Search results

Lange's rejection of bureaucratic socialism can be traced throughout his works, from the very beginning to the end. Planners and economic agents have to act under mandatory rules provided by economic theory to avoid the risk of an autocratic regime detached from the people's needs. Drawing upon this premise, Walrasian theory played a pivotal role to introduce rules to tie the hands of socialist bureaucrats based on scientific, economic theory. In this sense, Lange's anti-bureaucratism and Walrasianism descended from a similar political premise. However, the coexistence of conflicting views into the same theory (such as Marxian and Walrasian theories) also implied potential risks, mainly when socialist democracy is conceived in technocratic terms and Marxian theory assimilates to natural sciences.

This analysis attempts a comparative specification of certain aspects of the country studies contained in this volume. The point of departure is the banking crises of the early 1990s (deep in Finland, Norway and Sweden, mini-crisis in Denmark and absent in Iceland) and the contrast to Iceland's financial meltdown in 2007/2008 (no crisis in the three, a new mini-crisis in Denmark). Detailed process tracing of the Icelandic crisis is provided. The case account is then used to shed light on the different roles of neoliberalism, economics expert knowledge and populist right-wing party formation in the five Nordic political economies.

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.

This paper illustrates the fundamental issues of “disequilibrium” unemployment theory by means of a relatively simple model. Both the static and dynamic approaches to this subject are combined within a consistent analytical framework. Although a formal model is outlined the emphasis is on intuitive argument rather than technical detail.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the coherence between competency mismatches and the objective of European policymakers to transform the higher education system through the Bologna Process and the Dublin Descriptors, moving from the transfer of knowledge from the teacher to learning by the student and from disciplinary knowledge to competencies.

The paper is based first on the theoretical arguments that confront the European reform of the tertiary education system and the nature of competency mismatches, and second on graduate earnings function estimates using two Italian databases. The paper demonstrates the waning signalling power associated with university degrees and the disruptive assertion of the competency concept.

The theoretical arguments developed suggest that competency mismatches are not only responsible for the medium-low positioning of the competency profile with respect to a counterfactual constituted by a graduate with a good match but also tend to affect the growth path of the competencies themselves: the bigger the initial gap, the smaller the steps in their growth. The econometric estimates carried out document that the level of expressed competencies drives graduate remuneration.

By disentangling educational outcomes (i.e. disciplinary knowledge) from requested competencies, the study demonstrates that firms remunerate competencies and to a far lesser extent disciplinary knowledge per se, and that cultural background tends to assume greater importance than formal education in forging transversal competencies. The Bologna Process could overturn this situation, provided it is integrated with a constructivist pedagogical approach, a tool that is lacking today but is vital in providing education processes that enable students to acquire and develop the competencies required by modern production techniques.

Looks at Arrow’s early background in New York and his subsequent development in the field of econometrics and mathematical economics. Covers his work in depth and his achievements in the school of thought of economics, adding that the modern school of thought is complementary to the classical school.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

The phenomenon of the ethnically homogeneous middleman group (EHMG) or ethnic trade network – the Chinese merchants in Southeast Asia, the Gujarati-Indians merchants in East Africa, the Jewish merchants in medieval Europe, etc. – is ubiquitous in stateless societies, pre-industrial and in less-developed economies (Curtin, 1984). Neoclassical (Walrasian) theory of exchange cannot explain the existence of merchants let alone the phenomenon of the EHMG. This is because Neoclassical theory of exchange is a static theory of frictionless, perfectly competitive markets with the Walrasian auctioneer costlessly coordinating the plans of anonymous producers (sellers) and consumers (buyers) so as to achieve equilibrium. There is no role for merchants in the Neoclassical theory of exchange.

Introduces Hicks, from the UK, and his classical upbringing, including his mathematical scholarships and Oxford. Looks at his early career as a lecturer at the London School of Economics and his development in the economics field. Concludes that Hicks was an original thinker, giving thanks to his immense contributions.