Search results

The chapter aims to enhance the understanding of the development of Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship. To do so, elements in Kirzner’s works published up until 1973 that enclose the central points of this theory are studied. The chapter has four sections, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, that highlight the arguments that relate to Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship: (i) before the publication of his 1967 paper that presents the entrepreneurial function in the market process (1960–1967); between the 1967 paper and the publication of his most important book, Competition and Entrepreneurship, in 1973 (1967–1973); (iii) in Kirzner’s latest version of entrepreneurship theory as presented in his 1973 book; and (iv) the evolution of Kirzner’s thinking. The evolution of the author’s thinking regarding equilibrium and the entrepreneur is highlighted by presenting the different stages of his theory of entrepreneurship between 1960 and 1973.

In the context of competing theoretical economic–econometric models and corresponding estimators, we demonstrate a semiparametric combining estimator that, under quadratic loss, has superior risk performance. The method eliminates the need for pretesting to decide between members of the relevant family of econometric models and demonstrates, under quadratic loss, the nonoptimality of the conventional pretest estimator. First-order asymptotic properties of the combined estimator are demonstrated. A sampling study is used to illustrate finite sample performance over a range of econometric model sampling designs that includes performance relative to a Hausman-type model selection pretest estimator. An important empirical problem from the causal effects literature is analyzed to indicate the applicability and econometric implications of the methodology. This combining estimation and inference framework can be extended to a range of models and corresponding estimators. The combining estimator is novel in that it provides directly minimum quadratic loss solutions.

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.

This is the second part of a long investigation under the title of, Principia Oeconomica; the first having appeared in this journal in 1986. The substance of the argument in this contribution is in the form of a dialogue with Henri Guitton, member of l'Institut de France and author of a book in French, De l'Imperfection en Economie (1979). Guitton is leading a new French Economic School critical of a modern economy characterised by ‘Econosm” or “Economy of Counter‐sense”. Economism refers to the practice of conceiving problems of a modern society in strictly economic‐accounting terms and neglecting a host of social and human aspects. The second term means that the sole attention given to growth in production did not increase the happiness of man but on the contrary it created for him new problems (pollution, noise, atomic radiation and other hazards). To cope with these problems, the French school recommends wise policies which Guitton called “creative imperfection”. Guitton's presentation is followed step by step, with an interpretation in terms of stable equilibrium. The recommendation stresses structural reforms to solve the same problems but following a road of “creative perfection” leading to the same goal sought by Guitton: a better world of tomorrow.

The first Principia Mathematica (1686) by Sir Isaac Newton with reference to natural philosophy and his system of the world has largely contributed to the first revolution in scientific thinking in modern times. It has created the conceptual basis of modern science in the classical tradition by providing the tools of analysis and the technique of reasoning in terms of stability—from—within or, as we would say today, the model of stable equilibrium conditions.

Pantaleoni used to say that there are two categories of economists—those who can, in the sense of being able to produce original work, and those who cannot. A more meaningful and more useful distinction can be made between those who reason about the given problems in terms of stable equilibrium (most of them classicists) and those who do their thinking in terms of unstable equilibrium (actually stable disequilibrium) and sheer disequilibrium (most of them modern and contemporary scientists).

The economic science is again in a crisis and a new solution prolegomena to any future study in economics, finance and other social sciences has just been published by the International Institute of Social Economics in care of the MCB University Press in England. The roots of the major financial and economic problems of our time lie in an open conflict between theory and practice. In the 1930s and before the conflict was between classical theory and given realities. In the 1990s the conflict appears between the now prevailing modern, Keynesian theory and the actual realities. In addition during the twentieth century a great argument developed between the two schools of thought, argument which is not yet settled. In one sentence, the prolegomena tried and was successful to solve the conflict between theory and practice and the big doctrinal dispute of the twentieth century. It was a struggle of research and observation over half a century between 1947 and 1997.

André Gide's prophetic words during an interview at Karlsbad in 1933: “Hitler represents a delay in the progress of humanity. There will be another peaceful Revolution in Spirit — different from Capitalism, Socialism‐Communism and Fascism — which will guide the development of humanity to its right destination.”

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.

There is hardly any other field of knowledge where there is more conflict or controversy between ideas and solutions proposed by theoreticians and statesmen than in politics. To date, adequate methodological tools have not been developed which enable the truth or validity of the liberal or conservative approaches to be tested. A new research programme using a simultaneous equilibrium versus disequilibrium approach is proposed which has full application in politics as well as in economics and the social sciences. This research programme shows the organic relationship between society, state, economy, money and form of government, and thus leads to a methodological unification of all the social sciences, to a new principia politica.