Search results

During the twentieth century mathematics has expanded at an unprecedented rate. This expansion has been accompanied by the increased application of mathematics to science. At a time when pure mathematics has been placing more and more emphasis on abstraction and the analysis of broad concepts there has been a corresponding proliferation of practical applications. This seems to have resulted from the fact that the sciences, too, have become more concerned with the discernment of general patterns in the study of nature. This search for simplifying ideas has increased the demand for ever more abstract tools of analysis.

Discussion of scientific progress in science philosophy texts suggests that aggressiveness and selfishness on the part of scientists is associated with high productivity. It is argued that the behaviour that appears to be the most improper actually facilitates the manifest goals of science. This article shows that the making of the 1930s generation of a sample of eminent economists was shaped by a high sense of co‐operation; continuing collaborative contact in the form of dual authorships of books and articles, joint teaching assignments, and review and support of each other′s writings, but very little of the intensive, relentless competition one finds among natural scientists. The difference stems not so much from the fact that economics is a soft science, but rather from the degree of maturity of the discipline. The 1930s generation of economists was fortunate to enter the field at a time when it was ready for its take off.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that free market capitalism is neither efficient nor just. This is in spite of the claims made by its proponents who, utilizing Adam Smith's doctrine of invisible hand or the fundamental theorem of welfare economics, assume that it is efficient, just, smooth functioning, and self‐regulating.

The paper utilizes conceptual/theoretical research and arguments that have emerged in the literatures of public economics and welfare economics.

In addition to proving the above, the paper also finds that Adam Smith is actually a moral egalitarian, thus he could not have agreed with Nozick and Friedman regarding the nature of capitalism. To the extent that Smith supported free market capitalism, it was because he thought, in contrast to mercantilist policies, that free markets would lead to equity and justice.

The paper is an original/valuable contribution since it rescues Adam Smith from the extreme proponents of laissez‐faire capitalism who claim him.

The purpose of the study is to explore contributions made in Islamic economics methodology, particularly in the use of mathematical models used to build Islamic economic theories.

The methodology adopted is a survey by means of literature review.

Overuse of mathematical models in economics has it apparent weakness in simplifying complex realities and use of impracticable assumptions. But, that notwithstanding, they have a role to play in the development of Islamic economics. Empirical analysis in Islamic economics has weaknesses, including the very fact that moral phenomenon in Islamic economics is difficult to quantify, but its contribution, just like mathematics, is needed to develop the field. Islamic economics adopt mathematical models that do not cause obstacles in achieving the aim of Islamic economics, which is Falah. Where it is harmful, it is discarded. Islamic economics has yet to have a universally accepted research methodology; instead, numerous methodologies are used today. The poor use of mathematics in Islamic economics by new researchers, among other factors, may be due to young researchers’ poor background in mathematics.

The paper is unique in looking at the topic of Islamic economic methodology from the angle of application of mathematical models.

This paper explores the relevance of Adam Smith’s invisible hand and the remainder of his legacy for public management. The paper’s central claim is that, by approaching Adam Smith and his legacy, public managers can assist themselves to do what they should do - examine their latent assumptions. The first of three challenges in approaching Adam Smith’s ideas is to get Smith right, because he has been widely misunderstood. The second is to question Smith’s account of conceptual space; it is desirable to go beyond him. The third challenge is to explore in specific terms the potential for public management of an understanding of Smith and his legacy

My thoughts are shaped by my experience of the last five years. The job has been to manage a major business in an essential industry during a period of critical policy disputes. Changes, uncertainty, and shocks have been almost continuous and they have occurred against a backdrop of an economy that was wracked by surging inflation and then weakened by prolonged, deep recession.

After a clarification of definitions important in methodological discussions, a brief history of early methodological thought in economics and political economy is presented. The development of “orthodox” methodology is traced, and the fundamental assumptions underlying neoclassical economic methodology are enumerated. Philosophical positions – both critical of and sympathetic to the orthodox assumptions – are presented. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of various heterodox positions are surveyed. Throughout the paper, methodological justifications for the emphasis on primarily deductive, complex mathematical models in contemporary economics as practiced in the USA – especially in light of the relevance and importance of primarily verbal, interpretive methodologies in the realm of applied and policy‐oriented economics – are examined.

Outlines some of the different ways of analysing economic systems. Considers the econometric way of research does not explain fully and adequately the economic activity. Believes that a better and more adequate method of investigation would be through the introduction of cybernetic models and methods. Presents as an example a linear aggregative model of simple Keynesian form and contrasts the cybernetical approach with the conventional one. Discusses the choice between these approaches and the advantages and disadvantages of their implementation.

This paper encourages an examination of the conceptual space which Adam Smith’s work and legacy present and which conditions thinking about governmental and societal organization and management. The paper, situating Smith in his eighteenth‐century context, distinguishes between the historical Smith and his legacy. It analyzes the invisible hand doctrine, showing that the doctrine should be understood in the context of Smith’s other writings and arguing that Smith himself would reject the version which many suppose to constitute the Smithian legacy. It emphasizes the importance of the Smithian legacy, and it argues that Smith’s readers should go beyond Smith by recognizing the socially constituted character of the conceptual space which Smith’s writings and legacy have provided to contemporary society. A central implication is that, by exploring Adam Smith and his legacy, governmental and other thinkers and managers can do what they should do ‐ examine their latent assumptions.