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.

This article attempts to provide an institutionalist analysis and diagnosis of the current crisis of orthodox economics. We shall, first, characterise the predominant opinion in economics—the neoclassical synthesis. Next, we examine the anomalies which are currently vexing orthodox opinion and their power to provoke a period of crisis and extraordinary science. In the final section, we diagnose the source of the anomalies of the neoclassical synthesis.

Analyses the economic influences that led to the development of the proposal to introduce employee investment funds into Sweden in 1976. Discusses the proposed objectives of the funds and describes the controversy, both political and economic, which surrounded them. Outlines the modified form in which employee investment funds were eventually implemented in 1983 and considers the influence they exerted on the Swedish economy and the extent to which they achieved their aims. Assesses their possible evolution in the future.

This paper explores the “proto-Keynesian” ideas of progressive members of the scientific management community with regard to micro- and macroeconomic planning/management.

Based on a systematic exegetical analysis of articles published in a largely unexplored primary/archival source, the Bulletin of the Taylor Society between 1915 and 1934.

This paper surfaces a latent “proto-Keynesian” bedrock among progressive segments of the US management community that provides a more cogent explanation for the wholehearted reception, as well as the decisive impact, of Keynes’ ideas on US macroeconomic policy than do extant explanations in the history of economic thought. Further, it reveals that most of these progressive managers with views as to both cause of and solution for the 1930’s Depression were members of the Taylor Society, an epistemic community devoted to the ideas of Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of scientific management.

The paper adds to the small but growing corpus of revisionist management history that seeks to problematize the received wisdom about scientific management or Taylorism. Few, if any, management historians appreciate that F. W. Taylor provided the basic planning tools which if developed, could enhance humanity’s control over anarchic market forces and aid the construction of a society based on democratic and effective planning.

Keynes taught us in The General Theory that neither economic depressions nor fluctuations were inevitable. If nothing is done, these problems would continue. However, by the judicious employment of economic policies, these problems could be mitigated, if not totally remedied.

Paper argues that the proper approach to the topic of economic welfare should include an appreciation that markets are not characterized by an endogenous tendency towards equilibrium. The economists, Schumpeter, Keynes and Minsky are right in this regard as opposed to Adam Smith and contemporary economic orthodoxy. However, today’s liberal political theories largely assumes the tendency towards equilibrium and so are inadequate to deal with economic issues such as economic welfare which arise in conditions of non-equilibrium. The purpose of this paper is to propose Winfield’s reconstruction of Hegel’s social philosophy as more fitted to deal with market realities.

Paper starts with a debate within economics and uses it as a basis to evaluate different schools of normative philosophy. Paper concludes by showing how the preferred philosophy is capable to rule between different economic policies responding to economic disequilibrium.

Hegelian philosophy has capacity to adjudicate between economic policies to resolve market failure that contemporary liberal theory lacks.

Paper provides the ethical justification for economic policies that have heretofore only been recommend by economists.

Paper points to the largely overlooked fact that most contemporary political theory assumes market equilibrium. Paper argues that Hegelian philosophy provides the ethical justification for certain post-Keynesian economic policies, a position no one else is making.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the development of economic theory to the point where “economic rationalism” is a commonly used term.

The paper draws on earlier research and published works examining: the history of economics; economic rationalism; and the different influences in comprising basic economic concepts.

The analysis of writing indicates that rationalism has been a focus of discussion in economic writing since Classical times, through to the “rational” influence in economic policy making from neoclassical economic writing. But, the specific term “economic rationalism” gained wider usage after Pusey's book. From that time, the term was used outside academia as a disparaging means to criticise economic theorists and policy makers.

The research is limited by the ability to examine all the literature in the field in greater depth. However, this has been ameliorated by examining a sufficient sample of literature relevant to the concept of rationality in economic theory and policy.

This paper provides a useful critique – from the classics to the modern era – of the contribution made to economic theory and practice. It provides managers with a comprehensive historical overview.

This paper fulfils an identified need and gives support to executives and managers who have doubts about theological justification for some values and accountability procedures being employed in policymaking.

Catholic social thought presents itself as a reflection by the Church on socio‐economic issues. The Church in its teachings has always had, and continues to have, an ambivalent attitude towards the capitalist economic system. This ambivalence has not always expressed itself in the most effective and appropriate ways. Attempts to argue that social analysis from a critical theory perspective is both able to capture effectively the ambivalence which Catholic social thought feels towards capitalism, and to put into a broader theoretical context many of the critiques levelled against the Church′s teachings. This in turn allows for a more cogent presentation of the Church′s normative project.

The purpose of this article is to determine the views of Professor David Audretsch.

The article takes the form of an interview.

Professor David Audretsch shares his thoughts and advice on an “entrepreneurial society” where there is a rethinking of fundamental economic and business ideas, where innovation and entrepreneurship emerge as the driving forces of competitiveness and growth, but institutions and public policies facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship play a key role.

The aricle provides valuable insights from one of the world's most frequently cited economists.

Based upon the conformity of its ideals and economic policies with those of social economics and the performance of its economy, it is concluded that the Swedish economy exemplifies a viable social economy. This conclusion is reached following analysis of: the basic tenets and propositions of social economics; the origins of the modern Swedish economy; Sweden′s economic policies since 1932; the degree to which Swedish ideals and economic policies conform to those of social economics; and the performance of the Swedish economy.