As bases filosóficas da taxonomia de Keynes e a contribuição ao pluralismo econômico

The Article presents a brief survey of economic history, by emphasizing the earlier history of neo-classical economic theory and the economic theory of marginal utility. The Articles does so for exploring the relation of game theory or the strategic game to developments in the field or science of economics, especially developments in economic thought occurring during the earlier marginal revolution or the economic history of marginalism. By doing so, the Article intends to show, though most attribute the new science of modern game theory to the field of mathematics, that the influence of corresponding or correlating developments in the field, science or discipline of economics was equally influential in the birth of game theory or the strategic game.

Economic Scientist, Economic and Social Reformer: An overview of the career and contributions of Irving Fisher (1867–1947) of Yale, an outstanding scientific economist whose reputation within the discipline of economics has recovered from his varied efforts at social reform (prohibition of alcohol, a new world map projection, dietary reform, a new calendar, eugenics) and being spectacularly wrong about the stock market in October 1929.

Avner Offer and Gabriel Soderberg The Nobel Factor, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016; xv1 1 +323 pp.: ISBN 9780691166032 (hbk), 24.95[pounds sterling] Avner Offer and Gabriel Soderberg pose the question, Is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (more often referred to, albeit incorrectly, as the Nobel Prize in Economics) more like the Nobel Prize in physics or in literature? The Nobel raised the profile of economics, in particular economics of a neoliberal variety. But it also demonstrated that the discipline of economics does not hang together as a consistent set of scientific 'laws'. As Offer and Soderberg put it, On three occasions [the prize] ... was given to scholars whose doctrines were incompatible with each other. Prize winners have dismissed the work of other prize winners ... Eight NPWs [Nobel Prize Winners] have argued that the core doctrines of economics are wrong, and three others have expressed reservations, (p. 260) The authors point out that in the hard sciences this lack of a central core of theory upon which scholars can agree would be unthinkable. The conclusion that Offer and Soderberg draw us to in this book is that economics is not a dismal science. It is not science at all. Offer and Soderberg demonstrate that if the Nobel exposed fundamental tensions at the heart of economics, it nevertheless served to give the discipline a heightened profile. Through a series of Bass diagrams, populated with data relating to the publications of Nobel winners, the authors demonstrate that the prize invariably been awarded at the peak of its winners' publishing careers. Its award codifies, Soloman-like, what counts as excellence within economics (pp. 125-148). Cast in the reflected glory of the prizes that were established by Alfred Nobel, the economics prize, as 'Peter Nobel, Alfred's great-great nephew, later wrote ...: has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it is a PR coup by the economists to improve their reputation' (p. 103). And given the lavish ostentation and broad publicity that accompanies the prize's award, with full page spreads in the financial and popular press, the coup seems to have been a success. Offer and Soderberg demonstrate that, interestingly, only a few Nobel winners have had 'staying power' in terms of citations after the award of the prize. Milton Friedman is one example (pp. 132-133). And just occasionally, a Nobel restored a flagging citation count as in the case of Friedrich Hayek (whose Bass diagram therefore enjoys two curves, one pre- and one post-Nobel). But, of course, the Nobel Prize cannot recognize the achievements of those economists who pre-dated the award of the prize. Offer and Soderberg show that year-on-year, Keynes performs well against the top Nobel Prize winners, judged by citations, and Adam Smith and Karl Marx dwarf even the highest cited prize winners such as Friedman and Hayek. Yet Marx would not have been awarded the Nobel. And even J. K. Galbraith's economics was too radical for the committee. Nevertheless, economics is a broad church and so Offer and Soderberg investigate what aspects of economics the Nobel validated. The headline news is that the Nobel favours market-liberal (to use Offer and Soderberg's terminology, readers of Capital and Class will read for this neoliberal') economics. However, this is not because the majority of the prizes are awarded to economists of a market-liberal bent. …

Abstract. Intellectual pedigrees, reviews of the intellectual history of a theory, perform important functions in economic science. The discipline of economics is comprised of numerous, competing Paradigm‐schools. Therefore, both ‘normal and ‘revolutionary’ science occur continuously in economics. In normal science, pedigrees place current work in the context of an on going research program, demonstrate the “significance” of that work, influence the process of theory appraisal, and aid in establishing Professional consensus. J. M. Keynes' use of pedigrees in his General Theory illustrates their revolutionary functions. During revolutionary science, pedigrees establish the identity, legitimacy, relevancy and authority of one school of economists and seek to persuade nonmembers to convert their allegiance to its disciplinary matrix.

The latest financial and economic crises have undermined the confidence in the economic science and its methods, fundamentally. Now, the discipline of economics is looking for a new methodological guiding principle. Neuroeconomics, or Imperfect Knowledge Economics, emerged from this search for a New Economic Paradigm. Both schools of economic thought are highly methodology driven and limited in scope. Therefore, they cannot be used as a blueprint for a new philosophy of economics, which is able to replace the Positivist Research Paradigm. Even worse, the analysis of this thesis and the economic turbulences of the last decade, have shown that pure positive economics is impossible. This, however, does not also imply that only normative economics is possible. Nor does it imply that economics is not a science. Rather it is the case that the methodology and particularly the aims and the expectations concerning the generality of economic conclusions have to be revised.

Scientific research on the prospects for the development of education and science in Ukraine in the context of European integration and information transformation is considered at almost every scientific conference and is present in government decisions of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. However, there are still many unsolved questions (and often debatable) about the prospects for recognizing economics specialties in the new system of adaptation to the International Standard for the Classification of Education, which requires detailed revision. Simultaneously, given the positive trends in the development of the digital economy in Ukraine, we believe that it is worth exploring the possibility of developing a methodological approach to the digital assessment of a scientist. The article considers the analysis of economics specialties that were enshrined in the system of higher education in Ukraine before 2015 and further on, taking into account adaptation to international standards. However, blind copying of foreign standards has buried alive the economic science itself, which was based on marketing, accounting and auditing, and finance. Therefore, the publication presents a graphical model of the relationship between economics specialties through the analysis of the fundamental understanding of its individual directions. It is also emphasized that it is necessary to enshrine in the economic science the specialty «Management (by kinds of economic activity)» at the master’s and doctoral levels of higher education. This can be justified by the fact that not all specialists in a particular sector of the economy (educators, employees of health care institutions, etc.), although they are professionals in their field, due to the lack of knowledge in various disciplines of management and economics, can be efficient managers. Management is one of the directions of economic science, the subject of study of which is the search for methods of rational organization of the production system on the basis of marketing, financial and accounting support for the creation and realization of consumer value and obtaining the planned profit. The number of higher education institutions in each region allows creating new and improving traditional educational programs directly for the specific features of regional business. Thus, further research should be aimed at studying individual educational programs of economic specialties in the regions of Ukraine in order to form a national strategy for the development of higher education for subsequent years. Regarding the development of scientific research in the context of the formation of a digital society, we propose to create a web platform for assessing the scientific activities of scientists based on the results of conferences, seminars or forums on the basis of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (MES) in cooperation with other educational and scientific organizations. The algorithm of actions should be as follows: an educational and scientific organization coordinates with the MES the relevant scheduled conference; a scientific platform is created on the website of the MES, where interested conference participants register personal pages and which are open to other registered participants; the latter send materials to the educational and scientific organization holding the conference; the educational and scientific organization forms a scientific manual in electronic format, each article of which is displayed simultaneously on the personal page of the conference participant; in the future, each registered participant may, if desired, express his own scientifically based comment and rate for this material (0–100 points). Therefore, further scientific research should be aimed at determining the classification criteria in establishing points for scientific material in accordance with the assessment «Excellent, can be implemented (90–100 points)» to «Unsatisfactory, requires significant revision (up to 50 points)».

The economics and strategy literature is a useful resource for professionals and policy-makers involved in patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights (IPRs). Understanding how this knowledge accumulates is crucial for identifying, analyzing, evaluating, anticipating, and managing intangible assets. The role of IPR seems to be a touchstone for decision-makers as IPRs stand in the middle of micro and macro perspectives. Notwithstanding, it remains unclear how IPRs are interpreted differently across communities. This paper uses bibliographic data to identify, classify and assess research documents around IPR topics from the Economics discipline and from the Strategic perspective. For this, we investigate the trajectories of IPR-related research in the top-10 journals of both economic science and business strategy. Evidence shows new contributions have trended upwards at similar rates in both disciplinary realms. The stylised facts uncovered may be of use to leaders and experts in IPR offices who need to be up-to-date with the scientific literature but want to build panoramic awareness and retain critical insight.

If you think of Reinhard Selten, you might first think of his outstanding contributions to game-theory which were honored with the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1994. 1 At the same time, you might think of his devotion to the field of bounded rationality and his continual effort to promote the use of experiments in the Economic discipline (interestingly, his first journal publication in 1959 was not a theoretical, but an experimental paper featuring Cournot oligopoly models). 2 By jointly using theoretical and empirical methods, he wants “[...] to build up a descriptive branch of decision and game theory which takes the limited rationality of human behavior seriously.” 3 This aim is of utmost importance, because only then will we be able to develop worthwhile economic models that enable us to understand and predict how people behave in certain economic situations.

Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (PSF) primarily reflects on culture as a system of normative domains that are path-dependently configured. PSF elaborates on the domains of myth/religion, language, and science, but misses a discussion of the economy. By sketching a corresponding exposition, we contribute to the ongoing discussion of how economic science may investigate the world beyond utility functions. Our argument proceeds along historical and comparative lines with a ‘reciprocal comparison’ of the medieval economies of Europe and Japan. We thus approach the normative essence of economic thought and behaviour and test its variability in socio-cultural contexts diverging from ‘now’ and ‘here’. Our sketch of the economy as a symbolic form has important implications for the theoretical understanding of change in social systems. We argue that existing factors of change recognised in the economics discipline, such as fluctuations in supply and demand, and institutional innovation, critically require a superposition with patterns of cognition as they guide agents in their grasp of economic problems and, consequently, in their responses that shape material economies. We suggest that conceiving of the economy as a symbolic form makes these patterns of cognition accessible.

Discussions about the relationship of sports science to each of its disciplines can be traced back to the years of establishment of sports science. For the comparably young discipline of sports economics these considerations are currently still lacking. Historically, besides applying economic approaches to sports one can also identify non-economic traditions of dealing with economic phenomena in sports. Within both lines of tradition different terms for the phenomena to be examined are used. Reflecting the development of these two lines of tradition of sports economics with respect to the established philosophical positions of Popper’s falsificationism, to Kuhn’s paradigmatic development as a consequence of normal science and scientific revolution, as well as to Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs, a number of implications arise for the development status of sports economics as an economic discipline both for its position in relation to sports science and economic science and regarding developments of further theories.

There is a crisis in business ethics. In part, this crisis stems from the prevailing method of applying ethical theories to business issues. In most cases, applied business ethics extracts the basic principles from an ethical theory – usually Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Kant’s metaphysics of morals, or Mill’s utilitarianism – and uses these concepts as so many tools with which to solve managerial problems. Instrumentalism is a valid approach to such problems, and it would be absurd to suggest that ethical theories from the history of philosophy should be used only by philosophers who have understood them within their historical, socioeconomic and cultural contexts. However, applied ethics takes it for granted that economic problems have emerged and are recognized by those who would apply these ethical theories to solve them. The preface to most major philosophical works is spent making the argument that such recognition has been lacking, and that a new philosophical method is required to find the solution to a moral, ethical, religious, scientific or political problem. In short, the crisis in business ethics is also caused by economic theories that distort economic experience and thereby hide phenomena that would otherwise demand ethical clarification. Philosophy can mitigate this crisis by explaining the metaphysical, epistemological and methodological context for the theoretical tools business people use to make business decisions. The science responsible for manufacturing these tools is economics; and in this essay, I will apply the philosophy of Edmund Husserl to the economic theory of Joseph Schumpeter in order to explain how economic theory based on empiricist philosophical principles produces concepts that distort our experience of the economy. In particular, I will show that Schumpeter’s empiricist epistemology causes him to mistake his own theoretical constructions for the real economy and its processes. In turn, I will illustrate how Alan Greenspan distorts economic realities when employing Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction.” The purpose of this analysis is to show how the science of economics can create a fundamental disconnect between the economy as it is lived by those within it and the economy as it appears to people whose experience is refined by economic theory.

Regional income disparities are one of the most important topics in the disciplines of economic geography, regional science and economics. The well-known study by Williamson (1965) made clear that they follow an inverted U-shape curve temporally, implying that disparities diverge in an early phase and then converge in a later phase. In the 1980's, however, advanced capitalist countries experienced a divergence or slowing-down of convergence in regional income disparities. These new trends have recently stimulated theoretical and empirical investigations on this theme. This paper, taking up the Canadian experience in the postwar period, seeks to elucidate minute temporal changes in the income disparities and to explain it.To begin with, theoretical standpoints in the existing literature are outlined. As is well known, there are three dominant perspectives on this theme: the equilibrium, disequilibrium and transition points of view (Lipshitz, 1992). However, it is important to recognize not only the differences among the three, but also similarities: each perspective has referred to the direction of convergence of regional income disparities in advanced countries. Note that even Myrdal, who has been regarded as a typical proponent of the disequilibrium perspective, paid attention to the possibilities of temporal reduction in the disparities (Myrdal, 1957, pp. 37-38). Therefore, taking the experiences of the 1980's into consideration, the findings below must have the significance of revisiting the existing explanatory frameworks.In the second section, the long-term trend of regional income inequalities in Canada during the period 1951-1989 is clarified. To avoid a one-sided approach associated with a particular measure, the changing inter-provincial differentials of personal income per capita are specified using Gini's coefficient and the coefficient of variation (Figure 2), and Theil's measure (Figure 3). The curves in the figures show a generally similar trend: the disparities gradually decreased from the early 1950's to the late 1960's and dropped sharply in the early 1970's. During the decade since the mid-1970's, it was rather steady in spite of a slight expansion at the beginning of the 1980's. Worthy of note in the second half of the 1980's is an obvious widening of the diparities. Such trend resembles those found in other advanced countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan.As shown in Figure 3, Theil's measure enables us to decompose the observed total inequalities into three additive components: the disparities within the eastern provinces (Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec), the one within western provinces (Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia) and the one between these two regions. The converging total disparities is, to a certain degree, attributed to the third component of the disparities, which is the largest contributor among the three and showed a remarkable reduction from the 1950's to the 1970's. The expanding disparities within western provinces during the 1980's are responsible for the diverging total disparities.In the third section, the role of fiscal transfers on the changing regional income inequalities is examined. Myrdal and Williamson suggested that central government's policies, including fiscal transfers, can reduce regional disparities. This suggestion is verified here. Province-specific regression analysis is undertaken to explain the trend of regional disparities (Tt), shown at Figure 3, by the transition of the rate of government transfer income in provincial personal income (Gpt). The results obtained based on the equation (6) (see Table 2) imply that, while increase of the government transfer in personal income has raised a particular province's income level to near the national level for the cases of the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec

This study investigates the factors influencing surname initial techniques in academic publications and their impact on citation counts. Focusing on the disciplines of Economics, Psychology, Political Science, and Sociology, we utilized data from the top 500 universities listed in the Shanghai List. Examining 70.377 academic publications from 2.278 academics published between 2011 and 2020, the study reveals that alphabetical ordering is more prevalent in Economics and Political Science. Academics with surnames placed at the beginning of the alphabet in these fields experience increased visibility and recognition. Conversely, those with surnames placed at the end of the alphabet face disadvantages and often employ strategies such as changing surname initials, using hyphenated surnames, or adding prefixes to improve their positioning in the author list of the article. These strategies, influenced by factors like the number of authors, country of origin, gender and whether the advantage is gained or not in positioning of author list, help mitigate the unfairness caused by alphabetization and positively contribute to authors’ citation statistics.

The raison d'être of natural science is to provide knowledge and to control natural processes. Most economists believe that they should practise economics in the same manner, i.e. accumulate knowledge of the behaviour of men and of the economy that enables the powerful to control other people's behaviour with increasing efficiency. This paper argues that in doing so, economists forget the moral basis of their science and thereby miss the raison d'être of economics. The true purpose of the distinctive ‘science of political economy’ is to design alternative legal structures and to evaluate their potentialities in enhancing efficiency in the exploitation of the mutuality of advantage. This means that the ‘science of political economy’ is categorically distinct from the ‘science of economics’. The former uses the knowledge of behavioural regularities, which the latter may discover, in order to allow the community of free individuals to make informed institutional choices. This approach has, as a necessary prerequisite, a different conception of human nature from that used by the ‘science of economics’, which characterizes human beings as mere net‐wealth maximizing beasts. Such an assumption makes the stability of civil order totally incomprehensible. The ‘science of political economy’ also leads to quite different consequences as to a proper understanding of government and of society. The paper discusses the differences between a morally indifferent ‘science of economics' or behavioural theory, and a morally relevant ‘science of political economy’ and urges social scientists to remember the basic truths of their forefathers, the moral philosophers of the 18th century.

'A Wealth of Creations' was an exceptional exhibition that showed work of economists that are also (semi) professional artists, including Hans Abbing, Rosella Bargiachi, William Baumol, Peeter Burgeik, Mark Eyskens, Gerrit faber, Erik Klossterhuis, Jan Pen, Winand Starring and Roefie Huetink. In A Wealth of Creations no less than nine economists from Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands and the United States showed their artistic work to the public in what is the first time that an international exhibition of economist-artists on this scale took place. The artists in this exhibition as a group (and often individually) master the relevant disciplines in modern economics: micro, macro, international economics,development economics, political economy and even sociology and history of thought. Indeed, the class of 'A Wealth of Creations' is an exceptional breed including six PhDs, four (part-time) professors and a former Minister of Economic Affairs. In a sense this should not come as a surprise, because the artistic way clearly adds value: thinking out of the box, relying on your intuition and curiosity form the fertile breeding ground for both economic science and policy. The catalogues provides an introduction by Peter A.G. van Bergeijk and Gerrit Faber that gives an overview of the work and motivation of the artist-economist. Further more short bio's and 4-pagers on the link beteen economics and art are provided by each artist.