Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the economic theories that lie behind the assessment of compulsory purchase compensation and the issues that arise from them.

The method has been to review the literature about the theories and the critiques of them and to examine the extent to which they provide guidance in specific cases.

The Hicks-Kaldor compensation test was developed as a way around certain problems in welfare economics but attempts to use it to determine whether projects involving compulsory purchase increase welfare are subject to a number of problems. Ultimately, there are issues of equity as well as efficiency so that a test that just looks at efficiency issues is problematic.

Understanding the weaknesses in the theoretical models behind compulsory purchase compensation can help policy makers devise alternative approaches in situations in which land has to be assembled for regeneration or infrastructure projects and fairer systems of compensation.

The use of the Hicks-Kaldor test has been challenged in environmental economics but the validity of these criticisms for compulsory purchase has not been recognised to the same extent. The use of some original case studies helps to identify some of the issues and alternatives.

The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively explore and propose solutions to global economic inequities and disparities, with a particular focus on healthcare. This paper also aims to explore whether drastic reductions of inequality are justified in terms of conventional economic theory, and whether ending inequality can be viewed as ethical through certain lenses.

To seek the response to those questions, the paper uses Pareto optimality; Hicks–Kaldor model; Millian utilitarianism; the ethical theories developed by John Rawls in his 1971 work on ethics as well as his 1999 Law of People; and the capability approach developed by Noble Laureate economists Amartya Sen. As demonstrated, those equalizing works cannot support a policy that would advocate an end to global inequities. Those theories also propose no practical solutions for the end of those extreme inequities. Thus, the paper attempts to present other solutions.

This paper discusses two theories that are very helpful in supporting those without much wealth. Mohammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank and its provision of small free-interest loans to poor businesses (in particular women) in Bangladesh has been very successful. Another alternative advocating interest-free banking that was proposed by the proponents of binary economics is discussed.

The author believes the arguments used to support the theses of this paper be unique and novel.

This is the second part of a long investigation under the title of, Principia Oeconomica; the first having appeared in this journal in 1986. The substance of the argument in this contribution is in the form of a dialogue with Henri Guitton, member of l'Institut de France and author of a book in French, De l'Imperfection en Economie (1979). Guitton is leading a new French Economic School critical of a modern economy characterised by ‘Econosm” or “Economy of Counter‐sense”. Economism refers to the practice of conceiving problems of a modern society in strictly economic‐accounting terms and neglecting a host of social and human aspects. The second term means that the sole attention given to growth in production did not increase the happiness of man but on the contrary it created for him new problems (pollution, noise, atomic radiation and other hazards). To cope with these problems, the French school recommends wise policies which Guitton called “creative imperfection”. Guitton's presentation is followed step by step, with an interpretation in terms of stable equilibrium. The recommendation stresses structural reforms to solve the same problems but following a road of “creative perfection” leading to the same goal sought by Guitton: a better world of tomorrow.

Purpose – This paper sets out to explore the concepts involved in sustainability by investigating the basic meanings of the terms, the primary principles involved and their application to practices of development. Design/methodology/approach – A perspective founded in natural science is adopted relating to energy and matter. Issues of pragmatism and human behaviour are considered to determine how the basic essentials are being pursued, with consideration of common project evaluation methods. Issues of culture, human groups and institutions are examined with respect to their impact on sustainability. Contrasts between relativist approaches (“green”) and absolute approaches (sustainability) are explored. Findings – It is concluded that absolutism should form the decision approach in order that real sustainability may be achieved. Practical implications – The paper highlights the deficiencies in the relativist approaches which are adopted currently. By diverting foci to concepts of economic, social etc. sustainability, the real and underpinning imperatives of environmental sustainability – expressed in terms of energy and matter, are diluted in the ensuing pragmatic debates. Real sustainability, it is argued, must concern such essential issues to be effective. Originality/value – This paper addresses the basic, absolute issues of sustainability and so, acts as a focus for addressing the difference between real sustainability and the relativism of current “sustainability” legislation, practices, and, unfortunately, much debate. The paper endeavours to be productively provocative as a catalyst for advance.

The Kaldor–Hicks (KH) criterion has long been the standard for benefit–cost analyses, but it has also been widely criticized as ignoring equity and, arguably, moral sentiments in general. We suggest the use of an aggregate measure (KHM) instead of KH, where M stands for moral sentiments. KHM simply adds to the traditional KH criterion the requirement that all goods for which there is a willingness to pay or accept count as economic goods. This addition, however, runs up against objections to counting moral sentiments in general and non-paternalistic altruism in particular. We show these concerns are unwarranted and suggest that the KHM criterion is superior to KH because it provides better information.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how national innovation policies strategically interact to form emergent de facto global entrepreneurship and innovation policies.

Reviews the innovation economics theory and policy literature, synthesizing the existing work into three models (autarky, cooperation and competition), then adds four new models of strategic interaction (asymmetric information, duopolistic competition, competitive factor mobility and complementary assets).

The different models predict very different outcomes. Therefore, it matters which model is true. Entrepreneurship and innovation policy needs to start with an improved science of strategic global interaction of national innovation policy.

Conceptual approach only, without empirical analysis, calls for empirical analysis to test the different models.

Points to the problem of absence of global coordination in innovation policy arising from strategic interactions between national innovation policies. Recognizes that entrepreneurship public policy is caught in this strategic game, and that there are missing global institutions here.

Improved innovation policy should enable more effective entrepreneurial environments.

Proposes seven models for understanding global strategic interaction of innovation policy, out of which four are new. These new ones are highly relevant to entrepreneurship policy.