Revival Of Economics Research Articles

Toward a “Prodigious Revival of French Economics”? Allais, Debreu, and the Dead Loss Controversy (1943–51)

Abstract This article aims to trace the hitherto little-known controversy involving Maurice Allais, François Divisia, Harold Hotelling, and Gérard Debreu in the immediate postwar years. The controversy turned on “dead loss,” a measure of the maximum value of available surplus serving as a gauge of economic efficiency and social welfare. The protagonists argued about how it should be expressed mathematically, the hypothesis underpinning it, and its general significance. The paper draws heavily on unpublished materials (letters and notes) to unfold the different stages of the dead loss controversy and shows that it was driven by an intricate interlacing of technical advances in welfare economics with Allais's personal ambition to spearhead the revival of French economics. Eventually, this controversy (and the tense exchange between Allais and Debreu that came with it) proved a remarkable—although tacit—driving force behind Debreu's contributions of the early 1950s.

Economic Insanity

AbstractRichard Giles, a leading Australian Georgist political economist, suggests that criticisms of mainstream economics can be reduced to three: neglect of the Physiocrats, rejection of Georgist political economy, and the attempted revival of Georgist land economics with faulty variants of those principles. Yet, in defending Georgism, Giles fails to show it can resolve the legacies of chattel slavery, colonialism, and neocolonialism. Despite that limitation, Giles shows that the renewal of land economics is essential to achieving economic justice. Along the way, Giles provides original insights about the limitations of modern monetary theory, the Malthusian economics of global migration, and the rise of global nationalism.

Yes, there is enough money to decarbonize the economies of high-income countries justly and sustainably

This year a number of factors have converged to substantially increase the impetus for a credible, effective programme to radically decarbonize the economies of high-income countries, particularly in the EU but also more broadly, in ways that would reduce economic inequality and are just and sustainable. These include the European Commission’s European Green Deal, Coronavirus Recovery Plan and revamped Hydrogen Strategy; international calls for a green, sustainable and just coronavirus recovery; a global revival of Keynesian supply-side economics; and increasing interest in direct central bank funding of government stimulus programmes. In this essay I offer a first attempt to draw these elements together to suggest what might be a coherent strategy for action, at least for countries with stable, resilient currencies. One of the key elements would be for central banks to finance their governments’ decarbonization programmes directly by buying government bonds and holding them in perpetuity as insurance against misallocation of funds. The losers in such a strategy would be elements in the finance sector which have come to rely on virtually free bailouts and handouts from central banks via quantitative easing programmes. Resistance to the proposed strategy would probably be fierce from these quarters.

Tariffs under Globalization 3.0

The aim of this study is to examine the role that tariffs could possibly play beyond an infant industry argument, by considering three scenarios on how a technological competition can evolve, an approach that is built on the principle of fairness. At Davos, World Economic Forum (2019) characterized globalization as evolving from the old silk road (Globalization 1.0) to now possibly entering a phase of Globalization 4.0. The possibility of the new phase of globalization is partially triggered by a de-globalization movement grounded on populist sentiment and a promotion of “me-first” rather than a “win-win”, moving away from the neoclassical framework of international trade based on the balance of current account and capital account, the principle by which Globalization 3.0 has operated for many years. Some country leaders blatantly ignored standard textbook framework on international trade, advocating fair trade principle based on zero current account balance as the ideal. The threat of raising tariffs as a policy tool can escalate into an excuse for a revival of Keynesian economics applied globally, resulting in “lose-lose” rather than “win-win” outcome that neoclassical economics advocates. Can tariffs be rationalized beyond an attempt to pursue Keynesian economics? With a game-theoretical perspective heuristically explained in a neoclassical framework of international trade, this study further evaluates the possible consequences of tariffs under Globalization 3.0 and speculate on its effectiveness in promoting new concepts for Globalization 4.0. This study advocates that if a neoclassical approach to international trade will ever be revisited, an appropriate framework for discussing future policy must be used. It concludes that tariffs are ineffective in helping to facilitate the rules of a game that can determine the winner of a technological race under a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, which is not the whole part but nevertheless an important aspect of globalization 4.0.

Validity of Islamic Economicss Behavioral Assumptions: A Preliminary Discussion on Charity Giving

Economics literature witnessed the revival of Islamic economics over the last few decades as an alternative to conventional economic theory. Islamic economists criticized value-free nature and unrealistic assumptions of conventional economics and offered a new paradigm based on behavioral assumptions. Aim of this paper is to explore validity of these behavioral assumptions, in general, or more specifically, assumptions of Islamic economics concerning to giving. The validity of behavioral assumptions of IE and their results is rarely questioned in the literature. Particularly, empirical studies, in this regard, are very limited. This study aims to make a contribution to this methodological issue by analyzing country level charity data. Additionally, it also provides a modest contribution to empirical studies on charity/giving at the macro level. Results of the study shows that countries with more pious citizens give more than the others but found no difference between giving rates of Muslim-majority countries and the others. The finding is consistent with a limited number of other studies claiming that Muslims, in general, are not different from the others or are not behaving as described in Islamic economics. Increasing numbers of studies supporting findings of this study or raising questions about the validity of Islamic economics' assumptions may cause the Islamic economics to evolve in a different direction

Where Do We Go from Here?

AbstractThe left needs a fundamental rethinking of its politics for a new era. The first task is to understand the contemporary conjuncture: the dynamic combination of events and circumstances which structure a political settlement. Two such conjunctures have occurred in recent history. The first produced the postwar welfare settlement of 1945, which broke down in the economic crisis of the 1970s. The second took shape in the 1980s around the revival of liberal market economics and what became known as Thatcherism. It failed following the 2008 financial crash, and has begun to break apart with the vote to leave the EU. New political and cultural faultlines are confounding the orthodoxies of the governing class and cutting across the partisan loyalties of the main political parties. They herald the renewal of politics. But Labour is on the edge of an abyss. This article considers what the left can learn from Labour's previous periods of defeat and revisionism, and suggests where—if it survives—it should go next.

Toward Economic Sociology/Socio-Economics? Sociological Components in Contemporary Economics and Implications for Sociology

The paper argues and shows that much of contemporary economics undergoes a certain trend toward economic sociology or socio-economics, in virtue of increasingly acknowledging and incorporating various sociological components and influences. The paper identifies and considers at least four major related indicators of such a trend. These are, first, the revival of economic sociology or social economics; second, the renewal of the economic sociology of the market; third, the return of socio-economic institutionalism; and the rediscovery of cultural factors in the economy and markets. The paper suggests that in virtue of such a tendency at least in part contemporary economics appears increasingly congruent with modern economic sociology rather than with sociological rational choice theory. It aims to contribute to a more adequate account and understanding of pertinent recent tendencies in economics in respect of their implications for contemporary economic and other sociology. The paper infers that the renewal of economic sociology both within contemporary economics and sociology provides the fertile ground for interdisciplinary collaboration between economists and sociologists today, just as its early version did in the past.

Hayek, the Nobel, and the revival of Austrian economics

This paper re-evaluates the orthodox understanding of the role which the 1974 award of the Nobel Prize in Economics to F.A. Hayek had on the revival of Austrian Economics in the later part of the 20th century. The orthodox view, which focuses exclusively on the sociological role of the award on returning Austrian economists to the conversation among academic economists, omits the critical role of purely doctrinal developments. In particular, the work done in the decade 1937–1948 is argued to be central to the Austrian revival. In this decade, both Hayek and Mises independently developed new clarifications of Austrian thought which represented an extension of the subjectivist tradition in economics: Mises’ emphasis on human entrepreneurial action and Hayek’s exploration of the role of knowledge in the market process. The interest of a generation of younger academics to the ideas developed in that critical decade is thus understood to be the true cause of the Austrian revival, with the award of the Nobel Prize serving a catalytic rather than causative role.

A Scientific Revolution of Keynesian Economics: US Evidence

This paper is a scientific revolution in motion. Pragmatic empirical work is combined with macroeconomic theory to provide a scientific analysis of the influence of Keynesian theories on the performance the US economy since the Second World War. Despite recent decades of apparent revival of neoclassical economics, we show empirically that the US economy was, and still is, run under Keynesian economic policies. Testing the core theoretical assumption of Keynesian economics -- that economic growth is driven by consumption demand through the Keynesian multiplier -- we find that the assumption can be refuted by empirical evidence, which shows a rising trend in consumption, but declining growth. We pinpoint the mathematical error in the original work which has led to the Keynesian fallacy. The Keynesian multiplier is not an indicator, but an investment hurdle, for economic growth; therefore increasing the multiplier reduces growth. We demonstrate how the false theory has led to the secular decline in the US economy and to the currently extreme, but ineffective, fiscal and monetary policies pursued by the US government.

Sergey Glazyev and the revival of Soviet economics

A veteran Western observer and authority on Russia's political economy examines the recent debate on economic growth in Russia. Focusing on Sergey Glazyev, a prominent statist and nationalist favored by President Vladimir Putin, who reemerged at the top of the public debate, the author discusses the essence of his ideas (state capitalism, Eurasian integration, and expansionary fiscal and monetary policy). He proceeds to analyze the critical response of liberals, citing inter alia objections to loose fiscal and monetary policies. Russia's liberal economists favor broader international integration, whereas Putin is clearly in favor of state capitalism and Eurasian integration. This study ends with an up-to-date politico-economic assessment titled “Where is Putin going?”

On Adam Smith’s Ambiguities on Value and Wealth

David Ricardo’s criticisms of Adam Smith on value and wealth have been rather ignored in the recent revival of Ricardian economics. This essay intends to fill the gap by revisiting Smith’s link between value and wealth in the light of Ricardo’s criticisms. This is done in two steps. The first step is provided in section 1. This deals with Ricardo’s criticisms both of Say’s and Lauderdale’s criticisms of Smith and of Smith’s and Malthus’s arguments on the related issues of rent and the “annual produce of the land and labour of a country.” The second step is provided in section 2. The aim of this section is to dissolve Smith’s terminological inaccuracies or contradictions on the issue of value and wealth. This is done by highlighting the distinctions between the two points of view (of an individual and of society) and between the two aspects of labor (as work done and work to be done) that underlie Smith’s own system of thought. The article closes with a reappraisal of the principle of value as command of labor as work to be done in the economy as a whole and of Smith’s vision of a permanent increase in the natural price of labor (in Smith’s rather than in Ricardo’s sense) resulting from a continuous process of accumulation.

Contemporary Work in Austrian Economics

This article provides a brief survey of contemporary developments in the Austrian school of economics, signalling that: (i) the amount of Austrian research and the number of Austrian researchers is growing exponentially; (ii) good Austrian economists are not being marginalised by the economics profession; and (iii) there have been significant advances in our understanding of economics made recently. Scholars can embrace the second revival of Austrian economics and look confidently at the increasing academic credibility of the school.

From Heterodoxy to Orthodoxy and Vice Versa: Economics and Social Sciences in the Division of Academic Work

The term “heterodox economics” has been in existence for several decades. Recent revival of heterodox economics can be regarded as a growing criticism of economists within the own profession of economics. Modern economics is designed as a one-world-capitalism without history and without regional specifications, without institutions, and without real human agents. Heterodox approaches have the aim to underline that different institutions matter, including religion, language, family structures and networks, systems of education, and industrial relations. Taking the discussion within a broader framework of the history of science acknowledges divergencies and convergencies between different approaches in economics that are also in permanent decomposition. The discussion comes up with the interpretation that recent academic developments provide chances for new modes of intellectual reintegration of formerly disparate areas.

Evolutionary Institutional Economics

The economic system is not ultimately made of resources, but of institutions. And because economic systems differ in their institutions, their comparative performance can be (partially) explained by these differences. Moreover, institutional differences are the outcome of an evolutionary process, implying that as institutions evolve, so do economic systems. Institutional significance, institutional difference, and the causal connection to economic growth and development are all therefore central to the revival of Veblenian institutional economics (Brette 2006; Hodgson 2007). Yet, this will require more than just a refurbishment of original institutional economics with new micro insights from evolutionary psychology, experimental and behavioral economics, complexity theory, replicator dynamics, and game theory. Why? Because as Brette and Mehier (2005) also argue, it is better to begin with a general theory of economic evolution and locate institutions within this, than to start with institutions and derive a theory of the economy. Toward this end, I propose an evolutionary theory of economic institutions derived from the rule-based analytic framework of micro meso macro recently developed by Dopfer, Foster and Potts (2004); Dopfer (2005); and Dopfer and Potts (2004; 2007). In this framework, an institution is defined as a stable (meso) rule population as the outcome of a (meso) trajectory. The central analytic implication of the evolutionary theory of institutions is that an institution is essentially a meso - not a micro or macro - concept. A meso-centered theory of institutions may provide, in this view, a useful map of the various schools of institutional economics in terms of the different aspects of the meso unit they represent.

The Revival of Economics at the FTC in the 1960s

This paper examines the declining role of economists at the Federal Trade Commission between 1914 and 1960 and the subsequent growth in their role in the 1960s, including the unique role accorded the Chief Economist as advisor to the Commission and individual Commissioners. It discusses in detail five major contributions of the Bureau of Economics in the 1960s:(1) origins and evolution of a Line-of-Business Reporting Program; (2) contributions to a National Commission on Food Marketing; (3) report on Corporate Mergers; (4) affirmative Disclosure of the Octane Ratings of Gasoline; and (5) FTC Premerger Notification Programs.

Precious fire: Maud Russell and the Chinese Revolution

When Maud Russell (1893-1989) first sailed for China in 1917, she traveled as of a number of foreign dispatched by the YWCA to do Woman's Work for Woman. A product of the Progressive Era, she sought to bring the benefits of Christianity and Western civilization to a new generation of Chinese women struggling to find their own path to modernity in the wake of the 1911 Republican Revolution. Instead, over the next twenty-six years, Russell was herself transformed - from Christian liberal reformer to committed Marxist revolutionary. According to Karen Gamer, Russell's personal political trajectory paralleled that of the YWCA in China, which evolved during the 1920s and 1930s from a Westernled, middle-class-oriented institution into a Chinese-led organization that addressed the needs of revolutionary working women. Crossing class, race, and cultural boundaries to learn from their Chinese associates, Russell and a few other western YWCA secretaries developed a shared vision of feminist social change that included support for the Chinese Communist Party and its leadership. Returning to the United States during World War II, Russell joined American liberals and leftists in promoting government cooperation with the Soviet Union and other Communist Party-led states and movements. After the war her views, including her advocacy of a one world Progressive Party, collided with the anticommunist imperatives of the emerging Cold War. In response, Russell adopted a defensive and dogmatic pro-communist stance from which she would never retreat. During a long and at times lonely career as a radical activist and publisher of the Far East Reporter (1952-1989), Russell was defamed and investigated by the anticommunist right and embraced by the antiwar New Left Her notoriety as a proponent of friendship with the People's Republic of China soared during the restoration of U.S-China diplomatic relations in the 1970s, only to dissolve in the 1980s as she denounced the revival of capitalist economics in China on ideological grounds. Although Russell's own political vision may have narrowed over the years, Garner's reconstruction of her life broadens our understanding of U.S.-China relations during the twentieth century. Not only did Russell come to see her own country through the eyes of an ideological antagonist, she also brought to that vantage point the experiences of a modern American woman. As Garner shows, even if did not agree with Russell's views, could not deny the fervor of her commitment to gender equality, social justice, and internationalism.

Orthodoxy and heterodoxy in analyzing institutions

The rediscovery and analytical reconstitution are present tendencies in much of social science, especially economics and sociology. The emergence and expansion of the so‐called new institutional economics exemplify these tendencies as do attempts at revival and rehabilitation of the old institutional economics. Analogous tendencies have been manifested in sociology by the further development of economic sociology, especially by various reformulations of its classical premise of institutional structuration and embeddedness of economic behavior. Nevertheless, much of mainstream economics tends to neglect or play down certain salient divergences between the latter's neoclassical or orthodox institutionalism, and heterodox or critical institutionalism advanced by the old institutional economics as well as by economic sociology. Identifies and elaborates such divergences between these seemingly homologous varieties of institutionalism. Since institutionalist varieties and tendencies in both economics and sociology are considered, represents a contribution to an interdisciplinary treatment of social institutions, a treatment originally proposed by the old institutional economics of Veblen et al., the German historical school as well as by Weberian‐Durkheimian classical economic sociology.

Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature

Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature

Energy Economists and Economic Liberalism

Energy markets in many countries have been extensively liberalised in recent years as part of the revival of market economics. However, though ,everyone may believe in markets now', there are differences of opinion about what constitutes a competitive market. The perfect competition paradigm persists and leads to demands for state regulation to counteract 'imperfections' anti failures'. Energy economists should look more sceptically than they generally do at these calls for regulation, most of which have little to do with the 'public interest': in the long run the accretion of regulation may lead back to extensive state control.

Beyond Free Markets: The Revival of Activist Economics

Beyond Free Markets: The Revival of Activist Economics