Religion,economics and politics: The Bishops and Keynes in the post-Keynesian ERA

This paper makes a proposal for reintroducing sociological or social economics into contemporary economic science. Such a reintroduction is proposed to be substantive, by analyzing the social structuring of the economy, and formal, by including sociological/social economics in the current (JEL) classification system of economic disciplines (code A.15). Both epistemological and ontological arguments can be presented to support the proposal. Epistemological arguments invoke the presence of essential components of sociological economics in the development of economic thought, and ontological arguments stress the role of social factors in economic life. In this paper I present primarily epistemological (theoretical-methodological) arguments for sociological economics, and secondarily ontological ones. I show that the present designation, sociology of economics, is something different from sociological or social economics in that the former refers to economic epistemology (knowledge) and the latter to economic ontology (reality). I conclude that, in addition to a sociology of economic science, we need a sociology of economic life.     

A.S.E. events

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.     

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.     

The rhetoric of a profession and path dependency. Can economists have their theory and free speech too? ∗

In his plea for the adoption of a rhetorical stance in economics, Donald McCloskey offers the hope that sensitivity to rhetoric will improve economists’ prose, teaching, relations with other disciplines and arguments, without changing the stories they tell. Rhetoric suggests ways to improve communication, but these involve changes in the profession’s education and incentive systems. Drawing on studies of technological lock-in and path dependency, we examine how the tools, concepts and formal language of neo-classical economics have ‘locked-in’, along with a style of communication inherited from nineteenth century physics. Given the nature of this lock-in, the mainstream profession is as likely to take to rhetoric as it is to write sonnets. Rhetoric promises to promote learning through free, open discussion and clear communication of arguments. We find that economists’ criteria for success and professional values systematically distort scholarly communication. We present two case studies. We conclude that it is not possible for economists to improve their story-telling while telling the same story.     

Sociology of economics or sociology of economy? theoretical-methodological arguments for sociological economics

This paper makes a proposal for reintroducing sociological or social economics into contemporary economic science. Such a reintroduction is proposed to be substantive, by analyzing the social structuring of the economy, and formal, by including sociological/social economics in the current (JEL) classification system of economic disciplines (code A.15). Both epistemological and ontological arguments can be presented to support the proposal. Epistemological arguments invoke the presence of essential components of sociological economics in the development of economic thought, and ontological arguments stress the role of social factors in economic life. In this paper I present primarily epistemological (theoretical-methodological) arguments for sociological economics, and secondarily ontological ones. I show that the present designation, sociology of economics, is something different from sociological or social economics in that the former refers to economic epistemology (knowledge) and the latter to economic ontology (reality). I conclude that, in addition to a sociology of economic science, we need a sociology of economic life. There is nothing surprising in the habit of economists to invade the sociological field. A major part of their work—practically the whole of what they have to say on institutions and on the…[social] forces which shape economic behavior—inevitably overlaps the sociologist’s preserves. In consequence, a no man’s land or everyman’s land has developed that might conveniently be called economic sociology … [or sociological economics] (Schumpeter 1956:134). The author is grateful to two anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.     

In Defense of Deontology and Kant: A Reply to van Staveren

In this note, I respond to a recent article by Irene van Staveren (2007) in this journal, where she presents a case for virtue ethics, rather than deontology or consequentialism, as the most appropriate philosophical foundation for economics. Rather than taking issue with her positive arguments for virtue ethics, I argue in defense of deontology – or, more specifically, the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. I argue that, when properly understood, Kantian ethics should not be associated solely with formal rules and obligation, but that Kant's moral system can accommodate many of the concerns of virtue ethics, such as social relations, real-world context, and human fallibility, as well as embodying a unique emphasis on human dignity and judgment.     

I Want to Be an Economist: A Rejoinder to Ross Gittins

This article provides a rejoinder to Ross Gittins’ commentary on the potential contributions of psychology and behavioural economics to public policy formation. It includes three main arguments. First, that behavioural economics is not a new approach to doing economics, but instead is best seen as a way of enriching ‘conventional economics’ (using Gittins’ terminology). Second, that behavioural economics is not a panacea. Not all aspects of economic activity need psychology to be understood and behavioural economics has limitations. Third, that the failings of conventional economics are not as severe as Gittins suggests.     

Health insurance: Medical treatment vs disability payment

We present arguments for treating health insurance and disability insurance in an integrated manner in economic analysis, based on a model where each individual’s utility depends on both consumption and health and her income depends on her earning ability. When purchasing insurance, she may choose a contract that offers less than full medical treatment. We find that high-ability individuals demand full recovery and equalize utility across states, while low-ability individuals demand partial treatment and cash compensation and suffer a loss in utility if ill. Our results carry over to the case where health states are not observable.     

西方经济思想演进与中国经济学发展的分析

西方宏观经济学不确定的内容与不同学派无休止的争议显示了经济学的非成熟性。纵观宏观经济理论的演进过程,主流思想的基本定位仍然在供应与需求孰重孰轻上,中国经济学研究也进入了这一思想构架,但中国经济学实际面临的最大的问题：经济学的精确化问题,经济学的贫民化问题,经济学的人本化问题和经济学的角用性问题;如果这些问题不解决,“西化”的研究将会使我国经济学走入误区。     

Impact of exchange rate volatility on commodity trade between US and Hong Kong

The impact of exchange rate uncertainty on trade flows is still the center of attention in international economics. A few studies that have looked at this effect in Hong Kong have used either aggregate data between Hong Kong and the rest of the world or between Hong Kong and several of her major trading partners. They have been unable to locate any significant effect. Suspecting that existing studies could suffer from aggregation bias, we concentrate on the trade between Hong Kong and the US and disaggregate their trade flows further by commodity. Out of 140 Hong Kong importing industries and 104 exporting industries considered, we find short-run effects in the majority of the industries. The short-run effects translated into the long run in 81 of Hong Kong import industries and 51 of her export industries, a finding that contradicts previous research.     

法经济学及其在中国的应用

“法经济学”迄今并没有一个大家一致认可的、标准的定义。法经济学可从狭义和广义两个角度进行区分。广义地理解法经济学可以使我们的视野变得更为开阔，同时也拓展了法律与经济这个主题所涵盖的范围。法经济学在20世纪七八十年代得到了蓬勃发展，但进入90年代后则鲜有突破，所以，法经济学未来的发展方向已经成为当前法经济学面临的最主要的理论问题。最近几年来，越来越多的中国学者加入到法经济学的研究中来。法经济学在中国的兴起，与中国正在经历一个制度变迁的时代有关。     

The new institutional economics and its relevance to social economics

There has been a quiet revolution in economic theory, led by the New Institutionalists. Pioneered by Douglass C. North, this group argues that institutions are the main determinants of economic performance, yet neoclassical economics has no role for institutions. Contrary to many misconceptions, this theory of institutions can be integrated with neoclassical economics, leaving mainstream economic theory in tact, but broader and more relevant. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, the main arguments of the New Institutionalists are summarized. Second, the bridge between institutions and social economics is explored. The article concludes by arguing that the New Institutional approach is fruitful, and that the theory will gradually be integrated with neoclassical economics, until the two merge into a single body of theory.     

The Economic Emergence of Women: Bergmann's Six Commitments

I suggest in this essay that Barbara Bergmann's approach to the economics of women is characterized by six striking dimensions, or what I call 'commitments', namely: (1) a willingness to incorporate values into her analysis openly; (2) a commitment to applied economics - economic analysis that supports policy change that will improve women's and children's lives; (3) a commitment to empirical economics, i.e. to data collection and data-based analysis; (4) a commitment to communication with the public; (5) a commitment to the truth even if it challenges convenient orthodoxy; (6) a commitment to focus on how change can occur - to be positive not defeatist. A review of these six commitments, I demonstrate, reveals that they are held together by the first one, her willingness to incorporate values into her scholarly work openly.     

Mere quibbles: Bagus and Howden’s critique of the theory of free banking

Despite its title, Philipp Bagus and David Howden’s critique of The Theory of Free Banking does more than merely “quibble” with that book’s arguments; their criticisms of those arguments are such as to suggest that the very foundation upon which my defense of free banking rests is deeply flawed. Here, I defend my work against Bagus and Howden’s criticisms, by showing that they rest upon careless or disingenuous readings of my arguments and a poor grasp of basic monetary economics.     

Distributional preference in Japan

Using experiments developed by Engelmann and Strobel ( 2004 ), this study investigates distributional preference in Japan. We find that just over half the people in the study have a maximin preference, approximately 7 to 19% have an efficiency preference, approximately 8% have a self‐interest preference, and approximately 18% chose the allocation that would reduce the payoff to the rich and the poor, given that her/his payoff would remain constant. The last preference could be interpreted as what is referred to as “malice”, “deep envy” or a “feeling of vulnerability” in behavioural economics and cross‐cultural psychology.     

USING LOTTERIES TO FINANCE PUBLIC GOODS: THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE*

This study explores the economics of charitable fund‐raising. We begin by developing theory that examines the optimal lottery design while explicitly relaxing both risk‐neutrality and preference homogeneity assumptions. We test our theory using a battery of experimental treatments and find that our theoretical predictions are largely confirmed. Specifically, we find that single‐ and multiple‐prize lotteries dominate the voluntary contribution mechanism both in total dollars raised and the number of contributors attracted. Moreover, we find that the optimal fund‐raising mechanism depends critically on the risk postures of potential contributors and preference heterogeneity.     

Joan Robinson's disillusion with economics

In her last public comments on the state of economics, Joan Robinson made some extraordinary remarks that conveyed profound pessimism and theoretical nihilism. To account for the bleakness of Robinson's later views on economics and economic policy this article examines her last decade. These years were marked by an array of reverses to the causes she espoused. While ill health and a propensity to be provocative coloured her disposition, her comment about economic theory disintegrating in her hands was not made casually; it was, rather, an acknowledgement that her project to integrate Keynes with the classical surplus theory had failed. This acknowledgement crystallised into her rejection of the long-period equilibrium interpretation of Keynes's theory of unemployment. At the end of her life Robinson was willing only to embrace the more traditional short-period Keynesian model grounded in uncertainty and expectations.     

An Illustration of the Bias of OLS for Yt = λY t-1 + U t

Using longitudinal data on undergraduates from 463 American colleges and universities from 1994–99, the authors examine how majoring in economics affects student opinions on 13 social, political, and economic issues. Economics majors were found to begin and end their college tenure with differing opinions on several issues when compared to other majors, and studying economics was found to be related to changes in several opinions. On the whole, studying economics appeared to increase beliefs in favor of personal freedom and decrease support for government intervention in markets. However, the authors find little evidence that economics majors leave college more united on their opinions when compared to the general student population.     

A note on economic freedom and political ideology

Within the field of public economics, there is the perception that Republicans are associated with ‘small government’ and Democrats with ‘big government’. We test this notion by examining whether economic freedom is affected when a single party is in control of the state legislature. We find no link between party control and our main economic freedom indicator, but we do find a positive link between Republican control and the taxation component of economic freedom, suggesting a Republican legislature leads to lower taxation.