Suchergebnisse

A growing number of historians have turned their attention to the past behavior of industrialists toward their waste. Many have argued that the price system and competition typically fostered a short-term outlook that rewarded pollution rather than encouraging "loop-closing," a modern term that refers to the linkages between different industries in which the residual of one becomes the input of another. Others have identified precedents in this respect that are credited to Progressive Era reformers. Building on evidence that has, by and large, escaped the attention of the present generation of historical writers, this essay challenges both views by arguing that market institutions, which included both profit motive and property rights, actually resulted in the usage of industrial by-products. Although past industrial activities did create significant pollution problems, perhaps our ancestors should be given more credit than they generally are for the creativity and resourcefulness they displayed in profitably solving numerous environmental problems.

The purpose of this paper is to point out some shortcomings of traditional approaches to the study of "knowledge spillovers" and to suggest an alternative based on how knowledge is actually created and exchanged by individuals. Which regional setting is the best incubator of technological change and economic growth? Is this promoted by regional diversity or specialization of economi activity? This study will include economic analyses of geographically localized "dynamic knowledge externalities, Jacob's externalities, or adding new work to old, industrial classification and technology combination, human creativity, and technology combination through human action and imaginative use of resources. Employees add to, or switch their product line; individuals move from one type of production to another; individuals observe a product/process in another setting and incorporate it; individuals possessing different skills and working for different firms collaborate; and urban diversity and resource collaboration are utilized. It is concluded that problems are solved through the combination of previously unrelated things and that promoting regional specialization at the expense of spontaneously evolved local diversity might be a counter‐productive policy.

The patent system has many flaws. In its absence, there would probably be increased innovation if only because money spent on patents and lawsuits would be available for R&D. In any case, an inventor is to some extent protected by law provided he explains that an idea is his personal property. A patent adds nothing to the value of an impractical invention and little to one that might seem promising.

Intro -- Table of Contents -- 1. Silent Spring at 50 -- 2. The Lady Who Started All This -- 3. The Intellectual Groundwaters of Silent Spring -- 4. Silent Spring as Secular Religion -- 5. The Selective Silence of Silent Spring -- 6. Rachel Carson's Health Scare -- 7. The Balance of Nature and "The Other Road -- 8. Did Rachel Carson Understand the Importance of DDT? -- 9. Agricultural Revolutions and Agency Wars -- 10. The False Promise of Federalization -- 11. The Precautionary Principle: Silent Spring's Toxic Legacy -- 12. Risk Over-Simplified -- Notes -- Index -- Contributors -- About the Cato Institute.

ObjectiveThis paper provides the first comprehensive assessment of the outcome of Paul Ehrlich's and Stephen Schneider's counteroffer (1995) to economist Julian Simon following Ehrlich's loss in the famous Ehrlich‐Simon wager on economic growth and the price of natural resources (1980‐1990). Our main conclusion in a previous article is that, for indicators that can be measured satisfactorily or can be inferred from proxies, the outcome favors Ehrlich‐Schneider in the first decade following their offer. This second article extends the timeline towards the present time period to examine the long‐term trends of each indicator and proxy, and assesses the reasons invoked by Simon to refuse the bet.MethodsLiterature review, data gathering, and critical assessment of the indicators and proxies suggested or implied by Ehrlich and Schneider. Critical assessment of Simon's reasons for rejecting the bet. Data gathering for his alternative indicators.ResultsFor indicators that can be measured directly, the balance of the outcomes favors the Ehrlich‐Schneider claims for the initial ten‐year period. Extending the timeline and accounting for the measurement limitations or dubious relevance of many of their indicators, however, shifts the balance of the evidence towards Simon's perspective.ConclusionThe fact that Ehrlich and Schneider's own choice of indicators yielded mixed results in the long run, coupled with the fact that Simon's preferred indicators of direct human welfare yielded largely favorable outcomes is, in our opinion, sufficient to claim that Simon's optimistic perspective was largely validated.

Leading scholars consider Austrian economics from several perspectives such as characteristic themes of entrepreneurship and uncertainty, scientific methods such as mathematical complexity theory and experimental economics, and historical contexts such as pre-war Vienna and post-war France. Placing "Austrian economics" in these multiple contexts helps to reveal the rich texture of the Austrian tradition in social thought and its multiple connections to current research in diverse fields. Applications to the theory of the trade cycle and to foreign intervention suggest that the Austrian tradition contains possibilities not yet full explored and exploited. The volume gathers together papers presented at the second biennial Wirth conference on Austrian economics, held in October 2008 when the crisis of Fall 2008 was still new and shocking. This coincidence of timing makes policy issues and crisis management a kind of leitmotif of the volume. If, as keynote speaker David Colander argues, Austrians have a comparative advantage in political economy, then its stock should rise in times of crisis and political uncertainty. The volume provides evidence in favor of this view. Contributors include David Colander, Richard Wagner, Jeffery McMullen, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., Steve Horwitz, Richard Ebeling, Chris Coyne, and Peter Boettke.