Suchergebnisse

pt. I. Introduction to international economics -- pt. II. International trade theory -- pt. III. International trade policy -- pt. IV. International investment and finance -- pt. V. The history of the international monetary system -- pt. VI. Immigration.

Part I of this essay explained the sequence of events that enabled the neoclassical paradigm to regain its dominant position in mainstream economics following serious challenges by 'Keynesian' economists. This second essay seeks to answer the question of why the economics profession was so willing to sustain the neoclassical paradigm in the face of the reality-based challenges by 'Keynesian' economists like Harrod and Domar. The answer is sought in the culture of economics, the history of science in general, and the study of power in the field of political economy. This article draws heavily on the work of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who divides culture into habitus (procedures and dispositions) and doxa (more abstract beliefs and philosophies), in order to provide insight into how culture affects economic thinking. Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence helps to explain how a narrower neoclassical growth model was enthusiastically accepted as a replacement for the 'Keynesian' Harrod-Domar growth model. Financial and business interests clearly understood the power of culture and they used their accumulated wealth to support the neoliberal doxa and neoclassical habitus that would induce economists to willingly provide intellectual cover for policies that benefitted those financial and business interests. We conclude with a discussion on how the history of thought on economic development might have evolved if the Keynesian paradigm, and its dynamic Harrod-Domar model, had prevailed.

International audience ; Part I of this essay explained the sequence of events that enabled the neoclassical paradigm to regain its dominant position in mainstream economics following serious challenges by 'Keynesian' economists. This second essay seeks to answer the question of why the economics profession was so willing to sustain the neoclassical paradigm in the face of the reality-based challenges by 'Keynesian' economists like Harrod and Domar. The answer is sought in the culture of economics, the history of science in general, and the study of power in the field of political economy. This article draws heavily on the work of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who divides culture into habitus (procedures and dispositions) and doxa (more abstract beliefs and philosophies), in order to provide insight into how culture affects economic thinking. Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence helps to explain how a narrower neoclassical growth model was enthusiastically accepted as a replacement for the 'Keynesian' Harrod-Domar growth model. Financial and business interests clearly understood the power of culture and they used their accumulated wealth to support the neoliberal doxa and neoclassical habitus that would induce economists to willingly provide intellectual cover for policies that benefitted those financial and business interests. We conclude with a discussion on how the history of thought on economic development might have evolved if the Keynesian paradigm, and its dynamic Harrod-Domar model, had prevailed.

After Harrod and Domar independently developed a dynamic Keynesian circular flow model to illustrate the instability of a growing economy, mainstream economists quickly reduced their model to a supply side-only growth model, which they subsequently rejected as too simplistic and replaced with Solow's neoclassical growth model. The rejection process of first diminishing the model and then replaced it with a neoclassical alternative was similar to how the full Keynesian macroeconomic paradigm was diminished into IS-LM analysis and then replaced by a simplistic neoclassical framework that largely ignored the demand side of the economy. Furthermore, subsequent work by mainstream economists has resulted in a logically inconsistent framework for analyzing economic growth; the popular endogenous growth models, which use Schumpeter's concept of profit-driven creative destruction to explain the technological change that Solow left as exogenous, are not logically compatible with the Solow model.

This paper offers a sociological explanation for why the field of economics has so severely restricted the scope of its analysis to the point where it failed to foresee the financial crises, economic recessions, and other large shifts in economic activity that have characterized the global economy in recent decades. This paper's analysis of the culture of economics draws heavily on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist who developed a useful framework with which to analyze the culture of an intellectual field like economics. Specifically, the paper describes how the neo-liberal doxa supports the restrictive neoclassical (marginalist) modeling approach that is a central element of the habitus of mainstream economics. Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence shows how the orthodox economics culture perpetuates itself even in the face of the complete failure of the culture's favored neoclassical and rational expectations models to anticipate recent macroeconomic crises. The paper concludes with some thoughts on how this understanding of the culture of economics can enable economists to free themselves from the oppressive culture of mainstream economics.

It is argued that the use of annual real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to measure human welfare is misleading because it fails to take into account important factors such as health, education, & political rights. Alternative measures such as the Human Development Index published annually by the United Nations Development Program, which factors in health & education, also fails to accurately reflect human welfare because they, like the GDP, omit transactions from household production & underground economic activity. These omissions, it is claimed, may result in overestimation of real growth in output & thus, human welfare. However, it is claimed that the most serious shortcoming of the GDP & alternative measures of human welfare is that they fail to measure the lifetime welfare of individuals. The Expected Individual Lifetime Welfare (EILW) -- a measure derived by multiplying annual real GDP per capita & life expectancy at birth -- is considered a more accurate method for calculating lifetime individual welfare. 2 Tables, 3 Figures, 32 References. J. Paul

According to Mexico's Constitution and labor laws, the dismissal of a worker without "just cause" requires employers to make a one-time compensation payment based on the worker's length of service. Search and job offer models are used to show that this de facto unemployment compensation system introduces inefficiencies into the labor market. Therefore, changes in the labor laws are likely in near future. An alternative unemployment compensation mechanism, based on the Brazilian "fundo de garantia", is presented. It would correct the inefficiencies of the current system, yet it is similar enough to overcome organized labor's reluctance to give up current limited benefits. (Lat Am Stud/DÜI)

The Economics of Immigration is written as a both a reference for researchers and as a textbook on the economics of immigration. It is aimed at two audiences: (1) researchers who are interested in learning more about how economists approach the study of human migration flows; and (2) graduate students taking a course on migration or a labor economics course where immigration is one of the subfields studied. The book covers the economic theory of immigration, which explains why people move across borders and details the consequences of such movements for the source and destination economies. The book also describes immigration policy, providing both a history of immigration policy in a variety of countries and using the economic theory of immigration to explain the determinants and consequences of the policies. This second edition reflects the growing importance of immigration as an economic, political, and social issue in the USA, the EU, Japan, and nearly all other developed and developing countries of the world.