1,721,017 research outputs found
Meacci (Ferdinando) - La Grecia, analisi di un sistema produttivo.
No full textBousquet G.-H. Meacci (Ferdinando) - La Grecia, analisi di un sistema produttivo.. In: Revue économique, volume 23, n°1, 1972. p. 159
The new graduation system and the new institutions for raising university funds in Italy (El nuevo sistema de graduacion y las nuevas istitutiones para financiar las universidades italianas)
Full text linkIntroduction - Special issue on Shackle
No full textThe papers presented in this special issue of Metroeconomica are a sequel to a workshop on “Shackle’s Heritage in Economics: Micro and Macro Aspects” held at the University of Padova in 2006. This initiative should also be viewed as a sequel to two monographic issues on Shackle published in this journal in 1959 with contributions by Akerman, Arrow, Keirstead, Lachmann and others. The relation between Shackle and Metroeconomica goes back to 1949 when the first issue of this journal, founded by the Italian economist Eraldo Fossati, came out with Shackle’s article Probability and Uncertainty and continued into the 1950s with the publication of further articles that were to disseminate the views advanced in Shackle’s 1949 book Expectation in Economics
Review Article on "Old and New Growth Theories: An Assessment", pp.XV-348; and "The Theory of Economic Growth. A 'Classical' Perspective", pp.XIII-395, Neri Salvadori ed., Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 2003
No full textEndogenous growth theory (EGT) was launched by Romer (1986) and Lucas (1988) over 10 years ago. Its initial developments are featured in Grossman and Helpman (1991), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995), Aghion and Howitt (1998) while its further growth is promoted by the quarterly issues of the Journal of Economic Growth which was founded in 1996. Ever since the new models appeared, they have been welcomed as the rebirth of a theory which, despite the dry spell of the 1970s and earlier major shifts in the skies of high theory, is as old as economics itself. Looking at this rebirth from a distance, one may feel prone to ask a few questions. Is, for instance, this rebirth but a fashion doomed to wane in our research interests and discussions? And whether doomed or not, how does it relate to other theories of growth, be they of the “magnificent” kind (in Baumol’s terms) worked out by the classics or of the narrower kind exhibited in the models of the moderns
Different Employment of Capitals in Vertically Integrated Sectors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought, Crete, March 14-17, 2002
No full textThe disappointment of expectations and the theory of fluctuations
No full textThe role of errors in time (Fanno, 1933) or disappointment of expectations (Hicks, 1933) in the theory of fluctuations was a major object of analysis in the years of high theory (Shackle, 1967) when the paradigm of General Equilibrium Theory was replaced by the new paradigm of the Economics of Uncertainty and Expectations. The scope of this paper is to re-evaluate this object of analysis in the light of the evolution of the theory of fluctuations ever since. The paper is divided in two Parts. Part I provides a unified account of how the main authors of the years of high theory (Keynes, Hayek, Hicks) dealt with expectations and their disappointment in their theory of fluctuations. Part II provides instead a brief account and assessment of the major constructions worked out by the main authors of what is here called the “years of rational expectations”. The paper shows how the focus on errors in time has been replaced in the latter period by a set of assumptions and arguments which either neglect the impact of the disappointment of expectations on macroeconomic disequilibrium and fluctuations or even exclude the very possibility of this disappointment. The paper concludes by highlighting the decreasing scope and relevance of the theory of fluctuations as one moves from the years of high theory to the recent years of rational expectations
From bounties on exportation to the natural and market price of labour: Smith versus Ricardo
Full text linkSchumpeter’s remarks on Ricardo’s criticisms of Smith’s system of thought (1954, p.472) can be further articulated by noting that while Ricardo’s most explicit and fundamental criticisms reach a climax in his chapter On Value, a number of explicit criticisms are concerned with apparently more specific or practical issues. One of these issues can be found in Chapter XXII, Bounties on Exportation, and Prohibitions of Importation of his Principles. This chapter provides a criticism of Chapter V, Of Bounties, Book IV of the Wealth of Nations and is intended to prove that “perhaps in no part of Adam Smith’s justly celebrated work, are his conclusions more liable to objection, than in the chapter on bounties” (1821, p.304). The historical relevance of Ricardo’s criticisms on this issue is confirmed in two opposite directions. One goes back to the years between the fist edition of the Wealth and that of Ricardo’s Principles. The other brings us forward to the years of Sraffa’s publication of Ricardo’s works and to the following revival of interest on Ricardo’s thought, either as such or as an alternative to Smith’s. Thus the issue has eventually fallen into the hands, or between the lines, of a growing number of authors who have dealt with Ricardo’s or Smith’s systems of thought in recent years. Among these recent authors are Peach (1993, 2008, 2009), S. Hollander (1973, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1987 [1992], 1992), O’Brien (1981 [2004]), O’Donnell (1990), West (1982), Gibbard (1994), Samuelson (1977, 1992), Elmslie (2004), Hueckel (2000a, 2000b, 2009) and others.
The scope of this paper is narrower than that of the whole literature developed in the two periods above. It will not be confined, however, to the details of Ricardo’s criticisms of Smith’s argument but will reach for the analytical foundations both of these criticisms and of that argument. At this deeper level, the paper will be structured so as to provide, wherever possible, Smith’s virtual self-defence against Ricardo’s criticisms. Thus it will proceed by assessing, fist, whether or to what extent Smith and Ricardo are on this particular issue consistent “with themselves”, i.e. with the foundations (or other parts) of their different works; and, secondly, whether Ricardo’s criticisms are based on a misunderstanding of at least some of the foundations (or other parts) of his predecessor’s work. Smith’s virtual self-defence will be carried out by focusing on some diverging foundations of his system vis-à-vis Ricardo’s and, more particularly, on the temporary vs. permanent, money vs. real and market vs. natural price of labour (work to be done) as distinct from the temporary vs. permanent, money vs. real and market vs. natural price of commodities as products of labour (work don
From bounties on exportation to the natural and market price of labour: Smith versus Ricardo
No full text
- …
