论亨利·乔治、奥地利学派与新古典选择理论:乔治与奥地利学派相似性的新视角

Petur O. Jonsson
{"title":"论亨利·乔治、奥地利学派与新古典选择理论:乔治与奥地利学派相似性的新视角","authors":"Petur O. Jonsson","doi":"10.1111/J.1536-7150.1997.TB02660.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Henry George and the Austrians disagreed on whether land is inherently different from other factors. Beyond this, they had much in common. The paper specifically argues that the similarities between George and the Austrians are derived from a similar underlying approach to choice. Both relied on a subjective choice framework which yields a foundation that is quite different from that of Walrasian neoclassical economics. As a result, George and the Austrians held similar views on innovation and progress. Moreover, these views are incompatible with neoclassical choice theory which is not really equipped to deal with innovation.","PeriodicalId":227474,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Economic History (Topic)","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Henry George, the Austrians, and Neoclassical Choice Theory: A New Look at the Similarities between George and the Austrians\",\"authors\":\"Petur O. Jonsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/J.1536-7150.1997.TB02660.X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Henry George and the Austrians disagreed on whether land is inherently different from other factors. Beyond this, they had much in common. The paper specifically argues that the similarities between George and the Austrians are derived from a similar underlying approach to choice. Both relied on a subjective choice framework which yields a foundation that is quite different from that of Walrasian neoclassical economics. As a result, George and the Austrians held similar views on innovation and progress. Moreover, these views are incompatible with neoclassical choice theory which is not really equipped to deal with innovation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":227474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IRPN: Innovation & Economic History (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IRPN: Innovation & Economic History (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1536-7150.1997.TB02660.X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation & Economic History (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1536-7150.1997.TB02660.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

亨利·乔治和奥地利学派在土地是否本质上不同于其他因素的问题上存在分歧。除此之外,他们还有很多共同之处。这篇论文特别指出,乔治和奥地利经济学家之间的相似之处源于相似的基本选择方法。两者都依赖于一个主观选择框架,它产生了一个与瓦尔拉斯新古典经济学截然不同的基础。因此,乔治和奥地利人对创新和进步有着相似的看法。此外,这些观点与新古典选择理论是不相容的,因为新古典选择理论并不真正具备处理创新的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On Henry George, the Austrians, and Neoclassical Choice Theory: A New Look at the Similarities between George and the Austrians
Henry George and the Austrians disagreed on whether land is inherently different from other factors. Beyond this, they had much in common. The paper specifically argues that the similarities between George and the Austrians are derived from a similar underlying approach to choice. Both relied on a subjective choice framework which yields a foundation that is quite different from that of Walrasian neoclassical economics. As a result, George and the Austrians held similar views on innovation and progress. Moreover, these views are incompatible with neoclassical choice theory which is not really equipped to deal with innovation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信