Search results

The theory of monopoly price was originally formulated by Carl Menger at the inception of the marginalist revolution in 1871 and represented the dominant theoretical approach to monopoly until the 1930s. Despite its impeccable doctrinal pedigree and lengthy dominance, the theory abruptly disappeared from the mainstream neoclassical literature after the Monopolistic Competition Revolution, to be revived and reformulated after World War II by Ludwig von Mises. The present paper describes the theory as it was offered in its most sophisticated pre‐war form by American economist Vernon A. Mund, who published an unjustifiably neglected volume on monopoly theory that appeared in the same year as the classic works by Joan Robinson and Edward Chamberlain. This paper then attempts to draw out the critical implications of Mund’s formulation of the theory for the current neoclassical orthodoxy in monopoly and competition theory, including the elasticity of demand curves facing individual producers under competition, the time perspectives that are most relevant in analyzing the pricing process, the proper role of long‐run equilibrium in this analysis, and the misapplication of the marginal revenue and marginal cost concepts. Finally, the paper suggests a number of reasons why the theory was swept aside in the aftermath of the Chamberlain/Robinson Revolution with almost no resistance from its most prominent exponents.

The purpose of this paper is to read a selection of Dixon's library collection in conjunction with his published work in an effort to make his book collection and research speak to contemporary scholars who should be exposed to Dixon's writings.

The paper adopts a viewpoint approach.

A case is made that Dixon's work is characterised by a concern with the historical sedimentation and structuration of marketing theory and practice.

Calls attention to Dixon's work for scholars who might otherwise have bypassed it by linking it with contemporary interpretive and critical marketing approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the origins, members, activities, and influence of the Ratio Club, a British cybernetic dining club that met between 1949 and 1958. Although its membership included some of the best known British cyberneticists, such as Grey Walter and Ross Ashby, along with pioneering scientists such as Alan Turing, the club is poorly documented, and its significance is difficult to establish from published sources.

The approach involved the consultation and analysis of unpublished material in both private and public archives in the UK and the USA, coupled with interviews with surviving members, guests, and contemporaries.

The Ratio Club grew out of a distinctively British strand of cybernetic activity that was mainly fuelled by the deployment of biologists to engineering activities during the Second World War. It was also strongly influenced by the approach of the psychologist Kenneth Craik. Although members were keenly aware of contemporary American developments, such as Wiener's approach to the mathematics of control, and the psychological and sociological concerns of the Macy Conference, the emphasis of the club was on the application of cybernetic ideas and information theory to biology and the brain. In contrast to the wide influence the later Macy conferences exercised through their published transcripts, the Ratio Club influenced its core disciplines though its members, several of whom became prominent and effective advocates of the cybernetic approach.

This is the first journal paper to give an authoritative, detailed, and accurate account of the club's origins, activities, and importance.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has been Congress’ long‐serving auditor, issuing reports designed to improve the operations of government agencies and to enhance their cost effectiveness. In order to do this effectively, it must have unrestricted access to records. The GAO, in response to a request from two congressmen, sought access to records and names of attendees at an energy planning group meeting held in 2001. Access was denied by Vice President Cheney. The GAO then brought a suit to secure access. The suit was dismissed by District Circuit Judge Bates and the Comptroller General decided not to appeal. At this time the GAO's continuation as a super audit agency appeared highly uncertain, resulting in an emasculation of Congress’s powers.

It was stated by a philosopher of very early days that the Gods sell their choicest goods in the cheapest market; and, it may be added, if it is necessary to impress such an obvious truism, that the greatest poverty may often be found in the midst of riches. The herring well illustrates the truths of the above paragraph.

ATKINSON was mainly about space. However, certain very important general principles emerge in the report, firstly that the allocation of limited resources among universities cannot be decided without “making assumptions about the role and operation of libraries”. The report was not concerned with these assumptions, although it noted, secondly, that in deciding how much space should be allocated for readers, much depended “on local circumstances and teaching patterns”.

WHEN I went to visit a friend who was spending a few days as a patient in Northwick Park Hospital, it seemed natural, as I was in ‘foreign’ territory, to investigate the local library facilities. To anyone who passed their SRN finals in a non‐teaching hospital in the mid‐60's, and then discontinued nursing practice, the likelihood of finding a special library service for nurses would seem as remote as disposable syringes and the removal of rubber draw sheets from hospital beds.

User education programmes fall into two categories. They may aim simply to help the student through his course and familiarise him with a single library (short‐term objectives), or to provide a fuller awareness of the generation, role, and use of information which may allow him to research problems in any subsequent professional situation (long‐term objectives). It is argued that the latter are more valuable; the objectives of librarian and student on such courses are discussed in detail. A user education course based on long‐term objectives is described, and its effects on student and library discussed. Finally, the contribution of user education to the “information society” is considered, and user education programmes with long‐term objectives preferred.

In the early 1930s, Nicholas Kaldor could be classified as an Austrian economist. The author reconstructs the intertwined paths of Kaldor and Friedrich A. Hayek to disequilibrium economics through the theoretical deficiencies exposed by the Austrian theory of capital and its consequences on equilibrium analysis.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The integration of capital theory into a business cycle theory by the Austrians and its shortcomings – e.g. criticized by Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal – called attention to the limitation of the theoretical apparatus of equilibrium analysis in dynamic contexts. This was a central element to Kaldor’s emancipation in 1934 and his subsequent conversion to John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In addition, it was pivotal to Hayek’s reformulation of equilibrium as a social coordination problem in “Economics and Knowledge” (1937). It also had implications for Kaldor’s mature developments, such as the construction of the post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, the Cambridge capital controversy, and his critique of neoclassical equilibrium economics.

The close encounter between Kaldor and Hayek in the early 1930s, the developments during that decade and its mature consequences are unexplored in the secondary literature. The author attempts to construct a coherent historical narrative that integrates many intertwined elements and personas (e.g. the reception of Knut Wicksell in the English-speaking world; Piero Sraffa’s critique of Hayek; Gunnar Myrdal’s critique of Wicksell, Hayek, and Keynes; the Hayek-Knight-Kaldor debate; the Kaldor-Hayek debate, etc.) that were not connected until now by previous commentators.