521 research outputs found
Post Walrasian Macro Policy and the Economics of Muddling Through
No full textThis paper expands on my earlier discussion of Post Walrasian macroeconomics policy. (Colander and van Ess 1996) First, it defines what I mean by Post Walrasian macroeconomics. Second, it discusses some of the theoretical differences between Post Walrasian and Walrasian macro theorizing as they relate to policy. Finally, it discusses how an acceptance of Post Walrasian economics might change the focus of macro policy discussions.
The Myth of the Myth of the Rational Voter
No full textThis paper argues that Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter overstates in case against democracy by not dealing with what might be called the historical/instrumentalist argument for democracy. It argues that the case for democracy that he attacks is primarily an academic exercise, which makes his argument against that case also an academic exercise. It further argues that the supposed policy choice that Caplan presents between the market and democracy is not the correct choice, and that his proposals that economists should be given more voting weight in the democratic decision process is inappropriate.
Information and Pollution Permit Markets
No full textIn a recent article Smith and Yates (Smith and Yates, 2003) argued that regulators could gain additional information about the optimal number of permits to issue from two-sided markets. This paper argues that they are incorrect in their assertion because the market they refer to is an asymmetric two-sided market in which individuals are only allowed to decrease the number of permits. When a symmetric two-sided market is considered, the public good nature of the problem makes it unlikely that any useful information can come from a two-sided market.
Information and Pollution Permit Markets
No full textIn a recent article Smith and Yates (Smith and Yates, 2003) argued that regulators could gain additional information about the optimal number of permits to issue from two-sided markets. This paper argues that they are incorrect in their assertion because the market they refer to is an asymmetric two-sided market in which individuals are only allowed to decrease the number of permits. When a corrct two-sided market is considered, the public good nature of the problem makes it unlikely that any useful information can come from a two-sided market.
The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science
No full textWhen heterodox economists talk of pluralism they generally are talking about pluralism within the economics professionÑthey are asking: how can we have a more pluralistic economics profession? This paper argues that another, perhaps more useful, way to think of pluralism and economics is from the perspective of all the social sciences. When looked in reference to the social science profession rather than in reference to the economics profession, the amount of pluralism increases significantly, since different social sciences follow quite different methodologies. But looking at pluralism from the social science perspective reveals a different type of pluralism problem in social science. While there may be plenty of pluralism within social science as a whole, there is a serious question about whether it is appropriately distributed. This paper argues that heterodox economistÕs agenda should be a greater blending of all the social science departments. It summarizes proposals to do so on both the undergraduate level and graduate level, and explains why supporting variations of these proposals would be a strategy that would further the objectives of most heterodox economists more so than would their current strategy of pushing for more pluralism in economics.Pluralism; heterodox; social science; epistemic game theory
Where economics went wrong: Chicago's abandonment of classical liberalism/ David Colander and Craig Freedman.
No full textIncludes bibliographical references (pages 241-254) and index.How modern economics abandoned classical liberalism and lost its way. Milton Friedman once predicted that advances in scientific economics would resolve debates about whether raising the minimum wage is good policy. Decades later, Friedman's prediction has not come true. In Where Economics Went Wrong, David Colander and Craig Freedman argue that it never will. Why? Because economic policy, when done correctly, is an art and a craft. It is not, and cannot be, a science. The authors explain why classical liberal economists understood this essential difference, why modern economists abandoned it, and why now is the time for the profession to return to its classical liberal roots. Carefully distinguishing policy from science and theory, classical liberal economists emphasized values and context, treating economic policy analysis as a moral science where a dialogue of sensibilities and judgments allowed for the same scientific basis to arrive at a variety of policy recommendations. Using the University of Chicago-one of the last bastions of classical liberal economics-as a case study, Colander and Freedman examine how both the MIT and Chicago variants of modern economics eschewed classical liberalism in their attempt to make economic policy analysis a science. By examining the way in which the discipline managed to lose its bearings, the authors delve into such issues as the development of welfare economics in relation to economic science, alternative voices within the Chicago School, and exactly how Friedman got it wrong. Contending that the division between science and prescription needs to be restored, Where Economics Went Wrong makes the case for a more nuanced and self-aware policy analysis by economists.Sweet science : engineering a new approach to economic policy -- A classical garden of liberal economics : policy versus abstraction -- Planting the seeds of a Chicago tradition -- Ashes and diamonds : the rise of the Chicago School -- What has Chicago wrought? Painting policy by the numbers -- Economic policy becomes a science : the rise of welfare economics, and the Chicago alternative -- Roads not taken : the Stillborn Virginia School of Economics -- The classical liberal "argumentation for the sake of heaven" alternative -- The art and craft of economics : the classical liberal attitude.1 online resource (xii, 267 pages
What Was “It” that Robbins Was Defining?
No full textThis paper argues that Robbins’ famous definition of economics was of “economic science” which he saw as only a narrow branch of the field of economics. Moreover, it was descriptive, not prescriptive, and was simply a statement that that was what economists were then doing in the science of economics. His prescriptive message was that policy belonged in the “political economy” branch of economics, and that the science of economics should avoid value judgments, but that political economy should include value judgments. That prescriptive message has been lost.
- …
