Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the provisions of both the neoclassical economics and new institutional economics theses and assesses the implications of their methodologies for property market analysis.

This research is based on secondary literature review and desk-based study.

It is argued that new institutional economics, grounded on firmer foundations of human behaviour, offers an analytical approach to the study of the property market which emphasizes the institutionally contingent nature of real estate exchange, thus placing real estate within its socio-economic context.

In-depth examination and juxtaposition of the provisions, assumptions, philosophical orientations and limitations of these main traditions of economic thought towards the achievement of a representative study of the workings of the property market.

The conflict between institutionalism and neoclassicism in the 20th century has been investigated by scholars over the years. Many of them believe that in the postwar period, neoclassicism triumphed while institutionalism largely disappeared. The present chapter takes a very different view. The late 20th century represents a broad synthesis of neoclassical and institutional themes in a methodology we call pragmatic empiricism. That approach combines the mathematical model building and theoretical formalism of neoclassical economics with the institutional economist’s data-driven statistical analysis and concern for developing institutional forms. We use as a case study the history of American locational economics from the 1930s to the present. The mixing of institutional and neoclassical themes is quite evident in the work of three young scholars at Harvard who effectively initiated American locational economics. In the postwar period, we find a series of outstanding, well-published papers that capture the spirit of the “founders.” These papers do use more modeling, but they also focus on major institutional developments. A broader review of locational works is consistent with the pragmatic empiricism label. The history of locational economics supports the claim that institutionalism, far from disappearing, continues to provide fundamental questions and techniques for modern pragmatic empiricism.

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.

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.

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.

To cope successfully with the pressures imposed by a devastating pandemic and other challenges, companies and policymakers need to look at how they conceptualize, define, measure and operationalize “value”. This paper aims to support this conversation.

This study presents a historical review of how the value construct has been conceptualized over time, demonstrating that its history is one of tension and debate with conceptualizations swinging between objective (i.e. the value of something exists independent of the observers) and subjective (i.e. the value of something depends on the personal response of the observer to what is being considered) views over time.

This paper outlines the implications to researchers of value’s low construct clarity, offering suggestions designed to exploit rather than ignore the duality of the value construct. Instead of thinking of the value construct as being subjective or objective, this study recommends that scholars consider value’s objectivity and subjectivity as being interrelated and complementary. The paper recommends that researchers use both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in studying this construct.

A major limitation of this paper is the word count limitation restricting the extent to which this paper could explore a more comprehensive list of the conceptualizations of value throughout history.

This paper presents practitioners with a nuanced understanding of value that should assist those interested in examining the worth of investments with observable expenses but less quantifiable outputs.

The authors have not found a similar analysis of the various conceptualizations of value.

The purpose of this article is to show how a particular marketing paradigm developed in Denmark from the 1920s through to the 1960s. It peaked in the mid‐1950s and faded out with one major publication in the early 1970s. This article aims to provide a relatively detailed study of the initial phases of the school and its key ideas.

The study is based on primary sources, i.e. the writings of the scholars who shaped and developed the school. A significant number of the sources are available in Danish only.

While the study of marketing in America developed from the inductive, descriptive approach of the German Historical School, an essential precondition for the Copenhagen approach was the second wave of microeconomic theory of the 1930s. The article argues that it was a marketing management school, and that it offered early contributions to the development of marketing theory.

Relatively little has been written about Danish and Scandinavian history of marketing thought. The authors believe that a detailed review of the Copenhagen School of Marketing may be of some interest to marketing historians around the world.

During the socialist calculation debate, Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek made a positive argument regarding the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. In this study, I argue that the arguments made by Mises and Hayek have normative implications for capitalism. I do so by drawing an analogy between an Austrian account of the market process and a neo-Aristotelian account of human flourishing. Neither economic calculation follows passively from implementing a set of profit-maximizing rules nor does human flourishing follow passively from following a set of universal moral norms (be they of utilitarian, deontological, or natural law inspiration). Both economic calculation and human flourishing are inherently based on individual acts of knowledge creation, actualized only by self-directed individuals. In both cases, the creation of such knowledge is both contextual and specific to the unique circumstances of each individual of a particular time and place. Therefore, to assume that such knowledge exists ex ante, and is objective and transpersonal across time, place, and institutional context renders both economic calculation and human flourishing into a technological problem of given means and given ends, in essence defining both activities out of existence. The possibility of economic calculation and human flourishing are therefore dependent upon a political/legal order that protects the possibility of self-directed knowledge creation in both the economic and moral realms, that is, to say an institutional framework of private property rights.