The New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts

Abstract

Until the emergence of the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) in the 1980s, migration scholars were largely divided into two main theoretical camps, viz. the neoclassical and historical-structural approaches to migration. Against this background, the NELM presented itself as a theoretical ‘third way’ between the two latter approaches, and purported to reconcile agency and structure in a way previously unachieved by either of them. While those pretensions gained a fair amount of acceptance and popularity, this paper argues that they are fundamentally misleading, and that the NELM is little more than a slightly more sophisticated avatar of the neoclassical approach to migration, whose fundamental weaknesses it has not, and cannot, shed. This paper further argues that, in so doing, the NELM effectively constitutes migration theory's own instance of economics imperialism, i.e. the attempt to advance the fundamental tenets of neoclassical economics (methodological individualism and the assumption of optimizing rationality) within the context of the study and interpretation of various social phenomena. In order to put forth these arguments, this paper provides a summary presentation of the standard neoclassical theory of migration, the historical-structural heterodoxy and the NELM; highlights why it is that the NELM should be regarded as a ‘reworked’ version of the neoclassical theoretical framework and discusses its inception in the context of the ‘information-theoretic revolution’ in economics; and argues for a new and improved ‘historical-structural synthesis’ as a more satisfactory alternative to both the NELM and the standard neoclassical theory.     

The nature of heterodox economics

Heterodoxy serves as an umbrella term to cover the coming togetherof separate projects or traditions. In answering the question,‘what distinguishes heterodoxy from the orthodoxy?’,the author argues that matters of ontology are central. In answeringthe question, ‘how are the various traditions that makeup the modern heterodoxy to be distinguished from each other?’,the author defends criteria other than varying commitments tospecific substantive theories, policy measures or techniques(or basic units) of analysis.     

Hans Singer's debts to Schumpeter and Keynes

This essay discusses Hans Singer's intellectual formation andthe influences on his early writings and on his post-1947 developmenteconomics. It asks what impact the unusual experience of studyingwith both Schumpeter and Keynes had upon his subsequent economicthinking and practice. It argues that the influence of boththese mentors was surprisingly small, compared with that ofSpiethoff and Clark. Singer repaid his debts to Schumpeter andKeynes, but by working in the new currency of development economics,some of which was his own coinage. His motivation for this vasteffort was derived from the social egalitarianism of figuressuch as William Beveridge, Archbishop Temple and R. H. Tawney,rather than the liberalism of Schumpeter and Keynes.     

Towards an Austro–German theory of uneven economic development? A plea for theorising by inclusion

Based on Meir Kohn’s distinction between research programmes based on ‘value’ and ‘exchange’ (2004), this paper argues for a ‘production’ paradigm based on the tradition of Menger and Schumpeter. It is suggested that this production-based programme could use, as its starting point, Schumpeter’s (Wesen und Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie, 1908) attempt to mediate in the Methodenstreit by arguing that different types of economic problems require theories at different levels of abstraction. This opens up for ‘theorising by inclusion’, an approach combining key elements both of traditional German economics and of Austrian economics in the Mengerian tradition.     

The future of development economics: a methodological agenda

This paper discusses methodological differences between universalismand particularism in development economics by focusing on the‘East Asian Miracle’ debate. It proposes to builddevelopment economics as part of hetero-economics, not mono-economics,following Max Weber's methodology of social science, and suggestsdeveloping intermediate theories by abstracting directly fromgiven comparative settings. It also discusses the limitationsthat are inherent in this method, as well as ways to employthe method in actual analyses. This paper argues that the futuretask of development economics lies in recombining existing theoriesand developing new, complementing theories that will systematicallydelineate the diversity of developing countries.     

The breakdown of the IS–LM synthesis: implications for post-Keynesian economic theory

The monetarist and the new classical economics attack routed the IS–LM version of Keynesian theory and the large scale econometric models from the centre of macroeconomic research. However monetarism and the new classical economics were more successful as a critique of the IS–LM orthodoxy than as a basis for fruitful research and policy analysis.

Post-Keynesian economists also attack the IS–LM orthodoxy, mainly because it misspecified ‘… the economic society in which we actually live’. Post-Keynesians that emphasized financial and labour markets argued that properties of the real world economy made instability normal results ofmarket interactions.

The vacuum in main line theory that developed as the shortcomings of monetarism became evident led to a revival of interest in basic Keynesian propositions. This has spawned what is now labeled a new Keynesian economics. New Keynesian economists conform to the modeling standards set by the new classical rational expectations school but claim to get Keynesian results. To a degree these results are compatible with propositions of post-Keynesian economics.

It is suggested that a convergence between the new and the post-Keynesian economics can be expected, and the result is likely to be fruitful.     

Post Keynesianism,Heterodoxy and Mainstream Economics

After briefly presenting the concepts of orthodox, mainstream and heterodox economics, and applying them to the contemporary period, this article discusses the Post Keynesian school and its relation to contemporary orthodox and mainstream economics. While opposed to the neoclassical orthodoxy, the Post Keynesian school has some positive unifying ideas, although some internal tensions remain. There are also some overlaps between Post Keynesianism and other approaches, and a careful combination of contributions from different approaches and different disciplines is not only possible, but also necessary. Post Keynesianism is located outside current mainstream economics, although this argument partly depends on a more precise specification of the concept of uncertainty. The non-mainstream character of Post Keynesian economics has at least two types of important implications. The first involves the approach's ability to influence the economy and the danger of ‘the scholastic fallacy’; the second refers to a reproductive difficulty inside academia.     

New structural economics meets European transition

This paper explores whether new structural economics, and more broadly Structuralist approaches, could add to our understanding of transition in Central and Eastern Europe – and ultimately asks whether new structural economics and transition economics might be extended or integrated into a dynamic model of structural transformation that could better account for this particular development experience and provide policy guidance for the future. We have presented three perspectives – new structural economics, transition economics and the Neo-Schumpetarian approach – all of them emphasising different aspects of structural transformation. Their relative explanatory power depends on the context – for example, the extent of distortions in the economy, the quality of the institutions and where a country finds itself relative to the world technology frontier – and the questions we are interested in understanding. We suggest that, to date, the Neo-Schumpetarian approach offers the most promising and persuasive story line to think about this difficult challenge.     

金融计量经济学:成就和挑战

本文通过对近 2 0年来金融计量经济学主要发展成就的回顾 ,介绍了计量经济学研究的热点领域和有待解决的问题。本文认为 ,ARCH模型以及在此基础上发展起来的其他异方差模型、GMM以及与之相关的参数估计方法的出现以及在金融经济学中成功的运用 ,是金融计量经济学最重要最基本的成就 ;数据及处理方法的独特性使金融计量经济学相对独立于传统计量经济学而发展。     

环境经济学与生态经济学学科体系比较

环境经济学与生态经济学是两门具有姐妹血缘关系、但不能相互替代的新兴学科。本文通过分析环境经济学与生态经济学的研究范畴,阐述其学科体系的差异性,从而界定各自的研究内容。     

Is UK economics teaching changing? Evaluating the new subject benchmark statement

This paper evaluates the recent reform to the curricular governance framework for UK Economics teaching: the revised Subject Benchmark Statement document for Economics (SBSE). The crisis of confidence in economics which was amplified by the global financial crisis presented an opportunity for fundamental change in economics teaching. The paper asks whether the new SBSE represents change. We ask whether the new SBSE is pluralist with regard to economic theory and method; how it treats the economy and its wider socio-political dimension; what are its educational goals and approach; and overall, how much change has it brought? The paper concludes that the new SBSE does not constitute change: it still exhibits limited pluralism, ignores ethics, power and politics and ignores key educational goals.     

Economics in the pre-college curricluum

This study analyzes the effects of integrating economics into the social studies curriculum and the effects of participation in the Stock Market Game (SMG) on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) economics outcome scores. The study was carried out using state summary and disaggregated data and summary data for each school system in Maryland. The 1992 and 1994 MSPAP economics outcome scores for grades 3, 5, and 8 constituted the dependent variable with the level of integration of economics in the curriculum and the level of participation in the SMG being the main explanatory variables. Using comparative static analysis, two related but separate questions were addressed. The first question asks how school systems with different levels of integration of economics in the curriculum and with different levels of participation in the SMG compare to the state average. The second question asks how these groupings compare to each other. It is this second question that lends itself to more rigorous hypothesis testing.Funding for this project was provided in part by the Securities Industry Foundation for Economic Education, the Council on Economic Education in Maryland, and the Towson State University Faculty Development and Research Committee.     

“双一流”建设与经济学发展的中国贡献?

作为社会科学的“皇冠”,经济学的学科建设在中国“双一流”建设中,尤其在世界一流学科建设中具有重要意义,也将对中国全面深化改革以实现国家治理现代化提供重要的现实指导。文章首先分析了世界一流经济学科建设之于“双一流”战略导向的契合度,然后探讨了中国的世界一流经济学科建设所面临的难点及其突破点,进而阐述了中国可从哪些方面为经济学的发展和创新做出贡献。研究认为,打造中国的世界一流经济学科需要按照国际同行学术标准进行评价,所研究的问题(包括中国问题)应该是国际同行关注的问题,从而需要从完善学科分类评价体系、加强原创性研究和高层次人才集聚等方面加以突破。与此同时,针对经济学在中国的发展和创新,研究指出,对于中国传统经济思想的历史禀赋和现代价值的挖掘、具有原创性的理论研究和方法论研究创新以及基于中国经济改革发展实践的理论提炼升华,是中国经济学界可以且应该做出重要贡献的三个方向。     

Notes on Contributors

This research asks why the European Union (EU) ‘uploads’ financial regulation to international regulatory fora in some (few) cases, ‘downloads’ it in (many) other cases or neither. It uses the concept of ‘regulatory capacity’ with reference to the EU and the USA. It argues that the presence (or absence) of robust domestic regulatory templates strengthen (or weaken) the ability of these jurisdictions to shape international standards produced by regulatory fora. Timing is also important in that whichever of the two manages to be out in front and shape international standards in a given sector wins first-mover advantages. The paper considers variations across the main financial services (banking, securities and insurance) as well as over time.     

The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science

When heterodox economists talk of pluralism they are generally talking about pluralism within the economics profession—they are asking: how can we have a more pluralistic economics profession? This paper argues that another, perhaps more useful, way to think of pluralism and economics is from the perspective of all the social sciences. When considered in reference to the social science profession rather than in reference to the economics profession, the amount of pluralism increases significantly, since different social sciences follow quite different methodologies. But looking at pluralism from the social science perspective reveals a different type of pluralism problem in social science. While there may be plenty of pluralism within social science as a whole, there is a serious question about whether it is appropriately distributed. This paper argues that heterodox economists' agenda should be a greater blending of all the social science departments. It summarizes proposals to do so on both the undergraduate level and graduate level, and explains why supporting variations of these proposals would be a strategy that would further the objectives of most heterodox economists more than would their current strategy of pushing for more pluralism in economics.     

The Neutrality Illusion: Biased Economics,Biased Training,and Biased Monetary Policy. Testing the Role of Ideology on FOMC Voting Behaviour

This research is trying to shed light on two myths that are usually widespread: the first one being the idea of the academic economist as a neutral scientist finding uncontestable consensual truths, thanks to uncontestable empirical methods, the second, the idea of the central banker as a Weberian neutral bureaucrat setting aside personal beliefs to act mechanically for the common good. Deconstructing this ‘neutrality illusion’, this work argues that economics is actually a divided and ideologically marked discipline despite its aim at natural-science-type-legitimacy. It argues in a related discussion that such ideological bias also impedes a purely neutral conduct of monetary policy, undermining the very idea of central bank independence. Linking these two arguments, it argues that graduate training in economics is the first place for the formation of biased preferences, because of the substantial ideological sorting that exists across universities. Using a unique database on FOMC members’ votes and ideology, the paper tests this idea empirically and despite unavoidable caveats, finds robust evidence of a systematic impact of the ideological features of their alma mater on FOMC members’ voting behaviour – impact that we found more important than the other traditional determinants of central bankers’ actions.     

回归失落的传统:广义虚拟经济理论的政治经济学解读(I)

政治经济学曾经是经济学科的核心,其重要的标志就是强调国家的富强和政府的经济调控职能。然而,在后来的发展历程中,经济学科逐渐分裂为强调归纳和历史研究的政治经济学范式与推崇纯演绎和数学分析的纯经济学范式。前者延续了早期经济学科的政治经济学视角,强调政治对经济发展的影响作用,并进而对制度尤其是文化因素进行了新的考察;而后者则抛弃了早期经济学科的政治经济学,在过分强调模型分析和数学方法的趋势下,逐渐演变成为一门专注于模型分析的纯粹经济学,在越来越脱离政治经济学的同时,也越来越与现实脱节。本文把政治经济学与当今一些中国学者提出的广义虚拟经济理论相联系,从政治经济学发展的角度对广义虚拟经济理论进行解读。本文认为在政治经济学研究缺失的今天,广义虚拟经济理论是对政治经济学的一种回归;其不仅坚持了传统的政治和文化视角,而且通过"制文化权"等理论的提出,对政治经济学理论体系进行了发展和创新。