Search results

During the last years of his life, the mathematician Karl Menger worked on a biography of his father, the economist and founder of the Austrian School of Economics, Carl Menger. The younger Menger never finished the work. While working in the Menger collections at Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, we discovered draft chapters of the biography, a valuable source of information given that relatively little is known about Carl Menger’s life nearly a hundred years after his death. The unfinished biography covers Carl Menger’s family background and his life through early 1889. In this chapter, the authors discuss the biography and the most valuable new insights it provides into Carl Menger’s life, including Carl Menger’s family, his childhood, his student years, his time working as a journalist and newspaper editor, his early scientific career, and his relationship with Crown Prince Rudolf.

According to a widely accepted view, the Methodenstreit between the historical and Austrian school was the result of misunderstandings. Argues that it was rather the outcome of different solutions to genuine philosophical and methodological problems, in particular to a demarcation problem. Presents a reconstruction of the position of Roscher. Argues that Roscher sought to solve a demarcation problem and therefore triggered a problem situation which was of fundamental importance for further discussion. Contrasts the views of Roscher and Menger. Argues that Menger′s views constitute a direct response to Roscher′s problem situation.

Describes how the opinions about Wilhelm Roscher and his work developed during the century following his death in the USA. Possible reasons for the changes are explored. Special attention is given to the more favourable reception of Roscher in the USA as opposed to the UK. A central point is that his influence and importance in the USA changed as time passed and with the development of professional economics. Suggests new reading of Cunningham′s essay. Attention is drawn to some of Roscher′s works in English that have been neglected. Some problems of periodization in the history of economic thought are investigated. Several conventional judgements are challenged and possibilities for further research suggested.

During the last decade or so, philosophers of science have shown increasing interest in scientific models and modeling. The primary impetus seems to have come from the philosophy of biology, but increasingly the philosophy of economics has been drawn into the discussion. This paper will focus on the particular subset of this literature that emphasizes the difference between a scientific model being explanatory and one that provides explanations of specific events. The main differences are in the structure of the models and the characteristics of the explanatory target. Traditionally, scientific explanations have been framed in terms of explaining particular events, but many scientific models have targets that are hypothetical patterns: “patterns of macroscopic behavior across systems that are heterogeneous at smaller scales” (Batterman & Rice, 2014, p. 349). The models with this characteristic are often highly idealized, and have complex and heterogeneous targets; such models are “central to a kind of modeling that is widely used in biology and economics” (Rohwer & Rice, 2013, p. 335). This paper has three main goals: (i) to discuss the literature on such models in the philosophy of biology, (ii) to show that certain economic phenomena possess the same degree of heterogeneity and complexity often encountered in biology (and thus, that hypothetical pattern explanations may be appropriate in certain areas of economics), and (iii) to demonstrate that Hayek’s arguments about “pattern predictions” and “explanations of the principle” are essentially arguments for the importance of this type of modeling in economics.

This chapter explores the origins of the theme of competitive advantage in 19th and early 20th century economics. This theme, which forms the core of modern Strategic Management, was a battleground for debates about the value of abstract theory versus observations about real-life events. Intellectual genealogies, citations, and other sources show the central roles played by the University of Vienna and Harvard University. These two institutions strongly influenced the theory of monopolistic competition as well as all three modern views of competitive advantage – the industrial as expressed by Porter, the resource-based as expressed by Penrose, and the evolutionary as expressed by Schumpeter.

Analysing the values theories of the nineteenth century, there is a remarkable difference between German and English theories: the idea of subjective value is a very German idea, from the beginning of the nineteenth century, ignored by textbooks of the history of economic thought. The German conception of subjective value is subjective, but not individualistic, and is different from the marginalistic conception of value later on. In the German tradition ‐ Hufeland, Lotz, Rau, Hermann, Knies, Wagner, etc. ‐ the value theory deals with “meaning”. The economic actor is able to choose subjectively, but in the context of a collective meaning. We get some new insights into the very German idea of a social economy.

These details and drawings of patents granted in the United States are taken, by permission of the Department of Commerce, from the ‘Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office’. Printed copies of the full specifications can be obtained, price 10 cents each, from the Commissioner of Patents, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. They are usually available for inspection at the British Patent Office, Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane, London, W.C.2.

Through a series of critical discussions on Karl Popper’s evolutionary analysis of learning and the non-authoritarian values it promotes, the purpose of this paper is to advocate a Popperian approach for building medical student knowledge. Specifically, it challenges positivist assumptions that permeate the design and management of many educational institutions, including teaching hospitals, by considering what does and does not happen when learning takes place.

To illustrate how Popper’s approach differs from such a conception of learning, the paper examines the exchange between a preceptor (Sam) and a medical student (Lisa). The following exchange is based on the observations during a team meeting in a Canadian teaching hospital. The authors sent the transcript of the observation to Lisa for her comments. The statements in italics represent Lisa’s additions. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of participants in the exchange.

Popper’s evolutionary analysis of learning and the Objective Knowledge Growth Framework provide a means of managing specific aspects of one’s education through engaging in this learning process. Although this approach to teaching and decision making takes time to master, it does not require reconstituting existing institutional arrangements before it can be implemented in hospitals. Instead, it asks medical students, teachers and practitioners to be open to the theoretical underpinnings of the approach and to view knowledge growth as a process of systematic trial and error elimination.

This paper is original in its conceptualisation and may well become a classic in education circles. It draws on Popper’s philosophical arguments and enters into a much needed discourse for teaching and learning.

On April 2, 1987, IBM unveiled a series of long‐awaited new hardware and software products. The new computer line, dubbed the Personal Systems 30, 50, 60, and 80, seems destined to replace the XT and AT models that are the mainstay of the firm's current personal computer offerings. The numerous changes in hardware and software, while representing improvements on previous IBM technology, will require users purchasing additional computers to make difficult choices as to which of the two IBM architectures to adopt.

Function libraries, and indeed the majority of organisations, especially those operating on a commercial basis or utilising public funds, consist of material and human structures. The leaders of the human structure utilise personnel and materials in the pursuit of certain goals. Brech itemises four main elements in this process of planning and regulating enterprise activities. They comprise: