Suchergebnisse

"Following the recent publication of the award winning and much acclaimed The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, second edition which brings together Nobel Prize winners and the brightest young scholars to survey the discipline, we are pleased to announce The New Palgrave Economics Collection. Due to demand from the economics community these books address key subject areas within the field. Each title is comprised of specially selected articles from the Dictionary and covers a fundamental theme within the discipline. All of the articles have been specifically chosen by the editors of the Dictionary, Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume and are written by leading practitioners in the field. The Collections provide the reader with easy to access information on complex and important subject areas, and allow individual scholars and students to have their own personal reference copy"--Provided by publisher

This article considers the implications of complex systems models for the study of economics and the evaluation of public policies. I argue that complexity can enhance current approaches to formal economic analysis, but does so in ways that complement current approaches. I further argue that while complexity can influence how public policy analysis is conducted, it does not delimit the use of consequentialist approaches to policy comparison to the degree initially suggested by Hayek and most recently defended by Gaus.

This paper discusses the history of the use of cross-country regressions in modern growth economics. These regressions continue to be the workhorse of empirical growth analysis even though their meaning continues to be controversial. I argue that the early interpretations of these regressions have proven to be inappropriate and led to substantial exaggeration of the evidentiary support for various new growth theories. On the other hand, I argue that these regressions have a valuable role to play in identifying the modern analog of stylized facts for growth behavior.

This article provides a framework for comparing meritocratic and affirmative action admissions policies. The context of the analysis is admissions to public universities; admission rules are evaluated as part of the public investment problem faced by a state government. Meritocratic and affirmative admissions policies are compared in terms of their effects on the level and distribution of human capital. I argue that (a) meritocratic admissions are not necessarily efficient and (b) affirmative action policies may be efficiency enhancing relative to meritocratic ones. Both these claims, as well as their negations, depend on features of individual behavior for which there is little empirical evidence. The implications of this absence of evidence are then explored, with a focus on policy evaluation when equality and efficiency are both desiderata. I argue that standard statistical decision theoretic approaches do not apply to the affirmative action case, even if equality and efficiency are rendered commensurable based on a scalar payoff function. In this context, I suggest that a presumption for equality-enhancing policies leads to support for affirmative action, but I emphasize the contingent nature of this conclusion.