History of Economics eJournal最新文献

{"title":"The Growth of the English Rule of Law","authors":"Nadia E. Nedzel","doi":"10.4337/9781789900736.00007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900736.00007","url":null,"abstract":"The following is a work in progress and will be Chapter 2 of a book entitled “The Rule of Law, Economic Development, & Corporate Governance.” The first chapter will be an introduction to the major ideas and themes of the book. This chapter explains the Anglophile Rule of Law and its history. The next chapter will explain the civilian version, termed the Rule through Law and its history. The Rule of Law is part of the Anglo-American liberty narrative, while the Rule through Law is part of the equality narrative. Chapters that follow will focus on how the two different concepts effect Economic Development and Corporate Governance and what this means for developing effective policies in different cultural environments. The work will be aimed at a multi-disciplinary audience.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121869596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Three Basic Axioms of the Adam Smith-John Maynard Keynes Approach to Decision Making Versus the Three Basic Axioms of Jeremy Bentham and His students (Ricardo, Say, James Mills, J S Mills, Senior, Walras, and Marshall) Approach to Decision Making","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3311997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3311997","url":null,"abstract":"Adam Smith and J M Keynes were both practitioners of virtue ethics who rejected Benthamite Utilitarianism. Their axiomatic foundations consist of the following three axioms only. The first is that probabilities are nonadditive, in general. Additivity is a special case. The second is that probability preferences are generally nonlinear. Linearity is a special case. The third axiom, which follows from the first two, is that the relevant information, data, evidence or the knowledge base required in order to make decisions is generally incomplete. A State of completeness of the relevant information, data, evidence or knowledge base is a special case. The axiomatic structure of Benthamite Utilitarianism is practically identical to that which underlies the Rational Expectations-Real Business Cycle – Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium approaches. Bentham’s first axiom was that all probabilities (“uncertainties”) were numerical and additive. Bentham’s second axiom was that all probability preferences were linear. The whole is nothing more than the individual sum of each part. The third axiom was that all the relevant information, data, evidence or knowledge base is complete, so that individual decision makers can make rational (optimal) decisions in both the short run and long run. Based on these three axioms, Bentham asserted that all rational decision makers would be able to actually maximize utility and returns as long as government would “be quit” and “stay out of the sunlight” of businessmen .The normal result would be that an economy would always be operating on the boundary of the Production Possibilities Frontier unless an external shock (war, revolution, plague, etc.) occurred. Smith and Keynes’s axioms are more general than those of Jeremy Bentham and his students. It is impossible to maximize utility or profits, in general, for Smith and Keynes, except as a very special case. \u0000 \u0000The only conclusion possible is that the Rational Expectations-Real Business Cycle – Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium approaches are all very special cases of the more generalized Smith – Keynes axiom set. \u0000 \u0000Keynes did exactly what he said he would do in the General Theory on page 3. He generalized classical and Neoclassical theory by providing a more general axiomatic structure .Modern economists are still working with the special theory of Bentham.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125257130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"As Time Went by - Long Waves in the Light of Evolving Evolutionary Economics","authors":"F. Louçã","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3333183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3333183","url":null,"abstract":"Evoking Chris Freeman and following from the last book he co-authored, this WP asks why has the Phase B of the fourth long wave been so long, since the major turning point of the 1970s. As Chris's answer was the mismatch between the new techno-economic paradigm, available for decades, and the socio-institutional framework, which is being transformed by the neoliberal agenda, this paper investigates such contradiction. I study the new regime of accumulation, based on the boom and devaluation of fictitious capital, and the four radical conditions that are required to solve the mismatch: liberalization of financial flows, privatization of public goods, precarization of labor, and globalization of markets. The development of such agenda imposes time consuming changes in social relations, namely in the selection, education and networking of the political decision makers, imposition of aggravated inequality and changes in the international hierarchy of powers, which are discussed.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116090588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Robert C. Merton and the Science of Finance","authors":"Z. Bodie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3314385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3314385","url":null,"abstract":"Starting with his 1970 doctoral dissertation and continuing to today, Robert C. Merton has revolutionized the theory and practice of finance. In 1997, Merton shared a Nobel Prize in Economics “for a new method to determine the value of derivatives.” His contributions to the science of finance, however, go far beyond that. In this article I describe Merton's main contributions. They include the following: 1.  The introduction of continuous-time stochastic models (the Ito calculus) to the theory of household consumption and investment decisions. Merton's technique of dynamic hedging in continuous time provided a bridge between the theoretical complete-markets equilibrium model of Kenneth Arrow and the real world of personal financial planning and management. 2.  The derivation of the multifactor Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model (ICAPM). The ICAPM generalizes the single-factor CAPM and explains why that model might fail to properly account for observed market excess returns. It also provides a theory to identify potential forward-looking risk premia for use in factor-based investment strategies. It is therefore both a positive and normative theory. 3.  The invention of Contingent Claims Analysis (CCA) as a generalization of option pricing theory. CCA applies the technique of dynamic replication to the valuation and risk management of a wide range of corporate and government liabilities. Merton's CCA model for the valuation and analysis of risky debt is known among scholars and practitioners alike as the Merton Model. 4.  The development of financial engineering, which employs CCA to design and produce new financial products. Merton was the first to apply CCA to analyze government guaranty programs such as deposit insurance, and to suggest improvements in the way those programs are managed. He and his students have applied his insights at both the micro and macro policy levels. 5.  And finally, the development of a theory of financial intermediation that explains and predicts how financial systems differ across countries and change over time. Merton has applied that theory, called functional and structural finance, to guide the design and regulation of financial systems at the levels of the firm, the industry, and the nation. He has also used it to propose reforms in pensions, sovereign wealth funds, and macrostabilization policy. This article is one of a pair of articles published in this volume about Robert C. Merton's contributions to the science of financial economics. This article was originally published in Volume 11 of the Annual Review of Financial Economics. The other article in this pair is “ Robert C. Merton: The First Financial Engineer ” by Andrew W. Lo.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114866145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Knowledge and Power: Hayek’s Dual Problems with Planning","authors":"Byron Carson, Christopher J. Coyne","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3301967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301967","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the connection between Hayek’s dual problems of planning. Following Hayek we begin from the premise that the knowledge problem is ubiquitous. As Hayek argued, markets are effective at resolving the knowledge problem. However, where markets are absent, the knowledge problem requires a search for alternative mechanisms to determine the allocation of scarce resource. Political planning is one such coordination mechanism. Reliance on political planning, however, inevitably leads to the power problem as significant discretionary power is granted to those tasked with planning. If one was to read only Hayek’s work on the knowledge problem, or only his popular writings, such as The Road to Serfdom, they might miss the important connection between these dual problems.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126876519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Keynes's Section 8 of Chapter 12 of the General Theory Completely Refutes Shackle's Unknowledge Definition of Uncertainty, His Attack on IS-LM and All 'Chapter 12' Types of Keynesianism","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3298256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3298256","url":null,"abstract":"Shackle’s attempt to completely redefine Keynes’s definition of uncertainty in chapter 12 of the General Theory, which was that uncertainty is an inverse function of the weight of the evidence as discussed in chapters 6 and 26 of the A Treatise on Probability, as unknowledge (no knowledge of the future ), fails once Keynes’s concluding section of chapter 12, section 8, is read. Keynes’s position is that there exists partial probable knowledge of the near future.<br><br>Therefore, complete uncertainty can only exist in the far and distant future or long run ,a long run in which we are all dead, which Keynes denoted as 10 years in the General Theory ,and 20 to 33 years in his 1937 Quarterly Journal of Economics article. Keynes’s IS-LM(LP) model therefore allows an economist, who is knowledgeable and careful about Keynes’s extensive qualifying discussions concerning the use of his IS-LM(LP) model on pages 298-303 of the General Theory, to calculate a quantitative, determinate, equilibrium position for the IS and LM(LP) curves in(Y) Aggregate Income-(r) rate of interest space. Shackle’s claim, that no IS-LM equilibrium can ever be calculated, due to his own definition of uncertainty as unknowledge, was completely rejected by Keynes on pages 298-303 of the General Theory.<br><br>The “Chapter 12” interpretation of the General Theory, as defined by A. Coddington in a 1976 article in the Journal of Economic Literature, and supported by Joan Robinson, Shackle, and Paul Davidson, has nothing to support it once it is realized that Shackle’s unknowledge claims about Keynes’s uncertainty concept were completely and totally rejected by Keynes himself in his summary to chapter 12 of the General Theory,as well as by Keynes’s own definition on page 148 of chapter 12 of the General Theory.<br><br>","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129541941","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The (Re)Introduction of Modern Finance Ideas in France between the Mid-1970s and the Early 1980s and Its Paradoxes","authors":"Franck Jovanovic, Guy Numa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3294554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3294554","url":null,"abstract":"To date, the history of financial economics has not discussed in detail the international diffusion of financial economics (henceforth modern finance). Modern finance was supposedly “introduced” in France in the 1970s. According to some historians of financial economics, it is an American author—Leonard J. Savage— who allowed French authors to rediscover Louis Bachelier’s work, indicating that “a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.” The present article challenges this conventional narrative and studies for the first time how modern finance ideas were disseminated in France between the mid-1970s and the early 1980s. It shows that, when modern finance ideas were “imported” from the United States in France in 1970s, some pioneering French contributions have been taught for almost a century. Based on this result, the article explains why the French authors who disseminated these ideas rarely referred to the works of French forerunners. It also clarifies the role of the French economists in this dissemination. All of this suggests that the “import” of modern financial ideas in France from the US was in fact a reintroduction. By exploring the international dissemination of modern finance ideas in France, this article provides the opportunity to investigate several new questions in the study of the history of financial economics.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127671514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Survey on Recent Work in the History of Econometrics A Witness Report","authors":"M. Boumans","doi":"10.1215/00182702-7803679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-7803679","url":null,"abstract":"This survey is a witness report of what is happening in the community of historians of econometrics. This survey is a follow-up of an earlier survey which investigated who was active in the history of econometrics. The conclusion of the earlier survey was that interest in the history of econometrics has arisen primarily from within econometrics itself and that its stories have been written mainly by econometricians. The conclusion of the current survey is that econometrics as a discipline remains of interest only to the econometricians but that the artifacts created by econometricians have caught the attention of historians of science.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129494824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Capital: The Great Unknown","authors":"C. Ferlito","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3306284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3306284","url":null,"abstract":"Capital theory is one of the most controversial topics in economics and an object of debate inside the Austrian School of Economics. If Böhm-Bawerk’s capital theory, usually identified as the Austrian Capital Theory, left many Austrian economists unsatisfied, a clear definition of capital, consistent with Mengerian subjectivism, is still to be seen inside the School. Following Ludwig Lachmann’s application of hermeneutics to economics, this paper attempts to define capital as the outcome of subjective mental processes, determined by individual intentions and expectations, rather than by specific physical or economic features. The paper does not aim to totally redefine capital theory but, more specifically, to reach a definition for capital, capital goods, and capital value; these definitions attempt to complete the work initiated by Lachmann in the hope of finding a certain consensus among scholars dissatisfied with the present state of capital theory, which is dominated by an objectivist post-Ricardian perspective. Indeed, when defining capital Lachmann seems unable to remain consistent with his own brilliant criticism of the Ricardian perspective. In particular, by distinguishing between ‘potential’ and ‘actual’ capital goods and capital in general, I try to overcome this gap and to define capital and capital goods in radically subjectivist terms.","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"584 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127803974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Habits of Thought: Veblen's Dynamics of Instinct and Institution","authors":"Philip Lawton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3285890","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3285890","url":null,"abstract":"Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) sought to align economics with modern scientific thinking by recasting it as an evolutionary theory of the process of cultural development that unfolds in response to changing material and social conditions. Central to this program was his conception of the interplay between the instincts that define human nature and the institutions that give force to inherited ideas. This short paper characterizes the innately human propensities that find expression as communities struggle to survive in the physical environment, and describes how, in Veblen’s view, those instincts shape ways of thinking, or institutions, which prove in turn to be efficient factors of selection. In “Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” Veblen said that economic change “is always in the last resort a change in habits of thought.”","PeriodicalId":253619,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics eJournal","volume":"193 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121111704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}