Economics,Sociology, History: Notes on Their Loss of Unity,Their Need for Re-integration and the Current Relevance of the Controversy between Carl Menger and Gustav Schmoller

We are experiencing a situation of increasing criticism of the state in which economics is being represented nowadays. One of the remarks is that economics has become too formalized and too abstract and that the state of discipline has become increasingly unable to express many phenomena of “real life” with its concrete socioeconomic specifica. Criticism has found a way to get cumulated in different terms of economic pluralism. The claim for fostering interdisciplinary research which we also find nowadays reflects the diagnosis that our islands of shared knowledge have become too fragmented. When reflecting what is going on in recent times a view back to the end of the nineteenth century may help to contextualize recent debate. Looking at the debate between Carl Menger and Gustav Schmoller which was later classified as the first battles in social sciences helps to sort up arguments which are still on the agenda, inductive versus deductive methods or empirism versus abstract theorizing.     

Shock therapy and the transfer of institutions: the new debate and some lessons from the post-1806 reforms in Prussia and in southwestern Germany

There is a new debate on shock therapy versus gradualism in economics, this time referring to developing and emerging countries. The French Revolution and its impact on the other European nations has repeatedly been highlighted as a historical example for both the merits and pitfalls of the Big Bang strategy. The present paper argues that a comparison between the post-1806 reforms in Prussia and in the southwestern states of Germany offers a particularly interesting historical case study that in the economics literature has not yet received the attention it deserves. In particular, the case study shows how deeply intertwined the economic and political dimension of social transformations are, and that different economic reforms strategies cannot and should not be evaluated without taking political starting conditions into account. In view of recent reform experiences it is particularly interesting to see that Prussia offers maybe the first historical case of state capture by the East-Elbian Junkers.     

休克疗法与制度移植:新的争论以及1806年后普鲁士和西南德国改革的启示

经济学界关于休克疗法和渐进主义的争论又有了新的发展,这一次是有关发展中和新兴国家的。法国大革命及其对其他欧洲国家的影响,已经作为一个历史案例,在讨论大爆炸改革策略的优缺点时被屡屡提及。文章为1806年后普鲁士和西南德国改革之间的比较提供了一个特别有趣的历史案例研究,这到目前为止并未得到应有的重视。这个案例研究将揭示社会转型过程中经济和政治之间的深层次互动,因而对不同的经济改革策略的评价不能也不应该脱离对政治初始条件的考量。从最近的改革经验来看,一个特别有趣的发现是,普鲁士可能提供了第一个政府被东易北容克(East-Elbian Junkers)俘获的历史案例。     

Fairness and efficiency in US Revolutionary War takings and post-war debt redemption

Many have noted the debate amongst Hamilton, Jefferson, and others on compensating original versus final US Revolutionary War debt holders upon federal assumption of state debts in 1790. However, to our knowledge the economics literature has not yet proposed a theoretical model of the argument. The purpose of this paper is to propose a simple household-level economic model to capture the most salient aspects of the debate, including the role of military impressment and the emergence of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution.     

Endogenous versus exogenous money: Does the debate really matter?

Whether money is exogenous or endogenous is the subject of one of the most important and intriguing debates in monetary economics. The aim of this article is to contribute to this longstanding debate through detailed examination of different notions of endogeneity and exogeneity of money. I argue that the debate has been too simplified. In reality, money can be either endogenous or exogenous, depending on several factors. Not only has the debate prompted some economists to draw too far-reaching conclusions, but it also misses the point.     

Institutional Approaches to Economic Development: The Current Status of the Debate

The recent publication of "Institutions and Economic Development: Theory, Policy and History" (Chang 2011a) has stimulated a thought-provoking debate, and has brought forth a wide-ranging demonstration of the theoretical arsenal of the new institutional economics. The debate proves that, as of yet, no satisfactory theory of institutions has been articulated, nor is there an agreement on the relationship between institutional change and the politics of development. It also demonstrates the presence of two distinct lines of research: ideological and political, both of which rely on different theoretical legacies, and embody distinct economic worldviews. This scenario allows a summary of the argument in the most recent literature to be made on the relationship between institutions and development, as well as to relate the debate to the concept of development as a process of expansion of capacities.     

Researching Preferences,Valuation and Hypothetical Bias

A number of recent papers in environmental economics have focused on the process of researching preferences – agents are uncertain about preferences but with effort may narrow their uncertainty. This issue has arisen in formulating bids in contingent valuation (CV) as well as the debate over the divergence between WTP and WTA. In the context of CV, it has been suggested that the hypothetical nature of the preference elicitation process biases responses. This paper provides both a theoretical model and experimental evidence to contribute to this debate. The model is a model of competitive bidding for a private good with two components that are particularly relevant to the debate. The first component is that bidders are unsure of their own value for the private good but may purchase information about their own value (researching preferences). The second component is that there is a probability that the auction is hypothetical – that the winning bidder will not get the private good and will not pay the winning bid. The experiment tests this theoretical model of bidding equilibrium and analyzes the effects of variations in the parameters (hypotheticalness, information costs and number of agents) on the endogenous variables (such as the proportion of bidders who become informed and the winning bid). Experimental results suggest that an increase in the hypotheticalness of an auction tends to decrease the likelihood that bidders pay for information on their valuation with an ambiguous effect on the winning bid.      

Five reasons for the use of network analysis in the history of economics

ABSTRACT

Network analysis is increasingly appreciated as a methodology in the social sciences. In recent years, it is also receiving attention among historians of science. History of economics is no exception in that researchers have begun to use network analysis to study a variety of topics, including collaborations and interactions in scientific communities, the spread of economic theories within and across fields, or the formation of new specialties in the discipline of economics. Against this backdrop, a debate is emerging about how network analysis can help address questions that are pertinent to the history of economics. With this paper, we want to push this debate one step forward by offering and discussing five reasons why network analysis should have a future in the history of economics.     

Confucian economics: how is Chinese thinking different?

The Chinese have their economics. Not yet acknowledged, it is contained in the Confucian thought. Called by me ‘Confucian economics’, it sharply differs from the Western ‘Liberal economics’. Individuals seek posterity through offspring, rather than ‘instant gratification’. Resources are not seen as scarce but as abundant. Rather than take resources from others, people work to make a living. The work ethics and not the profit margin is a key motive. Individuals work not for themselves but for their family. The family is a source of moral sentiment, understood as responsibility for others. This is why the main institution is family and not market. To Confucians, the key principle is equality, which precedes efficiency. Inequality upsets ‘social peace’, as a precondition for growth. Built on Liberal principles, the Western capitalist system is a market one. The Chinese system, which I call ‘Confucian system’, is also market-based. The former is a ‘free market’ animated by individuals, the latter is a ‘familial market’ built around households. Both approaches advocate ‘minimal state’, but for Liberals the state is a ‘night watchman’ to ensure the security of resources, while for Confucians, the state is a moral guide to enable social harmony. As a theory, Confucian economics is a form of ethics and the Liberal is not. China has never abandoned Confucianism. The recent reforms are not about rolling back the Soviet model to establish a capitalist system. Relying on Confucian economics, China is reviving Confucian system. Paradoxically, the ancient Confucian economics has become the engine of China’s modernity. This is a key reason for China’s ‘longest boom’. To extend it, China needs to refocus its policies from ‘capital formation’ to the ‘moral cultivation’, along the Confucian principles.     

Remembering Joseph M. Becker,S.J.

“Critique” of the Neoclassical paradigm in economics is a vital intellectual contribution in its own right. The prevailing wisdom and last word in economics, enforced by the socializing experiences of young would-be economists, is that if you can’t build a better theory immediately, without resources or access to debate and discussion, you have no right to criticize the existing paradigm, This requirement cuts off challenge and debate in economics, strongly deters the development of alternative theories, and leads to a weaker, less interesting economic science.     

环境管制与企业竞争力的演化经济学解释--对传统观点与修正学派的批判

环境管制与企业竞争力的关系近年来成为各界争论的焦点。传统观点认为环境管制降低企业竞争力，修正学派则认为环境管制有利于企业创新，使企业受益于“创新补偿”和“先动优势”，从而有利于企业竞争力。本文从演化经济学的有限理性、多样化、随机因素和时间等基本假设出发，认为以组织能力为核心的动态演化观点有利于更好地理解和分析环境管制与企业竞争力的关系。     

A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: Is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science?

In ecological economics the debate on formalism and formalization has been addressed in the context of a lively discussion on ecological economics as a ‘post-normal’ (versus ‘normal’) science. Using ecological economics (EE) as a ‘seed’ journal and applying bibliometric techniques to all (2533) the articles published in EE from January 1989 to December 2009, we analyze the evolution of the field of ecological economics aiming to shed light on this debate. We observe the predominance (and increased relevance) of certain research topics: ‘Methodological issues’, ‘Policies, governance and institutions’ and ‘Valuation’. Moreover, ‘Collective action’, ‘Technical change and the environment’ and ‘Values’ stand as emergent themes of research. Finally, we note that ecological economics experienced an ‘empirical turn’ reflected in a shift away from exclusively formalized papers towards exclusively empirical and, to a larger extent, ‘formal and empirical’ ones. The combination of the prominent and emergent topics and the ‘empirical turn’ mirrors the increasing awareness among researchers in the field of the need to address a key specificity of ecological economics — the interdependence of the economic, biophysical and social spheres. On this basis, we argue that at least through the lens of EE, ecological economics has evolved towards a post-normal science.     

李嘉图逻辑抽象法及其对经济学方法论的影响——兼论逻辑抽象法与历史描述法的结合

在经济学方法论发展过程中,关于李嘉图的经济学研究方法一直有不同看法,尤其是其抽象法引起了争论。可以说李嘉图对抽象法的运用不仅仅解决了当时要研究的问题,更对西方经济学产生了重要的影响,抽象法已经无处不在。肯定了李嘉图对这一方法的创造,并在此基础上结合抽象法的产生以及经济学方法论的发展,认为经济学研究应该将逻辑抽象法与历史描述法相结合。     

Normative economics and paternalism: the problem with the preference-satisfaction account of welfare

The normative turn of behavioral economics has led to a reconsideration of paternalism in normative economics. This article argues however that the preference-satisfaction account of welfare that still dominates welfare economics makes impossible to account for all the dimensions of the debate over paternalism. The laundered preferences approach and the alternative selves approach are two available frameworks to reconcile the consumer sovereignty principle that underlies the preference-satisfaction account with the fact that preferences are endogenous and context-dependent. I show however that neither of them is able to account for autonomy-related issues which are central in current debates over “soft” or “libertarian” paternalism. I suggest that a justification of paternalism compatible with liberal principles depends on the ability for reasonable persons to voluntarily consent to a collective choice rule with paternalistic tendencies. This argument relies on a distinction between preferences (which can be attached to other entities than persons) and values which is unknown to welfare economics.     

Challenges in Measuring Poverty and Understanding its Dynamics: A South Asian Perspective

South Asia’s success at reducing poverty does not imply that the topic has become passé. Poverty rates are by now low, but this is because poverty lines are low as well. And the assessment of living standards and their dynamics are blurred by measurement and interpretation challenges. This paper relies mostly on South Asian examples to highlight four tensions: poorer versus richer households, rural versus urban locations, monetary versus non‐monetary dimensions of wellbeing, and household characteristics versus context. The discussion is conducted against the backdrop of the two analytical approaches with South Asian roots that have shaped the debate for decades. This review leads to three main recommendations: household survey data has to be exploited in a more thorough manner, data that is increasingly available from other sources needs to be incorporated more systematically in the analysis, and the multiple dimensions of wellbeing should be better integrated in a common framework.     

National Technology Foresight Activities Around the Globe: Resurrection and New Paradigms

This contribution summarizes recent experiences in government or national technology forecasting which are now often termed “foresight.” While the methodological tool kit changed from mathematical models to more qualitative scenarios or visions, the Delphi method has become the backbone of foresight projects. Recent national activities, being dealt with in this special issue, are compared in terms of their comprehensiveness, their science versus industry orientation, and their analytic versus action-oriented targets. Although some of these are ongoing, we can discern several new foresight paradigms. From the perspectives of sociology and political sciences, foresight elements seem to be the means of communication (or the “wiring up”) for the negotiating systems of the society. From an economics and management point of view, foresight is helpful for benchmarking and for initiating feedback processes between future demand and present day investment in research and development. From a cultural point of view, the resurrection of foresight in the 1990s seems to be related to growing globalization and at the same time the recognition of national or regional innovation systems. Finally, in terms of international affairs supranational foresight seems to become a new venture.     

Endogenous vs. Semi-endogenous Growth in a Two-R&D-Sector Model

This paper contributes to the endogenous versus semi-endogenous growth debate by establishing that semi-endogenous growth is more general than endogenous growth in a two-R&D-sector growth model. It is demonstrated that endogenous growth requires two 'knife-edge' conditions of parameters. This finding (i) is in sharp contrast to recent two-R&D-sector models that show that long-run growth is endogenous, and (ii) resurrects the policy conclusion of semi-endogenous growth that government policy is not effective in raising the underlying growth rate of an economy. The driving force of these results is knowledge spillovers between two R&D activities, which are largely neglected in existing studies.     

Workplace Accident Compensation Reform A Reappraisal

Despite the considerable time and money spent by various states investigating mounting financial problems in workers' compensation in recent years, we still do not know very much about the causes of the problems. An important reason for this has been that the debate in Australia has suffered from a number of misconceptions and lack of analytical rigour. This article outlines how some basic economics can provide a framework for analysing many issues in the workers' compensation debate. In doing so the analysis casts doubt on a number of conventional wisdoms, particularly the belief that employers pay for workers' compensation and the assumption that current levels of government involvement in worker disability insurance arrangements are justified. In addition, data from New South Wales are presented that suggest the main reason for increased costs is higher income maintenance payment per claim. As with overseas experience, higher benefit levels appear to give workers more incentive to stay away from work and make claims for injuries whose severity is harder to measure.     

Can Darwinism be ��Generalized�� and of what use would this be?

It has been suggested that, by generalizing Darwinian principles, a common foundation can be derived for all scientific disciplines dealing with evolutionary processes, especially for evolutionary economics. We show, however, that in the development of evolutionary biology, the abstract principles of so-called “Generalized Darwinism” have not been crucial for distinguishing Darwinian from non-Darwinian approaches and, hence, cannot be considered genuinely Darwinian. Moreover, we wonder what can be gained by invoking the abstract principles of Generalized Darwinism given that they do not suffice to substantiate an explanation of actual evolutionary processes. To that end, specific hypotheses are required. They neither follow from the suggested abstract principles, nor are they more easily found on that basis. Accordingly, we find little evidence in the literature for the claim that generalized Darwinian principles enhance the explanatory power of an evolutionary approach to economics.