Suchergebnisse

Mass privatization is one form of changing the property rights regime of formerly publicly‐owned means of production in the former peoples' republics of Central and Eastern Europe. From an economic point of view, the central question at this transition is whether the change in property rights regimes significantly and benevolently affects the governing structure of the assets in question. This short essay attempts to provide a framework which is theoretical enough to guide meaningful questions, and open and naïve enough not to preclude relevant insight. The contribution of this article consists in a theoretically driven questionnaire which, based on the current state of the property rights theory of the firm, the relevant aspects of law and economics as well as financial economics, tries to elicit scholarly information about issues of institutional detail. Ultimately, the aim is to show how the different approaches to mass privatization can be evaluated from the point of view of creating viable governing structures.

Heinrich von Storch (1766‐1835) can claim a very specific position in the history of political economy. Clearly steeped in Camaralist thought, due to his upbringing and later scholarly work in Russia, he was primarily interested in the nature and the causes of the wealth of a nation that he considered to be richly endowed with natural resources yet badly lagging in development and the creation of wealth. He therefore laid specific emphasis not only on the processes of production and circulation of goods, but in particular on the cultural environment in which the economic process can take place. From this vantage point, he developed a system of political economy in which he also addressed the issue of which role different methods could play. In this short article, his view on the use of mathematics or algebraic methods in particular is discussed.

Abstract This essay tries to put Georg Simmels The Philosophy of Money into the context of current monetary discussions in economics. Part I looks at the contribution of Georg Simmel in context and offers remarks about the changing structure of economics as a discipline composed of many different subdisciplines. It is argued that Simmel is able to transcend subdisciplinary borders, to great benefit for today's scholar. Part III explains Heinsohn and Steiger's recent contribution to monetary economics in terms of transactions and property rights; although the contribution has been made more in the context of post‐Keynesian economics, this is the only way to comprehend and integrate it into the mainstream of scholarly discourse. This examination shows that Simmels approach, transgressing interdisciplinary borders, has merits even today. Part IV looks at the perplexing phenomenon of European monetary integration with a similar interdisciplinary perspective in mind. In this case, it is not monetary economics but constitutional political economy which is the unifying concept to explain the peculiar features of European monetary integration.

Understanding chances of reforming the common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Union, for instance, requires an appreciation of its intellectual roots. Seeking such an understanding is the purpose of this article, which has the following structure. Next to this introduction and the conclusions at the end, there are three parts. Part I details what an economist may want to know about Count von Kanitz and the context of his political and intellectual work. Part II explains the proposal first by staying close to its original verbiage, then, however, by translating this proposal into modern micro‐economic and public finance analytical terms. Part III gives an account of the scholarly literature on the proposal. The only piece of theoretical and practical relevance is found to be Gustav (von) Schmoller's article of 1895: this article is briefly summarized and appreciated as being a classic piece in agricultural political economy.

Abstract. In the summer of 1997, the Oder Valley experienced an almost unprecedented flood. By calling in the army, the German government prevented the dykes from bursting, yet massive floods occurred in neighboring Poland, as the River Oder is now the border between Germany and Poland. Similar floods occurred in the Czech Republic and Romania. In October of 1997, a seemingly unrelated event occurred: The Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Myron S. Scholes and Robert C. Merton for their pioneering contributions to the theory of how options are priced in financial markets. Ironically, the options contract model provides a solution to the Oder Valley crisis. This article ties the two events together and also draws on insights from the radical reformer, Henry George.

Reports that, in 1943, Heinrich Freiherr von Stackelberg (1905‐1946) discussed with an informal group meeting in Freiburg (Breisgau ‐ Germany) "Limits and possibilities of economic planning". Explains that the group called after its chairman "von Beckerath Circle" met to discuss problems of demobilization and the post‐Second World War economic order in Germany. States that Stackelberg's lecture was found among his manuscripts and published after his death. Notes that Stackelberg is generally considered for his contributions to economic theory; little is known about his views on economic policy. Argues that his views on theory and policy were closely linked, however. Gives a concise statement of Stackelberg's view on the post‐Second World War economic order in Germany. Points out that he argues strongly against (central) planning of the economic process, makes the important ORDO distinction between economic policy instruments compatible and incompatible with a market economy, but he is not a pro‐market economist of the anti‐state type. Explains that the state is assigned a wide range of policy options (in terms of policy instruments compatible with the market economy), ranging from specific forms of price intervention to income policies and extensive forms of taxation.

Henry George has many admirers, but only a few scholarly economists would regard him as one of their own. In this paper, I wish to argue not only that Henry George made a sound contribution to political economy; I also claim that his analysis is eminently significant for environmental economics today.