature on happiness, motivations and life-satisfaction. Starting from the seminal contribution by Scitovsky, the effects of ‘creative’ goods and activities on consumers’ well-being, in connection with cultural, sociological, psychological and educational aspects, have been analyzed. An increasing interest in these concepts has also recently been shown by policy-makers and international institutions (see, e.g., the UNCTAD/UNESCO Reports on Creative Economy, 2010, 2013, 2016). On the other hand, a clear analytical definition of this category of goods and activities and searching investigation into its peculiar characteristics in comparison with other types of products and activities, broadly defined as comfort or defensive ones, is still lacking in economic literature. This is why, despite its wide use, the nature of the distinction and the role it should play in economic analysis still remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. The aim of this paper is to provide a contribution to help clarify this distinction by reconstructing and comparing its original meaning and purpose in the works of Scitovsky (1976, 1992) and Hawtrey (1925) - the first economists who attributed a fundamental role to the notion of ‘creative’ goods in their analyses of consumption behavior.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Market Failures and Multi-layered Collective Action. US Economic Debates The Impossibility of a Paretian (Il)liberal. A Historical Review Around Sen's Liberalism (1970-1996) Facing Stagflation in the Seventies in Italy: Fausto Vicarelli's Economic Policy Proposals Louis Brandeis - Founding Father of Modern-Day Antitrust? Book review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1