Empirical economics acknowledges the cooperation of

Empirical economics acknowledges the cooperation of     

Selfishness, cooperation, the evolutionary point of view and its implications for economics

The assumed selfishness of market actors could be considered in the context of two perspectives: macroeconomic and microeconomic. The first concerns the market mechanism as the most effective from the social well-being or the wealth of a nation points of view. The latter is based on the premises of the nature of human beings. I have distinguished between two possible ways of understanding selfish forms of behaviour in the market: as rational economic behaviour i.e. the most effective from the gains and losses point of view (i.e. public interests in the works of A. Smith) or as selfish from the psychological point of view (this is mostly presented by J. S. Mill's theory). The first approach seems to be concerned with the creation of the most effective market mechanism from the State's point of view. In the context of historical processes over 400 years, cultural evolution “has been promoting” selfish behaviour; for example, it was widely presented in T. Hobbes' works and then for over 200 years, the theory of A. Smith has been supporting and moulding the institutional context of market and social behaviour. Thus, positive economics describes the market created by the ideas of a neo-classical paradigm, which is based on the normative premises of A. Smith and J. S. Mill. Moreover, the virtual market behaviour described by “effects” (f. e. Veblen's effect) and failures seems to be a manifestation of a discrepancy between market reality and the classical assumptions.The social evolution of human beings has been advantageous to the human species. Moreover, from the social point of view, pro-social behaviour is “natural” as well as desirable and it has been preferred by the cultural evolution. Competitiveness assumes that somebody has to lose, because someone gains. Cooperation looks for gains for all the players. The choice is political, and not imposed by selfishness.     

女性主义经济学与中国经济学的本土化

经济学研究的是具体社会关系下人的理性行为以及人类行为造成的经济现象,因而具有强烈的人文性;而且,随着经济学研究领域的不断拓宽,人们已经开始引入了制度、文化等社会性因素,经济学的人文性已日益明显.正是基于这种人文性特征引发了人们对具体社会中人之理性的重新审视,以及对社会中人之行为的关注,并导致20世纪80年代之后女性主义经济学的勃兴;经济学领域的性别差异又进一步引发了社会性的思考,从而引发了对经济学本土化的探讨.事实上,不同社会文化下的经济学是有差异的,经济学本质上无法像自然科学那样科学化、客观化和通用化,而是具有强烈的本土化的色彩;而且,如果经济学理论没有本土化,就没有根植性,也就没有创新性,当然也就没有现代性和世界性.     

Social economics and economics imperialism

Address delivered at a session on April 2, 1993 at the Midwest regional meetings of the Association for Social Economics, Indianapolis, IN.     

Extending the economics of disorganization

Many of the states of the former Soviet Union have experienced a dramatic collapse of output during transition, which has not yet been reversed in a sustainable way. The economics of disorganization, proposed by Blanchard (1997) and tested empirically by Blanchard and Kremer (1997), reasons that this phenomenon can be explained by specificity of inputs and the breakdown of traditional domestic supply linkages. We replicate the Blanchard-Kremer study for Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and also find that longer and more complex domestic supply chains are associated with greater reductions in output. When we extend their analysis to incorporate measures of the complexity of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) trade and non-CIS trade however, we find that complexity of non-CIS trade is the significant factor in explaining the output collapse. We therefore argue that the disintegration of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the requirement of hard currency trade, are equally, if not more, significant in explaining the output declines experienced by Ukraine and Kazakhstan.     

Can neoclassical economics become social economics?

This essay has both a general and a specific purpose. Its general purpose is to pose the question: Can neoclassical economics be social economics? Its answer to this general question is: Yes, but only if it abandons its methodological soul; that is, by abandoning methodological individualism, positivism, and ahistoricism, and expressly and systematically adopting a methodological perspective which is holistic, normative, and historical. Its specific purpose is to identify and examine the major elements in the economics of one leading figure in the historical development of neoclassical economics who self-consciously attempted to combine, to paraphrase Schumpeter, a neoclassical head with a social economics heart: Alfred Marshall.     

Regulatory economics and the journal of regulatory economics: a 30-year retrospective

Over the 30 year history of the Rutgers University CRRI Eastern Conference the regulatory scene has changed dramatically. In 1989 the first Issue of the Journal of Regulatory Economics appeared. This paper builds on Crew and Kleindorfer (J Regul Econ 21(1):5–22, 2002), which reviewed 20 years in the development of regulatory economics. In addition, this aricle outlines the history and assesses the significance of the JRE in the literature of regulatory economics.