Is System Dynamics Modelling of Relevance to Neoclassical Economists?

System dynamics modelling is a technique that is widely used in business, environmental and ecological applications. In the field of economics, however, it is less frequently used, and those that do use it are usually not professionally trained economists. One of the reasons for this is the perceived ideological differences between system dynamics modelling and neoclassical economics. System dynamics is classified in the literature as a heterodox approach. This article utilises a reputable framework from social theory to compare system dynamics modelling and neoclassical economics on ontological and epistemological grounds. This is the first known study to find congruency between these two approaches on this basis. System dynamics modelling has the potential to increase the range of modelling tools at the disposal of neoclassical economics, so long dominated by econometric and general equilibrium modelling approaches.     

Probability and the synthetic <Emphasis Type="Italic">a Priori</Emphasis>: A reply to block

Conclusion Contrary to Block, the synthetic a priori has little to do with our dispute. My critique of the Austrians is not that their methods are “unscientific,” but that their most distinctive positions are false or overstated. Yet Block’s latest reply does inadvertently make Austrian economics more reasonable. If synthetic a priori claims vary in degree of probability, they can no longer be treated as scientifically superior to empirical claims. Furthermore, while empirically testing absolutely certain synthetic a priori claims is pointless, empirically testing uncertain synthetic a priori claims is not. As is often the case with Austrians, Block is better at criticizing neoclassicals than he is at producing a sound alternative. He is right that most economists do not practice the logical positivism that they preach. He is also correct to maintain that logical positivism is mistaken. However, both of these problems can be resolved if neoclassical economists themselves adopt the Bayesian model of belief formation that they routinely apply to everyone else.     

经济人何以成为经济学之硬核：思想史的端倪

经济人之所以会成为现代主流经济学的硬核,从思想史的角度看,主要有两个重要的分水岭。一是,斯密关于“无形的手”之“预定协调”的观点赋予了自利行为的合理性,从而使得“自利”为后来的主流经济学家所片面强调,乃至赋予了个体行为以效用最大化这一偏至诉求。二是,边沁关于效用加总的功利主义原则赋予了个体效用的计量性,从而使得“效用”为后来主流经济学所普遍接受,乃至进一步发展了基于理性计算的数理模型化分析。显然,正是两者的结合,为经济人假设的出现及其在经济学中的支配地位奠定了思想史的基础。     

A paradigmatic change is needed for understanding the real market

Economics in China has been neoclassicalized in the past few decades. In this article, I argue that neoclassical economics is not a good theory of the market. It misleads both economists and government in understanding the economic issues. China is particularly vulnerable to its defects. In contrast, the Austrian School of economics is a better theory of the market since it studies the real market, not an imaginary market. The most important difference between the two economics paradigms is their understandings of the entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is missed in neoclassical economics. In the Austrian School economics and Schumpeterian economics, entrepreneurship is the soul of the market. The paradigm shift of economics is urgently needed but it will be a slow process. Chinese economists should play a role in this transformation.     

中国流通经济学的回顾与反思

流通经济学是中国经济学界尤其是流通理论界一直致力创建的一门应用经济学。然而,20余年过去了,流通经济学却始终未能建立起来,而且随着经济环境的变化,反而日益走向贫困化。作者从西方经济学的学术传统和发展轨迹,从流通自身演变和发展的规律,从中国经济改革实践的背景转换等多个角度,对流通经济学的学术地位、中国流通经济学的演变历程和发展出路进行了全方位的分析和检讨。提出了不同于主流意见的创新性观点。     

Economy and history — A dissiden journal

Abstract

Before the 1940s, research in economic history in Sweden was conducted in the history departments, which usually meant studies using traditional historical methods applied to economic source material. Furthermore, historically interested economists studied economic history using economics methods. However, there was one outstanding character who specialised in economic history proper, Eli F. Heckscher. After completing his doctoral thesis on an economic history topic in 1907, he held a chair in economics at the Stockholm School of Economics but was then appointed to a personal chair in economic history in the 1930s.     

The Scholarly Status of Blacks in the Economics Profession: Have the National Economic Association and the Review of Black Political Economy Mattered?

This paper considers whether the National Economic Association and its journal the Review of Black Political Economy have enhanced the scholarly status of black economists. A bibliometric analysis reveals that while the typical black economist has never published in the Review of Black Political Economy, the share of black economists publishing in the Review of Black Economy approximates the share of all articles published on the economic and political economy of race by black economists, and the share of articles published in the Review of Black Political Economy by black economists appears higher than typical journals in economics—particularly for black economists employed at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. We also find that similar to other economics journals non-black economists dominate the share of published articles, and publications in the Review of Black Political Economy appear to be consistent with Lotka’s Law of scientific productivity suggesting that the journal is a standard outlet for research no different from any other science journal. Our results imply a plausible counterfactual that if the National Economic Association and Review of Black Political Economy did not exist, the scholarly status of blacks in the economics profession would have been lower than currently observed.     

从理性人到行为人：评行为经济学对新古典正统理论的挑战

新古典理论的自闭倾向早已遭人诟病,去过程化、去动机化并且和社会性的制度不接洽的理性演绎模型确实可能需要对此负很大的责任。但是,行为经济学挥舞着“不现实性”的大棒对主流的新古典经济学进行批判是否就真的能够导向更经验、更科学的经济学？行为经济学强调引入心理学知识来使经济学建立在更现实的基础上的做法同其批判的新古典理论一样,都采取的是一种本能的、不加反思的态度对待如何抽象的问题,无非是一个更看重形式化的逻辑,而另一个更看重经验现实。有必要将行为经济学对于新古典正统的挑战看成是一场经济学内部的对话的展开。其最终的目的是使经济学家们对于经济学应有的学科定位、经济学和其他相邻学科尤其是人的行为的理论之间的界限、什么是适合于经济学的任务的关于人的抽象等达到更高程度的自觉。目前行为经济学表面上繁荣恰恰是以回避对这些基础性的问题进行思考为代价的。     

从理性人到行为人：评行为经济学对新古典正统理论的挑战

新古典理论的自闭倾向早已遭人诟病,去过程化、去动机化并且和社会性的制度不接洽的理性演绎模型确实可能需要对此负很大的责任。但是,行为经济学挥舞着“不现实性”的大棒对主流的新古典经济学进行批判是否就真的能够导向更经验、更科学的经济学？行为经济学强调引入心理学知识来使经济学建立在更现实的基础上的做法同其批判的新古典理论一样,都采取的是一种本能的、不加反思的态度对待如何抽象的问题,无非是一个更看重形式化的逻辑,而另一个更看重经验现实。有必要将行为经济学对于新古典正统的挑战看成是一场经济学内部的对话的展开。其最终的目的是使经济学家们对于经济学应有的学科定位、经济学和其他相邻学科尤其是人的行为的理论之间的界限、什么是适合于经济学的任务的关于人的抽象等达到更高程度的自觉。目前行为经济学表面上繁荣恰恰是以回避对这些基础性的问题进行思考为代价的。     

证伪主义-反思经济学的方法论

近代西方经济学派别林立,各种理论、学说、派别层出不穷,如何理解这些理论,建立对于经济金融现象的全面理性理解,变得越来越困难。之所以会这样,完全是由于人们对于经济学的哲学基础关注甚少。从现代经济学研究史看,哲学思维其实扮演着极为重要的作用,正确的方法论是经济学理论发展的重要标志。本文反思了以往传统经济学证实分析思考模式的局限性,分析探讨了证伪科学哲学对于经济学研究的意义和价值,重新审视了错误在确立理论科学地位属性中的独特价值和决定性作用,赋予人们一种与以往证实分析研究模式完全截然不同全新的视角,对于分析和理解金融现象颇具启发性。     

Valuing Tullock's Rejects: The Reception of His Work in Rent Seeking

Gordon Tullock's work in economics spans nearly 50 years and is known for the breadth, originality, and quantity of his contributions in public choice, constitutional political economy, law and economics, bioeconomics, and monetary history. Despite his lack of formal training in economics, Tullock published in major economic journals early in his career. A number of his papers, which proved to be seminal to the theory of rent seeking, were rejected by top economic journals. This paper explores possible reasons for the editor's reception to Tullock's work and uses citation counts to value Tullock's rejected papers. My paper shows that Tullock's work continues to be cited, often far more frequently than the papers which journals chose to publish when they rejected Tullock's submissions.     

作为异质性偏好的禀赋效应：来自神经经济学的证据

禀赋效应是主流经济学难以回避的"异象"（Anomalies）,对主流经济学一系列重要的理论假设构成了严峻挑战。过去半个世纪以来,对于禀赋效应是否真实、有效和稳健的存在,在主流经济学家与行为经济学家和实验经济学家之间一直存在着严重的分歧与争论。近10年来,伴随着科学技术的进步以及脑科学、认知神经科学、尤其是神经经济学的发展,研究者们在行为实验的基础上,使用脑成像和脑刺激等先进技术,揭示了禀赋效应与人类大脑神经活动之间的相关关系和因果关系,在神经科学的层面上证实了禀赋效应存在的微观基础。文章将对这些研究成果进行较为全面的回顾与评述,从而为禀赋效应的存在性提供新的科学证据。     

中国经济学教育面向新世纪的思考

回顾建国以来我国现代经济学教育走过的道路,要对新世纪中国经济学的教育进行展望,中国经济学教育界有一个基本的问题需要澄清,这就是什么是“经济学”。作者从经济学发展的历史轨迹中去寻找答案,认为所谓的“经济学”实际上是一个由问题、工具、理论等三个不同阶段构成的生动的“过程”。借助这个“过程论”,作者分析了中国经济学界的一些问题,并据此对新世纪中国经济学的教育进行了展望。     

Do free-market economists practice what they teach?

Conclusion There is then a fundamental inconsistency between theory and application for political economists who both rely on standard microeconomics for their support of the free market and scorn government intervention. Theory matters in free-market critiques of public policy. It matters, however, not only in determining the content of those critiques, but also, from a methodological standpoint, in the sense of whether the world-view presupposed by theory is one that leaves room for any meaningful critique to take place at all. It should not be news that the authorities in charge of public policy are ignorant. Surprisingly, if we start from the presumptions of perfect-knowledge economics we would be logically led to conclude that those authorities indeed never make mistakes, or if they do that it must have been planned that way all along. Fortunately, political economists working in the Austrian tradition are, as they have been since B?hm-Bawerk’s and Mises’s devastating critiques of Marxian economics and socialism, free from having to maintain this curious point of view. He also studied with Professor Sennholz at Grove City College.     

The fallacy of Washington consensus and the role of the Government: interpreting some Chinese contributions to development policy from aspects of Chang’e 4

Students of economics may have heard of that economics, especially the kind of mainstream neoclassical economics taught in most universities on earth today, is an imitation of physical science in some fundamental fashion. However, few economists would imagine that economics can be as effective as physical science, not even in the remote future. China’s Chang’e 4 mission to the far side of the Moon provides a golden opportunity for economists to explore this fascinating possibility from the aspect of astrodynamics.

This article, inspired by thoughts of Justin Yifu Lin and Angang Hu among others regarding China’s economic reform, demonstrates that physics explaining the Three-Body Problem of classical mechanics may as well be understood as guiding principles when dealing with issues in development economics. Several aspects of ‘Washington consensus’ are examined in relation to the concerns raised by Chinese scholars. The study concludes that neoliberal interpretations of modern economics are basically inconsistent with the neoclassical framework outlined in standard economics textbooks.     

Ranking Economics Journals,Economics Departments,and Economists Using Teaching-Focused Research Productivity

This paper constructs new rankings of economics journals, economics departments, and economists that employ a measure of teaching-focused research productivity, an area of growing importance in recent years. The ranking methodologies presented here use information from articles that were published from 1991 through the early part of 2005 within the Journal of Economic Literature's “economic education” classifications (A200-A290). The Journal of Economic Literature tops the list of journals, followed by the Review of Economics and Statistics and the American Economic Review. Among the top institutions are Vanderbilt University, Indiana University, and the University of Wisconsin. Others that rank high here, such as Oberlin College and Denison University, do not often fare as well using methodologies that evaluate more traditional types of economics research. Finally, among the economists we find that John Siegfried, William Becker, and Michael Watts are ranked above other economists.     

The contribution of agricultural economics to development

Agricultural economics is an applied discipline with a broadly based application to development theory. The importance of agriculture in economic development has led to pressing demands on the role which agricultural economists are required to play. At all stages, a major part of the planning and implementation input is contributed by agricultural economists. The development of agricultural economics was therefore dynamic as well as problem related. Within the Southern African development context, the agricultural economist has had a long standing involvement. For example, Professor F R Tomlinson chaired the important Tomlinson Commission in the 1950s, while Dr Simon Brand is the Chief Executive of the Development Bank of Southern Africa. Both are agricultural economists. In general, agricultural economics has contributed to the fields of research and training, smallholder and rural development, project planning and management, and the formulation, planning and analysis of macro‐policy.     

Making the Big Leagues: Factors Contributing to Publication in Elite Economics Journals

Publication in the best journals of ones discipline is for many the equivalent of making the big leagues in sports or performing at Carnegie Hall in the arts. Using individual-specific data collected from 704 economists, this study provides a multivariate analysis of the factors which contribute to publication in top economics journals. By examining only publications in elite journals, the analysis avoids pitfalls associated with weighting the quality of a wide array of journals while maintaining an emphasis on the determinants of excellence in scholarship. Empirical results indicate that many factors impact elite journal publication, including the quality of graduate education, collaboration with colleagues, presenting at professional conferences, teaching commitments, and service work.     

Outstanding Female Economists in the Analysis and Practice of Development Economics

This article examines the contributions of five eminent economists, all women, to the analysis and practice of development economics. Irma Adelman, Frances Stewart, and Nancy Birdsall are leading advocates of alternative development strategies that focus on poverty alleviation and investment in human capital. Anne Krueger and Alice Amsden stand at the forefront of two opposing camps in a lively and long-lasting debate on the appropriate role of government in trade and industrialization. We use the storied careers of these economists as a vehicle to convey the big picture of how development economics has evolved and which topics have proved durable.     

The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations

Self-designated Austrian economists have two different views of modern neoclassical economics. Some, such as F. A. Hayek, take issue with certain aspects of neoclassical economics without disputing its fundamentals. Others, most notably Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, explicitly reject the foundations of neoclassical consumer and welfare theory and construct a systematic alternative. This paper analyzes the most distinctive features of the Mises-Rothbard alternative to the neoclassical paradigm; it also considers related positions defended by Israel Kirzner. I argue that their effort to rebuild economics on nonneoclassical foundations fails and that their critique of neoclassical foundations is wrong or strongly overstated.