Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics

The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in light of changes that have occurred within neoclassical economics and in light of the rising hegemony of mainstream economics in economics departments. Various strategies are considered, among which is more engagement with orthodox dissenters, but it is concluded that the majority of heterodox economists ought instead to engage more with other heterodox economists and possibly other social sciences, developing and expanding their own agenda around real-world problems.     

What remains of the growth controversy ∗

Nobel laureate R.M. Solow (1992) reflected that, ‘The Kaldor–Kalecki–Robinson–pasinetti line made life harder for itself by being part of a wholesale attack on mainstream economics. Anyway, it was not ever able to muster a body of serious applied work’. This article considers the accuracy of an assessment like Solow's of the sucess of the growth theorys that economists have proposed as alternatives to neoclassical growth theory. The article, which takes an historical perspective, focuses on Kaldor's growth theory.     

What If There Are No Conventional Price Mechanisms?

Inspired by Frederic (“Fred”) S. Lee’s theoretical contribution to institutional-heterodox economics, I make the case that the neoclassical price mechanism is not only flawed, but also irrelevant for the study of actual coordination mechanisms, hence the price mechanism — as a theory as well as a way of thinking — should be discarded. While this position was addressed by early institutionalists, starting with Thorstein Veblen, later institutionalists have not completely rejected the price mechanism. The sympathy for the price mechanism has prevented institutionalists (and other heterodox economists) from fully developing an alternative theoretical framework concerning how actual economic activities are organized. I, therefore, provide an institutionalist-heterodox framework of the provisioning process focusing on business enterprise activities. This framework shows how institutional economics becomes more refined and useful when it is married to other traditions in heterodox economics, in particular, Marxian, social, and post-Keynesian economics. Such an integrative approach is what Fred Lee showed through his work toward producing a better theory and policy for the underlying population.     

分工理论：从古希腊思想到新国际体系的研究述评

分工思想最早可以追溯到古希腊时期的柏拉图,古典经济学时期亚当.斯密第一次从经济学意义上对分工进行了系统的论述,新古典经济学时期的马歇尔用规模经济概念替代了专业化经济概念,同时期的马克思对分工与协作进行了较为深刻的研究。自19世纪末马歇尔对资源配置问题重视以来,分工问题就逐渐被主流经济学所忽视,经济学的研究重心转向资源配置问题。随后,杨格（1928）指出马歇尔的替代是个错误,但直到20世纪50年代,随着产业组织和经济增长理论的发展,经济学家们才再次认识到分工的重要意义。20世纪80年代以来,以杨小凯为代表的新兴古典经济学家,用现代分析方法分析了分工问题。进入20世纪90年代,针对新的分工及贸易现实,一些学者对产品内国际分工理论（垂直解体）进行了深入探讨。     

Japanese Consumption,External Disequilibrium and their Statistical Measurement

Georgescu-Roegen's work is usually divided into two categories, his earlier work on consumer and production theory and his later concern with entropy and bioeconomics beginning with his 1966 introductory essay to his collected theoretical papers published in the volume Analytical Economics. Most economists usually praise his earlier work on pure theory and ignore his later work which is highly critical of neoclassical economics. Those economists sympathetic to his later work usually take the position that he “saw the light” and gave up neoclassical theory some time in the 1960s to turn his attention to the issues of resource scarcity and social institutions. It is argued here that there is an unbroken path running from Georgescu's work in pure theory in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, through his writings on peasant economies in the 1960s, leading to his preoccupation with entropy and bioeconomics in the last 25 years of his life. That common thread is his preoccupation with “valuation.” The choices our species makes about resource use and the distribution of economic output depends upon our valuation framework. Georgescu-Roegen's work begins in the 1930s with a critical examination of the difficulties with the hedonistic valuation framework of neoclassical economics, moves in the 1960s to the conflict between social and hedonistic valuation, and culminates in the 1970s and 1980s with his examination of the conflict between individual, social, and environmental values. This paper traces the evolution of Georgescu-Roegen's thought about valuation and the environmental and social policy recommendations which arise out of his bioeconomic framework.     

The changing face of mainstream economics

This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully developed, it is beginning to take form and is centered on dynamics, recursive methods and complexity theory. The foundation of this change is coming from economists who are doing cutting edge work and influencing mainstream economics. These economists are defining and laying the theoretical groundwork for the fundamental shift that is occurring in the economics profession.     

The economics of ageing and the political economy of old age

Economic discussion of ageing has been largely neoclassical in approach. Ageing has become a specialism within population economics, which is itself a specialism within the neoclassical mainstream. An alternative view has come from authors in sociology and social policy, who have produced their own ‘political economy of old age’. In contrast with neoclassical individualism, sociological depictions of ageing have stressed the social construction of old age and the structured dependency of the elderly. Non-neoclassical economists have had little to say about ageing, despite some relevant work in the early days of Keynesianism. This paper argues that a combination of structural ideas from sociology and disequilibrium ideas from Keynesian and non-neoclassical economics can provide a suitable framework for the economics of ageing.     

Vilfredo Pareto on Labor: A Critical Re-examination

This article comprehensively examines Vilfredo Pareto's thoughts on labor and highlights their significance within his body of work. Like the other pioneers in neoclassical economics, Pareto disregarded worker subjectivity toward labor performance and the resulting variability in the substance of labor. Thus emasculating the human traits of labor, in his theory of pure economics, Pareto identified the nature of labor exchange with that of the exchange of nonhuman objects, thereby subsuming the former under his general equilibrium system. This neoclassical principle of rationalizing the market determination of labor exchange on its deindividuation governed Pareto's speculations throughout his work. Even his arguments in applied economics in favor of worker solidarity and strikes were grounded on this principle. It remained the basis for Pareto's opinions on actual labor relations. Pareto's frustration here turned him into an anti-unionist, but it also helped to mold his prime ideas regarding sociology and his awareness of the limits of economics. However, Pareto's adherence to his former concept of labor exchange contradicting its nature became a chief cause of his failure to integrate his economic thinking with its sociological counterpart and occasioned his sympathy with Fascism. Thus, this article concludes that Pareto's thoughts on labor profoundly affected his entire body of thought and that their flaw is not exclusive to him but inherent in neoclassical economics.     

The Social Economics of Work Time: Introduction

How do social economists conceptualize and analyze time, particularly time spent in paid employment? In this symposium regarding this quite “timely”" issue, it is evident that social economics views work time as something more than its presentation in neoclassical economics. For neoclassical economists, time is a scarce resource that, when commodified as labor, serves as a factor of production and means to the end of consumption for optimizing firms, individuals, and families. It is also more than the radical political economics understanding of time as the yardstick measuring the value created by labor. Instead, time spent on the job is all at once a source of income, personal identity, and relative status within society, the workplace and household, and a constraint on individuals' ability to pursue self-directed activities and social reproduction. Work time is determined within a complex web of evolving culture and social relations, as well as traditionally conceived market, technological, and macroeconomic forces and institutions such as collective bargaining and government policy.     

Margaret G. Reid: Life and achievements

Feminist critics of mainstream economics, and of the neoclassical paradigm in particular, have focused primarily on exposing and questioning the gender biases and androcentric claims to neutrality, objectivity and rationality of the most male-dominated discipline among the social sciences. The scientific method and mathematical sophistry so cherished in the discipline have also come under severe attack from several quarters. However, despite the intellectual ferment and some practical gains for women that these criticisms have engendered, even today the substantial contributions several women scholars have made to the field of economics are not well known or fully acknowledged. This paper traces and highlights Margaret Reid's contributions to the development of some core theories in economics. While several of her male colleagues whose work she had inspired or contributed to have been awarded the Nobel Prize, the discipline of economics still owes a huge debt to Reid and to several other women economists.     

Examining social processes with agent-based models

It is plain that the Austrian revival that began in the 1970s has yet to succeed in convincing the mainstream of the academy to jettison their physics-based mathematical models in favor of the sort of models and forms of argumentation that contemporary Austrians advocate. Agent-based computational modeling is still in its relative infancy but is beginning to gain recognition among economists disenchanted with the neoclassical paradigm. The purpose of this paper is to assuage concerns that readers might have regarding methodological consistency between agent-based modeling and Austrian economics and to advocate its adoption as a means to convey Austrian ideas to a wider audience. I examine models developed and published by other researchers and ultimately provide an outline of how one might develop a research agenda that leverages this technique. I argue that agent-based modeling can be used to enhance Austrian theorizing and offers a viable alternative to the neoclassical paradigm.     

Austrian economics at the cutting edge

Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream. What I call the “heterodox mainstream” is an emerging new orthodoxy. The five leading characteristics of the emerging new orthodoxy are bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition, and evolution. When listed in this order, they suggest the acronym BRICE. The Austrian school is also an example of BRICE economics. The shared themes of BRICE economics create an opportunity for intellectual exchange between Austrians and other elements of the heterodox mainstream. Although Austrians should engage the heterodox mainstream energetically, they should also defend the essential elements of an early version of neoclassical economics, elements at risk of becoming half-forgotten themes of an earlier era. These elements are supply and demand, marginalist logic, opportunity-cost reasoning, and the elementary theory of markets. JEL Codes A14, B50, B53 This text is an edited version of a talk given in Washington, D.C. on 19 November 2005 at the SDAE annual dinner. I thank persons present at that time for a helpful discussion. I also thank William Butos, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, and Peter Lewin for useful comments on an earlier draft.     

The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities

In previous research on the impact of the Research AssessmentExercise on heterodox economics and heterodox economists inthe UK, the author concluded that reliance on Diamond List journalsto rank departments would drive economic departments to discriminatepositively in terms of their hiring, promotion and researchstrategies in favour of mainstream economists and their research,in order to maintain or improve their ranking. As a consequence,the author predicted there would be no or only a token presenceof heterodox economists in an increasing number of departments.Whether the conclusions still hold and the predictions materialiseis the subject of the paper.     

Was there a Marxian bias in Austrian manufacturing? Evidence on the direction of technical change, 1978–1994

This paper presents a study of the bias of technical change for 20 industries of the Austrian manufacturing sector for the period 1978 to 1994 using empirical methods derived from both classical and neoclassical economics. Overall, the results suggest that the technical bias in Austrian manufacturing did not follow a Marxian pattern. Estimates based on the classical framework suggest that 5 out of the 20 industries show a Marxian bias over the period 1978–1994. Evidence based on a neoclassical CES production function is provided and critically evaluated.     

The economics of Frank H. Knight: An Austrian interpretation

This paper interprets, in the modern Austrian economics perspective, Frank H. Knight's three core contributions; namely, economic methodology, theories of human action, uncertainty and entrepreneurship. Though Knight is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Chicago School of economics, this paper argues that Knight's contributions are essentially Austrian. Influenced by William James, Henri Bergson and Max Weber, Knight's subjectivist economics can be seen as a link between Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises in the history of Austrian subjectivism. This paper further suggests that Knight may be more appropriately located in the Austrian-German School, for the reason that the term “Austrian School” is too narrow to accommodate german influences. This paper concludes that Knight's legacies have left much to be appreciated by neoclassical mainstream economists in general and Austrian economists in particular. The author thanks Dian Kwan for her proof reading in this essay.     

论主流经济学的危机与革命

古典经济学家提出了劳动价值论,并认为劳动是商品,他们的认识反映了当时社会的实际,推动了历史的进步.但是,在"资本集中和土地私有"以后他们的认识就与现实相矛盾了,主流经济学家们因为没能解决当时提出的问题而陷入了危机.马克思证明了劳动二重性理论,发展了劳动价值论,他提出了劳动力商品范畴,证明了剩余价值理论,引发了经济学的革命,从而解决了那个时代提出的问题,推动了历史的进步.在社会主义市场经济中,主流经济学家因为无法说明劳动者的工资和利息收入问题而再次陷入了危机,这可能预示了经济学革命的再次来临.作者认为,只有通过理论革命,证明劳动本身具有价值,证明资本收入具有劳动收入的性质才能解决现实社会提出的问题.     

中国被忽视的非正规经济：现实与理论

中国的“非正规经济”就业人员（即没有工作保障,缺少福利和不受国家劳动法保护的劳工）已占今天2．83亿城镇就业人员总数中的1．68亿,比正规就业人员要多出一倍半。但是,今目的中国国家统计机构尚未真正正视非正规经济就业人员统计。其部分原因是当前的主流经济（以及社会）理论——即主要来自20世纪60年代在美国盛行的“二元经济”理论、“三部门理论”和“橄榄型”社会结构理论——的误导。这些理论共同构成了50年代和60年代风行美国的“现代化”模式。本文扼要论述该模式的关键论点,进而回顾70年代和80年代发展经济学“革命”中有关学者对其所作的批评,以及后来新古典经济学在美国新保守主义领导下进行的“反革命”辩驳,重在揭示论争双方的意识形态化偏颇,并突出各自的洞见,提倡适当结合双方正确的见解,由此建立去意识形态化的理论观点,以助于理解今天非正规经济的现实。     

Why Need is “A Word We Cannot Do Without” in Economics

Economists in the neoclassical tradition do their best to avoid using the word “need.” Social economists have traditionally been more open to discussions of need. Philosophic discussions of need are also scarce but nevertheless helpful. This essay will argue that need is “a word we cannot do without” in economics, and not only in social economics. Need is objective, satiable, and absolute, by contrast with want or preference as it is defined in neoclassical economics. With this clarification, 1) it is reasonable that public policy should consider need as well as want and aim to satisfy some needs, and 2) for some purposes, such as the economics of health care, conventional demand cannot be understood without the concept of need. Thus, even the narrower purposes of neoclassical economics cannot be achieved without clarifying and using the concept of need, in addition to the more usual motivational assumptions of neoclassical economics.     

马克思经济学发现经济危机的社会哲学观和研究方法论——兼论马克思经济学和现代主流经济学的认知差异

马克思经济学比现代主流经济学更容易发现经济危机,主要源于两个基本特征:一是在社会哲学观上坚持矛盾冲突论,从而发现个人理性与集体理性之间的不一致性;二是在研究方法论上采用平均主义分析,从而更适合使用统计材料和历史材料来考察宏观经济的周期性波动。正因如此,马克思经济学能够充分认识到自由市场经济内含的冲突性,并从收入分配角度揭示了经济危机的内在根源;相应地,解决经济危机的根本措施就是,改变不合理的收入分配制度。     

Why feminist,Marxist, and anti-racist economists should be feminist–Marxist–anti-racist economists

This paper argues for a feminist–Marxist–anti-racist economics. First, it puts forward a set of central defining features of Marxian economics. Then it argues that feminist and anti-racist economists need to work within the Marxist theoretical framework in order to realize their feminist and anti-racist goals. Next it argues that feminist economists should also be anti-racist. Finally, it argues that Marxist economists need to incorporate feminism and anti-racism into their theory and politics if they are to understand the dynamics of capitalism and adequately envision and advocate for a liberatory socialist alternative.