Search results

Using recent literature, examines developments in seven macroeconomic schools of thought: orthodox Keynesian, monetarist, new classical, real business cycle theory, new Keynesian, Austrian and post‐Keynesian. Describes all of these and classifies them as orthodox, new or radical. After setting out the differences, discusses the degree of agreement between the schools of thought. Concludes that macroeconomics is constantly evolving, resulting in new disagreements requiring a new consensus.

Looks at the impact John Maynard Keynes and the movement (Keynesian) he started had on the theory and practice of economics in the 1930s and onwards. Identifies respective problems about capitalism and discusses them in depth. States that the monetary and fiscal policies recommended by Keynes have helped the West escape severe social consequences in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Goes on to show how economists after Keynes carried his work forward and upward in the 1940s and 1950s. Closes by stating there is a further, third revolution in economic thinking on the rise.

Macroeconomics has an important role to play in understanding the forces at work in the world today, and how they can be harnessed to meet national as well as industrial economic goals. Mr. Smith sorts out popular macroeconomic theories into schools, explains their forecasting limitations, and highlights a few public issues where the media and policymakers tend to want answers instead of forecasts.

Introduction It has been said that the word imperialism is no word for scholars. It is too value‐laden and uncertain in its meaning, a meaning which has altered with the passage of time. Nevertheless, taking account of its current use, the definition given by Benjamin Cohen (1974, p. 16) seems to be relevant. He defines imperialism as “any relationship of effective combination or control, political or economic, direct or indirect, of one nation over another”. This definition covers old and new imperialism and neo‐colonialism or neo‐imperialism even though it can be charged that it is too wide to be helpful (Mommsen, 1981) especially bearing in mind that the political or economic dependence of one state or set of states on another is relative (Barratt Brown, 1974). Indeed, unequal economic and political relations between nation states appear to be normal or usual, some might even say inescapable, no matter what is the economic system of the day and it is debatable whether all international political and economic relationships involving some degree of one‐way dependence should be described as involving imperialism.

In order to explain change and growth at the aggregate levels, three levels: macro, meso and micro must be taken into account. Applying the theories from Keynesian and post‐Keynesian economics (PKE) best explains the macro level and applying those from Schumpeterian and neo‐Schumpeterian economics (NSE) best explains the micro level. Besides this, the meso level can be further explained by merging both post‐Keynesian and neo‐Schumpeterian theories. Such a unifying approach has been missing from the literature so far. Bringing these schools of thought together is important for mutual learning and further development of innovation theory. This paper aims to effect this.

The paper presents a survey of the relevant secondary literature of the aforementioned schools of thought, identifying their methodological practice and key contributions to innovation theory.

A combination of these schools of thought offers a richer approach to studying innovation. It is found to exist in particular in the evolutionary, institutional and long‐run perspectives, in combination with emphasis on the role of finance in production.

One is invited to develop one's own theoretical and empirical approach that combines the advantages of all the schools of thought presented.

The paper is exploratory, as it reconsiders how a comprehensive approach to studying innovations can be built. It examines the existing literature. It will be of value to researchers in innovation.

This paper presents, both diagrammatically and algebraically, a two‐sector model that exemplifies and shares some of the basic characteristics to be found in the work of Kalecki, Joan Robinson, Kaldor and, in general, the “Post‐Keynesian” school of writers.

An interview with Milton Friedman in 1996 ‐ presents his reflections on some of the important issues surrounding the evolution of, and currrent debates within, modern macroeconomics. A world‐renowned economist and prolific author since the 1930s, Milton Friedman has had a considerable impact on macroeconomic theory and policy making. Associated mostly with monetarism and the efficacy of free markets, his work has ranged over a broader area ‐ microeconomics, methodology, consumption function, applied statistics, international economics, monetary theory, history and policy, business cycles and inflation. In the interview discusses Keynes’s General Theory, monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, methodology, economic policy, European union and the monetarist counter‐revolution.

Discusses the heritage of John Maynard Keynes in terms of application and results of his new economic philosophy over the last four decades. Compares the Keynesian school of thought with other classical and contemporary economists in relation to foundations of monetary and economic analysis, the economics of stable equilibrium, and the economics of disequilibrium. Comments on Keynes’ concept of economic stability, his view on the instability of money and monetary reform, his concept of monetary policy and of the pure theory of money, and his misjudgement of the mixed nature of the modern gold standard. Examines the provisions of the US Federal Reserve Act (1913), focusing on the Federal reserve systems’ nature and functioning, cited by Keynes as a prototype of a modern gold standard. Concludes with an examination of the international aspect of the modern gold standard.

Population ageing has been seen as creating economic problems, which are often described as a worsening intergenerational conflict for resources. A rising demographic dependency ratio is said to increase the “burden” on the working population, by forcing sacrifices in their consumption. Such apparently intuitive ideas are based on the assumption of a binding aggregate resource constraint, as would occur if resources were fully utilized. From a post‐Keynesian perspective, however, unemployment and excess capacity are normal to the functioning of capitalist economies, and resources are not in general fully utilized. Argues that the Keynesian process of national income determination precludes any immediate relationship between population ageing and the “burden” imposed on income recipients. Below full employment, a rising dependency ratio is not guaranteed to reduce the expenditure share of income recipients or raise their tax rates. An exclusive emphasis on intergenerational conflict can give a misleading impression of the consequences of population ageing.

Explores the life of Paul A. Samuelson, of whom it is said, that he is the ‘last generalist in economics’, from his early days in the USA. Gives great detail from his lecture, particularly for his provision of a rich, unknown source of new problems in economic science.