Search results

Research in the discipline of antitrust economics, which encompasses legal as well as economic aspects, reveals a young and expanding area that has established its own literature within the past twenty years. The citations in this bibliographic essay were selected for their particular relevance to the subject and represent a core collection of materials that would be most useful to the study of American antitrust economics.

Style and Purpose “It's all in Marshall”. There is more truth in that once‐familiar claim than there would be in a similar claim about any other economist; yet as Samuelson (1967, p. 25) rightly observed, what is in Marshall cannot be revealed by the reading of Marshall alone. What one sees is very largely a reflection of one's own viewpoint; often it is only after thinking about a specific issue that one realises that Marshall had thought about it too, and had set down his ideas in his usual unemphatic way, as if they were already common property. His manner is very different from that of Hicks, who always explains what he is doing and why; neither in the Principles (1961) nor in Industry and Trade (1919) does Marshall attempt to distinguish his own contributions, though frequently acknowledging those of others; and his clear views on how economists should proceed, though not suppressed, are not allowed to mark out a distinctively Marshallian programme. As a consequence, though he gained a great reputation, his ideas have had very little influence.

History in the Western world is replete with uproars over the intervention of ministers of religion in the affairs of the state. It is said by many that the Church should concern itself with the souls of men. Political matters are beyond its purview and outside its competence. For its part, the Church claims the right for the sake of its flock to intervene in political matters involving ethical principles. It is this sort of spiritual development which the Church is here trying both to preserve and advance that Solzhenitsyn had in mind when he spoke of man's task here on earth.

Although this is a survey of research techniques, it has become increasingly apparent, as the study has progressed, that our investigation of research methods for use in tourism and travel studies, without prior consideration of the nature and scopes of tourism and travel themselves, would he inadequate. At the outset it would be imperative to distinguish three interrelated terms. These are recreation, tourism, and travel.

One of the main functions of the absorptive class is to minimize the impact of economic crisis within a given national economy and where possible to shift the impact of economic crisis to less-developed or developing economies or indeed to another advanced economy. Hence the absorptive class displays the same feature of capitalism: it is simultaneously both national and international. This process of absorption is not done consciously, of course. It is the way the system has come to operate. Had the system not done so, capitalist economies would have lost a great degree of its capacity for resilience in the face of recurrent crises. Since the industrial revolution gathered momentum in England in the eighteenth century and spread rapidly to a limited number of countries in the world, economic crisis has been commonplace, threatening the very fabric of the economies created by the system. Economic crisis is taken to mean a severe disjuncture between production and consumption, marked by a reduction in economic growth. Depending on one's theoretical position economic crisis is caused by over-production or under-consumption or by some combination of the two. Adam Smith who published An Enquiry into the Wealth of Nations just about at the onset of the industrial revolution in England believed that any disjuncture between glut and scarcity was an effect of wrong-minded intervention by government. Left alone market forces would always tend toward the elimination of gluts. Thus, want of employment (the word unemployment was to be invented a 100 years later), so dangerous to the social fabric, would be avoided and capital accumulation would take place steadily in an unimpeded way. However, by the early nineteenth century, the British economy seemed to fluctuate ever more wildly than it had done in less industrial times, and as the urban population grew, such instability was especially feared by the ruling classes in Britain and, later, in Germany, the United States, France and Italy. Clearly, policy intervention by governments took place to manage such crises and the governments sought increasingly to achieve financial and price stability, and in Britain for instance this culminated in the Bank Charter Act of 1844, having 10 years previously introduced legislation aimed at achieving labour mobility with the infamous Poor Law Amendment Act.

Investigates, in Part 1, the effects of West German stagnation in the 1980s following on from the welfare state doctrine of the 1960s and 1970s, which led to an economic and social crisis becoming inevitable. Shows this is not purely a German problem but one that also affects almost all other capitalist countries – either developed or developing. Expresses irony that the former communist bloc countries should also be engulfed in such crises. Proffers explanations and recommendations to offset the problems in Germany. Part II looks at Israel and how it has begun to emerge from its 1974 austerity programme by Rabin. States that Israel must initiate a new system of stable equilibrium to open a new era that is very possible, but involves economic and social thinking to avoid previous mistakes.

A long Introduction provides a composite methodological standard of 25 elements (concepts, theorems and basic relationships) which actually represent in analysis a system of general stable equilibrium in economics and other social sciences. In practice, the same composite standard refers to a possible regime of a free, just and stable economy and society. This double composite scientific objective standard was used to examine the content of the Memorial Lectures presented by nine Laureates who received the Nobel Prize in Economics from 1969 to 1974. Specifically, the purpose was to see how much these lectures have contributed to the clarification and the solution of the major problems of our time.

This note offers new archival insight into a 1925 polemical exchange between Frank Knight and John Maurice Clark that was hosted in the pages of Journal of Political Economy. Although the exchange centered on the effects of overhead costs on marginal productivity theory and the so-called adding-up theorem, it also provided significant elements to assess the methodological differences between two of the most representative American economists of the interwar years.

In 1976, amid the vastly greater celebrations of the bicentennial anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, there was the greatest orgy of historical nostalgia in the history of economics, occasioned by the bi‐centenary of the Wealth of Nations. In addition to a veritable deluge of scholarly books, articles, pamphlets, conferences, and symposia, and also innumerable popular and ephemeral effusions, all the mass media were enlisted. There were countless magazine and newspaper articles, some radio and T.V. programs, at least one especially commissioned technicolor film and, for all I know, there may also have been bicentennial poems, paintings, sculptures, and choral symphones!