Search results

It is suggested that the approach of the social economist to social problems, if followed, would lead to The Good Society, one in which the lot of our “human resources” would be considerably ameliorated. For the social economist the goal of the economy is not private profit nor is it improvement in the fertility of the soil nor capital accumulation for their own sakes and that of their owners, but the material, moral and spiritual well‐being of homo sapiens. The social economist is concerned with the efficiency of the capitalist system relative to the broad goals of society, rather than the maximisation of private property.

Emergency service departments face changing mission requirements, budget constraints and a demanding work environment. This study examined the perceptions of fire chiefs, officers and firefighters who attended the National Professional Development Symposium on the use of a tiered approach when responding to calls, the continued increase in medical calls and mental health services available to fire service personnel.

This study examined the perceptions of fire chiefs, officers and firefighters who attended the National Professional Development Symposium on the use of a tiered approach when responding to calls, the continued increase in medical calls and mental health services available to fire service personnel.

Survey respondents indicated that they either are currently or would consider using a tiered approach to sending a fire engine and crew or a lighter vehicle to medical or other calls based requirements identified using a tiered approach.

This idea has future implications regarding the vehicle mix of fire stations as administrators seek to meet the needs of the public most effectively. Survey responses also noted the need for mental health services arguing that care seeking firefighters should have the option of getting mental health services within the station or at an external location. Calls involving babies or young children were overwhelming cited as the most difficult. Additionally, 95% of respondents indicated a belief that most firefighters suffer from PTSD.

Recommendations include: A larger scale survey and analysis of first responder perceptions based on this study. Identifying “best practices” of the most effective “tiered response” approaches to deploying emergency services resources to calls. Studying Mental Health services combating PTSD to identify best practices. Lastly, emergency services administrators should consider changes to the “vehicle mix” when equipping or reequipping stations.

Social implications include use of a “tiered response” approach to emergency calls and focusing how best to support the mental health needs of firefighters.

Fire Departments are only beginning to explore the idea of using a tiered response to respond to emergencies. This study identifies both short and long term implications of using a tired approach. A secondary emphasis of this study explores difficult calls and PTSD issues faced by firefighters.

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.

Distribution concerns who gets what. But does “who” refer to the personal distribution of income among individuals or the functional distribution of income among suppliers of productive factors? For nearly 150 years, Anglophone distribution theory followed the Ricardian emphasis on functional distribution – the income shares of labor, land, and capital. Only beginning in the 1960s, and consolidated by a research outpouring in the early 1970s, does mainstream economics turn to the personal conception of distribution. This essay documents Anglophone (primarily American) economics’ move from functional to personal distribution, and tries to illuminate something of its causes and timing.

I have two preliminary points to make. The first concerns the type of category we have in mind. It is perfectly sensible to think of “Institutional Economics” as a candidate for describing, in part, the “reality” of economics. But in so doing, one must remember that terms and their definitions are tools of analysis. Different definitions of Institutional Economics may be used to describe part of the history of economics but doing so only means that we are using the definition as a tool and that our description is driven by the definition we adopt.

I. Introduction On January 1, 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), who has been described by Andrei Gromyko as a man who “has a nice smile, but he has iron teeth,” (Goldman, 1) gave an address to the people of the United States in which he informed them that the “Soviet people are dedicated to peace — that supreme value equal to the gift of life.” (Gorbachev, 1986(a),5). Gorbachev appealed to all that is good in the American people when he said:

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.

In a recent paper (Fiorito & Vernengo, 2009), the present writers have dealt with John Maurice Clark's contribution to macroeconomics in the 1930s with a special, but not exclusive, emphasis on its relationship to the Keynesian revolution. The general framework of Clark's aggregate analysis can be traced in a series of scattered contributions centering on the efficacy and consequences of countercyclical fiscal policy. Albeit offering a qualified support for a program of public works, Clark was concerned with the inflationary consequences of Keynesian policies, once the economy approached full employment. Clark was also dissatisfied with those interpretations of the income flow analysis, which came to be known as “Hydraulic Keynesianism” that led to the development of the so-called neoclassical synthesis.

According to Clark (1935a, b), if the various studies on the secondary effects of public works expenditures are examined, two main approaches to the analysis of the problem are revealed: “one via successive cycles of income and spending by ultimate recipients of income” – which the Columbia economist termed the “Kahn-Keynes” approach – “the other via the volume of money and its velocity of circulation.” As is well known, in the first approach, business fluctuations are seen primarily as a consequence of fluctuations in current investment. Accordingly, the amount of the secondary effects is determined by: (a) the amount of the net increase in investment; (b) the marginal propensity to consume; and (c) the length of the income propagation period. As it appears from the above, in the “Kahn-Keynes” analysis of the secondary expansion, money plays only a passive role.