History of economic thought

From Citizendium
Revision as of 01:10, 10 April 2007 by imported>João Prado Ribeiro Campos (→‎The Classicals: Movint "The Classical" to "Classical Economy")
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Economics is a social science. It studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The word 'economics', originally "rules of the house", comes from the Greek οἶκος (oikos: house) and νόμος (nomos: custom or law). Economics stems from the natural propensity of human beings to barter, to exchange or trade goods. Whilst there are no records of dogs ever having bartered bones, humans have been bartering all sorts of goods since pre-history. Economics as an independent science - and as we understand the word today - begins with the work of Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. [1]. Before Smith, Economics was just a chapter in political science, the art of managing a state. This article will focus on economics since it became a science independent from politics. For the history of early economics leading up to the development of The Wealth of Nations see the article History of Ancient Economics.

Definition of Economics

Even the definition of economics is subject to controversy. Many economists view economics as the study of how scarce resources are allocated to satisfy alternative competing human wants. This is a "neo-classical" view first formulated by Lionel Robbins in 1935 and repeated in most economics texts; for example, [2] Paul Samuelson, who, in his famous book Economics - An Introductory Analysis [2], defines Economics as:

the study of how men and society 'choose', with or without the use of money, to employ 'scarce' productive resources to produce various commodities over time and distribute them for consumption, now an in the future, among various people and groups in society. [2]

However, a more traditional view is that "Economics is the subject concerned with the material welfare of individuals and groups in society" (Asimakopulos, 1978). or "The economic problem is the study of the process of providing for the material well-being of society". (Heilbroner), or the famous Alfred Marshall "Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing."

The list of acceptable definitions of economics is endless. Economics can be described as the study of those activities which, with or without money, involve exchange transactions among people. Economics is also the study of wealth.

One can play with definitions, but a favourite remains the one proposed by a Canadian economist, Jacob Viner [3] (1892-1970) as "Economics is what economists do".

Introduction

The "Classical" [4] period of economic thought began in 1776 with the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations [1]. Written during the gentle era of Enlightenment, the laissez-faire policies of Adam Smith did not anticipate the economic and social upheavals that the industrial era was about to unleash. Only 13 years later the French court was bankrupt and the French people took to the streets and beheaded their king; it was the French Revolution.

Among the economists who tried to understand the new phenomena three were outstanding: Jean-Baptiste Say[5] , Thomas Robert Malthus[6] and David Ricardo[7]. They all had different visions for political economy after Smith. Of those, Ricardo was the most succesful and influential and laid the basis for the Classical Economy [4] that would become the mainstream economy thought for the whole of the XIX century

Thomas Robert Malthus[6] (1766-1834) is most famous for his "Essay on the Principle of Population" [8] where he formulated the theory that population expanded at a geometric rate (or exponentially) while food production could only increase arithmetically. At a certain point, the population increase would outrun the food supply, and result in general misery. Malthus was one of the major inspirations for Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, and his echoes can be found in today’s environmental literature that warn of depleting resources.

David Ricardo [7] (1772-1823) was perhaps the most important of the XIXth century political economists. He combined Smith's labour theory of value with Malthus's population dynamics in a system which showed that capitalist economies would eventually result in a steady state of universal misery.

Ricardo's system depended on the idea of the marginal productivity of land, and was the inventor of the "marginal" concept. His idea was that the value of agricultural products (and hence food) was based on the amount of labour required to produce on the least fertile parcel of land. Hence the "Law of diminishing marginal productivity". Landlords owning land that was more fertile, and who could produce more for a given amount of land, obtained "rents". His conclusion was that the future was in buying land. He, of course, did not predict the tremendous increase in technology and productive capacity brought about by the capitalist system.

Ricardo was also responsible for the idea of comparative advantage in international trade [7]. His classic example was between wine and clothing and England and Portugal. Portugal was more efficient than England in producing both cloth and wine, but England had a comparative advantage in cloth production. He showed that it would be advantageous for Portugal to specialize in wine and England to specialize in cloth, and to trade with each other. This resulted in more wine and cloth all around.

Karl Marx[9] is the most famous of Ricardo's followers. In Samuelson's words, he was a "minor Ricardian" - and had little impact on the development of pure economic theory. His economics differed little from Ricardo's, but had different conclusions. He placed little emphasis on the diminishing marginal productivity of land, but more importance on the falling rate of profit. To Marx, capitalist competition would lead to the impoverishment of the "proletariat" or working class and a falling rate of profit. The ultimate resolution would be a communist revolution with the workers seizing power. Soon after the death of Karl Marx [9], a Marxian school of economics [10] emerged under the leadership of Marx's inner circle of companions and co-writers, notably Friedrich Engels[11] and Karl Kautsky [12] , both of whom were German.

For more information, see: Marxist Socialism.

The marginalist revolution

For more information, see: Marginalist Revolution.

In the 1870's, three economists were responsible for what is called the "marginalist revolution" [13] - William Stanley Jevons [14] , Carl Menger [15] and Léon Walras [16] . They, independently of each other, developed a new theory of value based on utility. The three are responsible for the concept of marginal utility , and the derivation of a downward sloping demand curve [17]. The Marginalist Revolution put an end to the Classical Scholl[4] and the era of the Neoclassical School [18], which lasts to today, began. This made possible the logical analysis of the "Producers's Decision" [19] or how and why "producer" transforms factors of production into finished goods.

Alfred Marshall [20] (1900-1920) was responsible for the combination of "demand" [17] and "supply" [21],where demand was based on "marginal utility"[22]. He was responsible for developing numerous concepts still used in economics, including: demand [17] and supply [21] curves or schedules and their equilibrium, "elasticity of demand" [23], consumer surplus, the distinction between short- and long-period, etc. Modern microeconomics] [24] [25], the study of individual economic agents and individual markets, is a continuation and elaboration of his work.

For more information, see: Microeconomics.

Marshall's work was only the beginning. His work was refined and further developed, and continues to be extended to this day. Neo-classical economists have built a truly astounding logical edifice into a "Production Function" [26] that rival Newtonian mechanics in completeness and rigour. The basis of neo-classical economics is maximisation under constraint, and this constantly involves the "marginal concept" [22]. The tools developed by economists are even now beginning to be used by other social sciences such as anthropology, sociology and even psychology.

The Great Depression and Keynesianism

However, the edifice of neo-classical economics suffered a severe blow with the Great Depression of the 1930's. In competitive markets, unemployment is not supposed to occur. It can only be due to monopolistic forces preventing the demand and supply of labour from reaching equilibrium. This was clearly not the case in the 1930's.

Marshall's most famous disciple and pupil, John Maynard Keynes, attacked the neo-classical system with the publication of the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. Keynes showed that the depression was due to insufficient aggregate demand and advocated the need for government intervention to restore full employment. In the process, he created macro-economics.

Microeconomics [24] [25] is a continuation and elaboration of the work of the early neo-classicals. It deals with the behaviour of individuals and firms, and with individual markets. Other 1930's economists, Joan Robinson at Cambridge and Edwin Chamberlin in the U.S. developed the theory of imperfect competition. Joan Robinson was responsible for the idea that profit maximization involve the equation of marginal cost and marginal revenue, while Chamberlin was responsible for the idea of monopolistic competition and product differentiation.

Keynesianism became the orthodoxy in economics until well into the 1970's. In order not to abandon all the neo-classical economics that had been built up, the dominant economic ideology became the Keynesian-neo-classical synthesis. The basic idea was to let the government ensure full employment, and then neo-classical economics could be used to ensure the best allocations of resources. The Keynesian-neo-classical synthesis is generally associated with Paul Samuelson, who wrote the most influential ever textbook in economics. Most economics texts today are clones of Samuelson's text, generally following the same general outline. The 1950's and 60's were the heyday of Keynesian economics, when most economists believed that the judicious application of government intervention could smooth out the business cycle and ensure full employment without inflation.

The monetarist "counterrevolution"

While the Keynesian-neo-classical synthesis took over the profession, an unregenerate rearguard of neo-classical economists centred at the University of Chicago continued to exist. They never accepted the idea of involuntary unemployment or government intervention to ensure full employment, and strongly believed in the virtues of markets and laissez-faire. The most famous economist of the Chicago School is Milton Friedman. He was mainly responsible for what is known as the Monetarist counterrevolution of the 1970's. Not only did they succeed in bringing the Keynesian theory down, but they considerably extended the scope of microeconomics [24] to include even education and family formation.

With the perceived failure of Keynesian economics to explain and do anything about the "stagflation" of the 1970's, the free market prescriptions of monetarism became much more popular, and were eventually espoused by many right wing governments in the 1980's (Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney), and, perhaps more importantly, by the central banks of most industrialized countries.

Economics today and the Keynesian revival

However, the basic prescription of monetarism failed when it was attempted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For some this meant moving to even more radical free market positions (Rational Expectations and Real Business Cycle theories), while others attempted to put Keynesian economics on a more sound microeconomic foundation such as the New Keynesian economics [27].

Economics today is in a state of crisis, with a number of contending schools and a whole lot of economists in between. The schools that can be distinguished include from left to right: Marxists, Neo-Ricardians, Post Autistic, Post Keynesians, New Keynesians, various degrees of Neo-classical-Keynesians, various degrees of Monetarists, Real Business Cycle, Rational Expectationist. They differ fundamentally about the amount and level of government intervention in the economy, ranging from almost total control for Marxists to complete libertarian laissez-faire for the Rational Expectationists.

However, a new dominant school or mainstream seems to be emerging: the "New Keynesians" [27]. They reject the simplistic laissez-faire of the monetarists, but recognize many of their criticisms as valid and see some limitations to the ability of governments to act to cure all economic ills. They are particularly preoccupied with creating a proper microeconomic [24] foundation for Keynesian economics. They focus mainly on rigidities, market imperfections, and the economics of information, which result in the need for some kinds of government intervention, but without the unbridled faith in the ability of government to solve all problems that Keynesians had in the 1950's and 60's. One of the leading new-keynesian economists is Joseph Stiglitz [28], who won the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2001 [29] a.k.a., imprecisely, Nobel in Economics.


Neoclassical Schools (1871-today)

The Marginalist Revolution

Marginalist Revolution [30] was the name given to a movement which took place (almost) simultaneouly and independently during the end of the XIX century led by a series of works which lay the foundation for a new concept of Economics and which contributed to transform it into an exact science.

This programatic goal -- to transform Economics into an exact science -- find in the books of Carl Menger (1871) [31] William Stanley Jevons (1871) [32] and Léon Walras (1874)[33] its decisive moments and it is exactly to designate this multiple explosion the that name "Marginalist Revolution" [30] has been coined.

History

Adam Smith (1776), David Ricardo (1817) and the Classicals [34] (which adopted a cost of production theory of value) struggled to understand what came to be called the paradox of "value in use" versus "value in exchange", usually exemplified as the "paradox of diamond and water". Water is essential, diamonds are frivoulous. But the price of diamonds is far higher than that of water. Smith and the Classical School had failed to distinguish between "total utility" and "marginal utility" [35]. The elaboration of this insight transformed economics in the late nineteenth century, and the fruits of the marginalist revolution [30] continue to set the basic framework for contemporary microeconomics.

The creation of the Theory of Marginal Utility

The creation of the marginal utility's [35] concept, which flourished during the end of the XIX century, brought the answer to the paradox and has been the theoretical basis for the economic analysis of demand.

The value of marginal utility [35] is defined as "the additional utility perceived by the consumer by the addition of one extra unit of a good".

For example: a hungry consumer finds an enourmous utilitity by eating a first loaf of bread. This utility declines as he keeps eating more units. The 10th loaf of bread represents for him an utility far smaller than the first one. And the 100th loaf might represent no utility at all.

The creators of the concept

Demand analysis became possible by the theory of utility, the mathematical tools of which were first developed by Hermann Heinrich Gossen (1810-1858) [36] in Germany. However, due to its abstract and mathematical nature, Gossen's work was dismissed by the all- powerful German Historical School; his work was only uncovered and graciously acknowledged by Jevons in 1878. Grossen is considered a pro-marginalist.

Almost simultaneously Carl Menger in Austria (1871), Léon Walras in France (1874-77) e William Stanley Jevons in England (1871) published their works and became the fathers of the Marginalist Revolution [30].

Later Alfred Marshal [20] in England, on his book Principles of Economics [37], greatly extended the concept and recognized that prices are determined simultaneoulsy by factors of cost and factors of demand. Marshall's analysis also analyses the complexes phenomena ocurring in a price system, with various goods interacting among themselves and affecting each other's prices.

Carl Menger founded the Austrian School [38] (a.k.a Viena School), which was later joined by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek; Léon Walras worked with the Lausanne School [39] while William Stanley Jevons led the Anglo-American Marginalists ("Jevonians") [40].

Anglo-American Neoclassicism (1871-Today)

Anglo-American Marginalists ("Jevonians")

The Anglo-American Marginalists ("Jevonians") [41] refer to early English and American writers between the 1870s and the 1930s who strayed from the Marshallian and Institutionalist schools. Many could thus be deemed "followers" of W.S. Jevons; they adopted the "mathematical" method of reasoning and/or the radical "subjectivism" inherent in Jevons's revolutionary marginalism.

Clark and the American Apologists

John Bates Clark (1847-1938) [42] is best known for developing the "marginal productivity" concept and the "product exhaustion" thesis behind the [[Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution, which he was the first to develop in 1889. He also developed the theory of marginal utility-based demand independently in 1885. As one of few American economists of the Marginalist school and a prominent apologist for the capitalist system, John Bates Clark was a great opponent of the Institutionalist School.

The "American Apologists" [43] is the term used to describe late XIX Century and early XX Century American arch-conservative economists and social scientists. Theoretically they hoovered between Classical and Neoclassical economic theory; they distinguished themselves in their applied work and policy stance. The most important American Universities system were dominated by strict apologists for the status quo. Simon Newcomb at Johns Hopkins, John Bates Clark at Columbia, J. Laurence Laughlin at Chicago, Charles Dunbar and Frank Taussig at Harvard, Arthur T. Hadley and William Graham Sumner at Yale, all defendeded the new industrial age and condemned the unions and populist causes.

Alfred Marshall and The Cambridge Neoclassicals ("Marshallians")

The Marshalians[44] was a group inspired on the work of Alfred Marshall which relied on practical, intuitive arguments rather than mathematical formalism, taking into account items such as historical time, institutional and industrial structure and real world phenomena, such as uncertainty, money and business cycles. Their main focus was on representative conditions. Their work emphasised partial market equilibrium, couching their arguments in terms of "representative" agents, firms, etc. rather than grand, idealized, multi-market general equilibrium systems.

London School of Economics (LSE) and Robbins

The London School of Economics and Political Science [45] was set up as in 1895 by Sidney J. Webb and Beatrice Potter Webb, fabian socialists [46], but its early appointments were more conservative: W.A.S. Hewins (later a Tory MP) was its first director, Edwin Cannan, was to head the economics department, the technocratic Arthur L. Bowley headed statistics and liberal theorists L.T. Hobhouse headed sociology.

The L.S.E. from the very beginning aimed at being an academic teaching-and-research powerhouse. It was one of the group of "new universities" (like M.I.T., Johns Hopkins, Chicago, etc.) founded at the turn of century which eschewed the Oxbridge-Ivy League "gentlemanly education" approach in favor of a more serious academic and technical approach, akin to the Central European model. Like other "new universities", the L.S.E. was keen on raising its profile via academic research.

Lord Lionel C. Robbins, 1898-1984.

Lord Robbins was one Englishman who was not a Marshallian but rather a follower of Jevons and Wicksteed. He was one the few economists in England who cared to read the Continental European economists - Walras, Pareto, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and Wicksell. As a result of his Jevonian-Lausanne-Austrian-Swedish influence, Robbins helped to move Anglo-Saxon economics off its Marshallian rails and onto Continental ones.

His tools were the London School of Economics and a famous 1932 essay on economic methodology. He appointed Friedrich A. von Hayek [47], who in turn bred a new generation of English-speaking "continentals" such as Hicks, Lerner, Kaldor and Scitovsky.

The Chicago School and Knight

The "Chicago School" [48] is perhaps one of the better known American "schools" of economics. The term "Chicago School" refers to the approach of the members of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago (founded by the oil magnate John D. Rockfeller) over the past century. Also the term "Chicago School" may be associated with a brand of economics which adheres strictly to Neoclassical price theory in its economic analysis, "free market" libertarianism in much of its policy and a methodology relatively averse to much mathematical formalism. and willing to forego careful general equilibrium reasoning It favors results-oriented partial equilibrium analysis.

In recent years, the "Chicago School" has been associated with "economic imperialism", i.e. the application of economic reasoning to areas traditionally considered the prerogative of other fields such as political science, legal theory, history and sociology.

The "Chicago School" has had various phases with quite different characteristics. At present, under the term "Chicago School" we can identify various schools of thought: Monetarism in the 1960s, New Classical/Real Business Cycle macroeconomics from the 1970s until today, and more recently, the New Institutionalism, New Economic History and Law-and-Economics.

Frank H. Knight, 1885-1972.

Frank H. Knight, the "Grand Old Man" of Chicago, (irreducibly Neoclassical) was one of the century's the deepest thinker and scholar American economics has produced. With Jacob Viner, Knight presided over the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago from the 1920s to the late 1940s.

His famous dissertation Risk, Uncertainty and Profit [49] (1921), where he made made the distinction between "risk" (randomness with knowable probabilities) and "uncertainty" (randomness with unkowable probabilities)is one of the most interesting reads in economics even today.

The Monetarists and Milton Friedman

The "Chicago School" [48], led by the influential economist Milton Friedman [50], a fierce opponent of the Keynesian economics, led the "Monetarist" movement against the Keynesian orthodoxy in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Friedman's criticisms [51] of Keynesian theory began with his attack on the IS-LM [52] dichotomy in his "restatement" [53] of the Quantity Theory of Money [54] in 1956 -- effectively, reminding Keynesians that "money matters".

Friedman (1968) exposed the apparent breakdown of the "Phillips Curve" [55] relationship in the 1970s, proposing to replace it with a "Natural Rate of Unemployment" (NRU) - a concept later formalized in more detail by the "New Classicals" [56].

Friedman argued that government discretionary "fine-tuning" of the economy, as had been proposed by Keynesians, ought to be replaced with iron "rules" of policy - notably his famous "money supply growth" rule. He also wrote several books advocating laissez-faire.

New Classical Macroeconomics and Robert Lucas

The "New Classical school" [56], the "modern" version of the Chicago School, is led by Robert Lucas [57] based on the concept of "rational expectations" of the 1970s which helped to decisively bury the Neo-Keynesian [58] orthodoxy and inaugurated a new era of macroeconomics relying on the Neoclassical concept of supply-determined equilibrium expalined in "Real Business Cycle" theory.

Lucas also became famous for the "Lucas Critique" (1976) of the use of econometric models for policy purposes.

The New Institutionalist Schools

The "New Institutionalist Schools" [59] to refer to the schools of thought that seek to explain political, historical, economic and social institutions such as government, law, markets, firms, social conventions, the family, etc. in terms of Neoclassical economic theory. New Institutionalist schools can be thought of as the outcome of the Chicago School's "economic imperialism" -- i.e. using Neoclassical economics to explain areas of human society normally considered outside them.

Continental Neoclacissism

The Lausanne School and Léon Walras

The "Lausanne School" [39], also called the Mathematical School or the Italian School refers to the Neoclassical school of thought led by the Frenchman Léon Walras [16] (1834-1910) and the Italian Vilfredo Pareto [60] (1848-1923). It developed the general equilibrium theory, generalizing and extending the applicability of the Neoclassical approach to economics.

One can distinguish between the early "Walrasian" and the later "Paretian" stages of the "Lausanne School" [39]. The core of their theories were identical but their emphasis and mode of analysis were different.

Walras fundamental tool of analysis was a system of simultaneous market demand and supply equations. He was mainly interested in analyzing grand themes: the existence of an equilibrium solution to a this system, the stability of that equilibrium, the incorporation of capital and growth and the introduction of money.

Vilfredo Pareto, Enrico Barone and Giovanni Antonelli, his Italian disciples, were particularly interested in the "microfoundations" of general equilibrium systems, the relationship between decision-making households and firms and the resulting general equilibrium. Consequently, the research focus of the Lausanne School moved in a different direction.

As this new direction was announced most prominently in Vilfredo Pareto's Cours d'Économie politique (1896-7) [61] and in his Manual of Political Economy (1906) [62] this was the "Paretian" phase.

The Paretians saw the problem as one of ensuring the compatibility of the individual incentives and constraints of consumers and producers in equilibrium. Their tools were the differential calculus and Lagrangian multipliers. Using advanced mathematics, they constructed a rather grand "Paretian general equilibrium system", a system of equations, where the agent-theoretic microfoundations were starkly brought to the fore. They replaced all the grand themes of Walras with a single new one of their own: the efficiency and social optimality of equilibrium.

The Lausanne School evolved over time to a third phase which focused on the overlap of sociology and economics, along the lines of François Perroux [63].

The Austrian School and Carl Menger

The Austria School [64] (a.k.a Viena School) emerged around the pioner of the Marginalist Revolution [13], Carl Menger [15], at the University of Vienna.

The "First" Generation of the Austrian School was composed by the Austrian professors Friedrich von Wieser and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk [65]. They spread the Austrian School theories throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire and trained the next two generations which would count with their disciples Ludwig von Mises [66] and Friedrich von Hayek [47]. Joseph Schumpeter [67] became a Walrasian. The Austrian School maintained its base in Vienna until the 1930s Before the second World War most of its members moved or were exiled to Great Britain and the United States.

The Swedish School and Knut Wicksell
Paul Samuelson, John Hicks and the Paretian Revival (1930-40)

The "Paretians" [68] are the Neoclassical general equilibrium theorists of the period 1910-1950 who concentrated on the themes outlined by Vilfredo Pareto's Manual of Political Economy (1906): namely, the analysis of individual optimization, market efficiency and social optima via classical programming techniques (differentiable calculus, Lagrangian multipliers, etc.).

The Paretian Revival reached its apex during the 1930s and 1940s. John Hicks [69], Paul Samuelson [70], Abba Lerner [71], Oskar Lange [72], Maurice Allais [73] and Harold Hotelling [74] led the way.

The Paretian Revival represents the first time that the work of the "Lausanne School" [39] began breaking the English-language barrier.

The Vienna Colloquium

The "Vienna Colloquium"[75] was a symposium run by the mathematician Karl Menger (son of the economist Carl Menger) in the 1930s to bring together many different minds from mathematics but also the physical sciences, philosophy, statistics and economics, that set in motion modern general equilibrium theory from its early roots in the Lausanne School.

Among the participants in the Colloquium, besides Karl Menger, was the banker Karl Schlesing Oskar Morgenstern, the polymath John von Neumann [76] and the statistician Abraham Wald [77] . Other participants included assorted Viennese physicists and mathematicians like Kurt Gödel [78].

During the 1930s Menger collected and published the proceedings of the Colloquium as the "Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums" [79]

Tjalling Koopmans and the Cowles Commission

With the motto "Science is Measurement" the "Cowles Commission for Research in Economics" [80] was dedicated to the pursuit of linking economic theory to mathematics and statistics. Its main contributions to economics lie in its "creation" and consolidation of two important fields: general equilibrium theory [81] and econometrics [82].

The Dutch-born Tjalling Koopmans [83] was the director of the "Cowles Comission from 1948 to 1954, a position he woud alternate with James Tobin [84]

Kenneth Arrow, Gérard Debreu and the Neo-Walrasian General Equilibrium School

"Neo-Walrasian" [81] economics refers to the "general equilibrium theory" [81] (often referred to by its acronyms, G.E. or G.E.T.) that emerged in the post-war period. Rooted in the Lausanne School of Léon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto; it re-emerged in two forms in 1930s, one more "Walrasian", advanced by the Vienna Colloquium, and another more "Paretian" that was championed particularly at the L.S.E., University of Chicago and Harvard.

The Cowles Commission merged these two traditions and endowed it with a new mathematical apparatus of axomatic reasoning and convex structures [85] (notably the "separating hyperplane theorem") [86], creating the "Neo-Walrasian" school [81] in the 1940s and 1950s.

Kenneth Arrow (1951) [87] and Gérard Debreau (1951 -1954) [88] recast the Paretian theories of the consumer, production and the welfare theorems.

Robert Aumann and the Edgeworthian Revival

The "Edgeworthian revival" [89] refers to the efforts to study the relationship between a Walrasian competitive equilibrium and the solutions obtained via alternative exchange process (notably those from game theory). The mathematical tools of choice that were introduced in this effort in the 1960s and 1970s (measure theory and non-standard analysis) -- were substantially more complex than the tools economists had been using.

The main goal of this group of economists was to try and prove the "Edgeworth's conjecture" [90].

Robert Aumann [91] proved (1964) the equivalence of the Edgeworthian core [92] and the Walrasian equilibria [93] when we have a continuum (uncountably infinite number) of agents. This "new" definition of "perfect competition" [94] brought measure theory [95]

Edited by -- notably Lyapunov's Theorem [96] -- into economics (Lyapunov's theorem asserts that the range of a non-atomic totally finite vector-valued measure is both convex and compact).

Alternative Schools

Heterodox Tradition

For more information, see: Economic Heterodox Tradition.

The strain of economic thought that begins with the Utopians and Socialists (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1788) and follows with The Fabian Socialists, Gustav Schmoller and the German Historical School, The English Historical School, The French Historical School, Thorstein Veblen and the American Institutionalist School, Joseph Schumpeter and Evolutionary Economics, The Soviet Planning Economists, The Neo-Marxians/Radical Political Economy and the New School for Social Research forms what is called the Heterodox Tradition [97] [98] and will be subjetct of another article.

Keynesians

For more information, see: John Maynard Keynes.
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. Keynes, 1936.

John Maynard Keynes [99] reputedly made one of the the most important contributions for the science of Economics. His classic book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) [100], Keynes's famous treatise, revolutionized both economics and the political science, bringing what is generally regarded as the most influential social science treatise of the XX Century. This single book permanently changed the way the world looked at the economy and the role of government in society.

After a brief period in the British civil service, Keynes returned to his alma mater, Cambridge, in 1909 where he published Indian Currency and Finance [101], considered to be the best book in English about the gold standard and his A Treatise on Probability [102] (1921), which dismantled the classical theory of probability, launching what has since become known as the "logical-relationist" theory of probability.

In 1930 Keynes published his first major work on economics, the heavy two-volume A Treatise on Money [103] which set out his Wicksellian Theory [104] theory of the credit cycle. In it, the rudiments of a liquidity preference theory of interest are laid out. Friedrich von Hayek [47], the laissez-faire advocate, reviewed the Treatise [103] so harshly that Keynes decided to ask Sraffa [105] to review Hayek's own competing work and condemn it, no less harshly. The Keynes-Hayek conflict initiated a battle in the Cambridge-L.S.E. [106] whose effects continue to the present day.

In the General Theory [100] Keynes developed a theory that could explain the determination of aggregate output - and as a consequence, employment. He explained how the determining factor to be aggregate demand. Among the revolutionary concepts initiated by Keynes was the concept of a demand-determined equilibrium wherein unemployment is possible, the ineffectiveness of price flexibility to cure unemployment, a unique theory of money based on "liquidity preference", the introduction of radical uncertainty and expectations, the marginal efficiency of investment schedule breaking Say's Law (and thus reversing the savings-investment causation), the possibility of using government fiscal and monetary policy to help eliminate recessions and control economic booms. Indeed, with this book, he almost single-handedly constructed the fundamental relationships and ideas behind what became known as "macroeconomics".

The General Theory [100] set up the The Keynesian Revolution [107] which split the economics world in two generations: the young lining up behind Keynes; the old ralling to condemn it. John Maynard Keynes responded to his critics -- Jacob Viner [3], Dennis Robertson [108] and Bertil Ohlin [109] -- in a series of 1937 articles, which expanded upon his theory. A densely-written and difficult book, it was followed up immediately by elucidatory publications by the members of the Keynes's Circus [110], such as Joan Robinson [111], and young economists such as Roy Harrod [112] and Abba Lerner [71].

Of particular importance was the 1937 article by John Hicks [69] which introduced the Hicks-Hansen IS-LM Model [52] of Keynes's theory that launched the "Neoclassical-Keynesian Synthesis" [113], which became the World's mainstream form of macroeconomics in the post-war era until the early 1970s.

For more information, see: John Maynard Keynes.


Joan Robinson and the Cambridge Keynesians

"Cambridge Keynesians" refer to the unique group of British economists inspired by John Maynard Keynes's General Theory in a more "fundamentalist" way than the American Neo-Keynesians [114].

Their origin stems from the Keynes's Circus [110] at Cambridge -- Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn, Piero Sraffa, Austin Robinson and James Meade. Although it followed upon Joan Robinson's original queries about capital aggregation (1954, 1956), Piero Sraffa [105] "capital critique" set the radical "counter-revolutionary" tone of the Cambridge Capital Controversy that ensued with the American Neo-Keynesians [114].

The Robinson-Kaldor growth theory and the Cambridge Capital Controversy galvanized a new generation of "Cambridge Keynesians" -- such as Luigi Pasinetti, Piero Garegnani, John Eatwell, Geoff Harcourt -- to initiate the "Neo-Ricardian" [115] research program, an attempt at an explicit marriage of Keynesian theory of effective demand and the Ricardian theory of value. In the course of their confrontation with Neo-Keynesian Synthesis, the Cambridge Keynesians found sympathizers in the American Post Keynesian school [116].

Franco Modigliani, James Tobin and the Neo-Keynesian Synthesis.

The "Neoclassical-Keynesian Synthesis" [113] refers to the "Keynesian Revolution" [107], as interpreted by group of American economists in the early post-war period, which was centered in the Hicks-Hansen IS-LM Model [52] first introduced by John Hicks (1937) [69] and then expanded upon by Franco Modigliani (1944)[117].

However the IS-LM model was unable to obtain the Keynesian result of an "unemployment equilibrium". The model tended to yield the Neoclassical result of "full employment". To explain the results of this system of equations, the Neo-Keynesians appealed to rigid money wages, interest-inelastic investment demand, income-inelastic money demand or some other imperfection to this system. Thus it became a "synthesis" of Neoclassical and Keynesian theory.

Later on the money demand function was derived from utility-maximization by William J. Baumol (1952) [118] and James Tobin (1956, 1958) [84] and the Neo-Keynesians added the Phillips Curve [55] (Phillips, [119] 1958; Lipsey, [120] 1960) to account for inflation. The international sector was incorporated into an extended IS-LM system known as the Mundell-Fleming model [121]

The "Neoclassical-Keynesian Synthesis" was wildly successful and dominated macroeconomics in the post-war period. For a long time, the Neo-Keynesian system was synonymous with the "Keynesian Revolution".

The Neo-Keynesian system came under attack in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Axel Leijonhufvud (1968) [122]. However, the Neo-Keynesian system only came into serious trouble in the early 1970s, when a sustained bout of inflation and unemployment in the OECD countries, which became known as "stagflation", could not be explained by their models. Milton Friedman [50], the leader of the Monetarist School [123], proposed a "natural rate of unemployment hypothesis" that did seem consistent with the OECD experience. This natural rate hypothesis formed the basis of a "New Classical" [124] macroeconomic theory, which has risen since the 1970s to replace Neo-Keynesianism as the new macroeconomic orthodoxy.

Abba Lerner and the American Post Keynesians

Abba P. Lerner [71] was born in Russia, raised on the London East End and worked as a machinist, a capmaker, a Hebrew teacher, a Rabbinical student before enrolling in 1929 at the London School of Economics [45] to which he was attracted by L.S.E.'s Fabian [46] associations.

Lerner moved to the United States in 1937 where he taught at over a half-dozen universities, including the New School for Social Research [125]. Lerner became of of the most important American Post Keynesians [126], along with Evsey Domar, Sidney Weintraub, Paul Davidson, Alfred S. Eichner, Hyman P. Minsky, Alain Barrère, Josef Steindl, Edward J. Nell and Athanasios Asimakopulos [127], the William Dow Professor of Political Economy in the Department of Economics at McGill University (Montreal), among others.

In 1934, Lerner wrote paper laying out the full Pareto-optimality conditions in a general equilibrium production economy, introducing the Paretian rule for efficiency, i.e. "that price equal marginal cost", P=MC .

His magnum opus,The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics (1944) [128] synthesises his work on trade, welfare, socialism and Keynesian theory .

Lerner discovered the factor price equalization theorem [129] (1947), but never published it. It was rediscovered in 1948 by Paul Samuelson and published in 1952.

Lerner was the first to recognize the importance of accounting for inflation in Neo-Keynesian theory and laid out his analysis in a remarkable series of articles and books (1944, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1972). In particular, he introduced the concept of "seller's inflation", a form of cost-push inflation which was to become central to Sideny Weintraub and Post Keynesian economics. In his analysis of inflation, Lerner was quite ahead of his time: he recognized the possibility of "stagflation", the unemployment-inflation trade-off of the "Phillips Curve" [55], what he called "high full employment" (a predecessor of the Friedman's NARU - natural rate of unemployment [130] [131], the differential effects of expected and unexpected inflation and the theory of implicit contracts long before any of these concepts were discussed elsewhere.

Robert Clower, Axel Leijonhufvud and Disequilibrium Keynesianism

On an scholarly study On Keynesian economics and the economics of Keynes : a study in monetary theory [132] (1968) Leijonhufvud [122] (1968) differentiated between "Keynesian Economics" (Hicks-Samuelson type of synthesis) and "Economics of Keynes" (the work of J.M. Keynes) and essentially demonstrated that the two had little in common. He joined Clower [133] in calling for a dynamic, "microfounded" formulation of Keynesian theory which explained underemployment equilibrium rather than merely referring to it as an imperfection. In particular, Leijonhufvud relies on differing speeds of quantity and price adjustments to create the coordination failures which yield protracted unemployment.

His later work in the 1970s and 1980s still mirrored this quest. In the 1990s, Clower and Leijonhufvud identified the fast-growing evolutionary theory and computational economics as moving in the right direction and founded a fledgling school, "Post Walrasian" [134], intent on harnessing macroeconomics to it.

Joseph E. Stiglitz and the New Keynesians
For more information, see: Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Introduction

Joseph E. Stiglitz [28] is one of the most important leaders of the New Keynesians [27]. In 2001 he shared the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2001 [29] a.k.a., imprecisely, Nobel in Economics with George A. Akerlof and A. Michael Spence "for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information". His career began at Yale, where he became a tenured professor at the age of 27. Stiglitz has also been a faculty member at Princeton, Oxford and Stanford universities. At the age of 29, he became a Fellow of the Econometric Society and is a member of the National Academy of Science. Stiglitz is also the recipient of the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, awarded every two years to the American economist under the age of 40 who has made the most significant contributions to the subject.

Stiglitz has also become influential in the making and evaluation of economic policy in the last decade. He served on President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers – first as a member and later as chairmanwith cabinet rank. He was later named chief economist of the World Bank. Since January 2000, Stiglitz has been a visiting professor at Columbia's Graduate School of Business and Department of Economics in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Noting that many of the major political debates over the past two decades have centered around one key issue: "the efficiency of the market economy", and the appropriate relationship between the market and the government, and based on his lifelong experiences, Stilglitz became to question [135] the argument of Adam Smith (1776) that free markets led to efficient outcomes, "as if by an invisible hand", which has played a central role in these debates: it suggested that we could, by and large, rely on markets without government intervention. There was, at best, a limited role for government.

However his childhood told him otherwise. When he began the study of economics over forty years ago, Stiglitz was struck by the incongruity between the models that he was taught and the world that he had seen growing up, in Gary Indiana, a city whose rise and fall paralleled the rise and fall of the industrial economy. Founded in 1906 by U.S. Steel, and named after its Chairman of the Board, by the end of the century it had declined to but a shadow of its former self. But even in its heyday, it was marred by poverty, periodic unemployment, and massive racial discrimination. Yet the theories that Stiglitz was taught paid little attention to poverty, said that all markets "cleared" ­ including the labor market, so unemployment must be nothing more than a "phantasm", and that the profit motive ensured that there could not be economic discrimination. The central theorems argued that the economy was Pareto efficient and that, ino some sense,­ he had been living in the best of all possible worlds. It seemed to Stiglitz that he should be striving to create a different world. As a graduate student, he set out to try to create models with assumptions ­ and conclusions ­ closer to those that accorded with the real world he saw, with all of its imperfections.

Stiglitz contributions to Economics

Stiglitz helped create a new branch of economics, "The Economics of Information" exploring the consequences of information asymmetries and pioneering such concepts as adverse selection and moral hazard, which have now become standard tools not only of theorists, but of policy analysts. He has made major contributions to macro-economics and monetary theory, to development economics and trade theory, to public and corporate finance, to the theories of industrial organization and rural organization, and to the theories of welfare economics and of income and wealth distribution. In the 1980s, he helped revive interest in the economics of R&D. [136]

His work has helped explain the circumstances in which markets do not work well, and how selective government intervention can improve their performance.[137]

For Stiglitz there is no such a thing as Adam Smith's "invisible hand": "Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces - is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there". [138]

The Mandarins

Thematic Schools

Themes

Other

Economics subdisciplines

For more information, see: Economics subdisciplines.


External Links

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 SMITH, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Modern Library, 1ª edition, 2000, ISBN 0679783369
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 SAMUELSON, Paul Anthony e NORDHAUS, William D.Economics. McGraw Hill Professional, 18ª edition, 2004, ISBN 0072872055 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ECONOMICS" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ECONOMICS" defined multiple times with different content
  3. 3.0 3.1 Jacob Viner
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Classical School Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "CLASSICALHET" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "CLASSICALHET" defined multiple times with different content
  5. Jean-Baptiste Say
  6. 6.0 6.1 Thomas Robert Malthus
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 David Ricardo
  8. "Essay on the Principle of Population"
  9. 9.0 9.1 Karl Marx
  10. Marxian school of economics]
  11. Friedrich Engels
  12. Karl Kautsky
  13. 13.0 13.1 The Marginalist Revolution Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MARGREVHET" defined multiple times with different content
  14. William Stanley JEVONS, 1835-1882
  15. 15.0 15.1 Carl MENGER, 1841-1921 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MENGERHET" defined multiple times with different content
  16. 16.0 16.1 Marie Esprit Léon WALRAS (1834-1910) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "WALRASHET" defined multiple times with different content
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Demand Functions and Demand Curves
  18. Neoclassical School
  19. "Producers's Decision"
  20. 20.0 20.1 Alfred Marshall
  21. 21.0 21.1 Supply Functions and Supply Curve
  22. 22.0 22.1 Marginal Utility and Optimization
  23. "Elasticity of demand"
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 MICROECONOMICS: Most important concepts explained in detail. Text and workable problems. WARNING: Internet Explorer will not work! Get "Firefox" or "Netscape" for free. Requires "Adobe Acrobat Reader" as a helper to your web browser. You will need "Excel 97" or higher running on your computer to use the spreadsheets.
  25. 25.0 25.1 RUBINSTEIN, Ariel. Lecture notes in microeconomic theory : the economic agent. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
  26. "Production Function"
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 "New Keynesians"
  28. 28.0 28.1 Joseph Stiglitz
  29. 29.0 29.1 The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2001
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 The Marginalist Revolution Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MARGINREV" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MARGINREV" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "MARGINREV" defined multiple times with different content
  31. MENGER, Carl. Principles of Economics. New York: New York University, 1976).
  32. JEVONS, William Stanley. Principles of Political Economy. London: 1871
  33. WALRAS, Léon. Éléments d'économie politique pure ou Théorie de la richesse sociale Paris: Editor Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1976 ISBN 2275012850 First published 1874
  34. The Classical School. in: The History Of Economic Thought Website
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Marginal Utility and Optimization
  36. Hermann Heinrich Gossen (1810-1858)
  37. MARSHALL, Alfred. Principles of Economics (1890)
  38. Austrian School
  39. 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 Lausanne School Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LAUSANNEHET" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LAUSANNEHET" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LAUSANNEHET" defined multiple times with different content
  40. Anglo-American Marginalists
  41. Anglo-American Marginalists ("Jevonians")
  42. John Bates Clark (1847-1938)
  43. "American Apologists"
  44. Marshalians
  45. 45.0 45.1 London School of Economics and Political Science
  46. 46.0 46.1 Fabian Socialists Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FABIANHET" defined multiple times with different content
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 Friedrich A. von Hayek Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "HAYEKHET" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "HAYEKHET" defined multiple times with different content
  48. 48.0 48.1 "Chicago School"
  49. KNIGHT, Frank H. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit
  50. 50.0 50.1 Milton Friedman Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FRIEDMANHET" defined multiple times with different content
  51. The Inflation Acceleration Controversy
  52. 52.0 52.1 52.2 The Hicks-Hansen IS-LM Model
  53. The Monetarist Transmission Mechanism
  54. The Quantity Theory of Money
  55. 55.0 55.1 55.2 "Phillips Curve" Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "PHILLIPSHET" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "PHILLIPSHET" defined multiple times with different content
  56. 56.0 56.1 "New Classical school"
  57. Robert Lucas
  58. Neo-Keynesian
  59. "New Institutionalist Schools"
  60. Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)
  61. PARETO, Vilfredo. Cours d'Economie Politique. F.Rouge, Lausanne, 1896
  62. PARETO, Vilfredo. Manual of Political Economy; Translated By Ann S. Schwier; Edited By Ann S. Schwier and Alfred N. Page Pareto; Publisher: Augustus M. Kelley; 1971
  63. François Perroux
  64. The Austria School
  65. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
  66. Ludwig von Mises
  67. Joseph Schumpeter
  68. "Paretians"
  69. 69.0 69.1 69.2 John Hicks Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "HICKSHET" defined multiple times with different content
  70. Paul Samuelson
  71. 71.0 71.1 71.2 Abba Lerner
  72. Oskar Lange
  73. Maurice Allais
  74. Harold Hotelling
  75. The "Vienna Colloquium"
  76. John von Neumann
  77. Abraham Wald
  78. Kurt Gödel
  79. GÖDEL, Kurt et al. Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums. Unter Mitwirkung von K. Gödel und G. Nöbeling herausgegeben von K. Menger. Heft 1 (1931), Heft 2 (1932). B. G. Teubner, Leipzig und Wien. Preis RM 2 Journal Monatshefte für Mathematik Publisher Springer Wien
  80. "Cowles Commission for Research in Economics"
  81. 81.0 81.1 81.2 81.3 Neo-Walrasian General Equilibrium Theory
  82. Econometrics
  83. Tjalling Koopmans
  84. 84.0 84.1 James Tobin Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "TOBINHET" defined multiple times with different content
  85. Convex Structures
  86. Separating Hyperplane Theorem (SHT)
  87. Kenneth Arrow (1951)
  88. Gérard Debreau (1951. 1954)
  89. "Edgeworthian revival"
  90. "Edgeworth's conjecture"
  91. Robert Aumann
  92. Competition and the Edgeworthian core
  93. Walrasian equilibria
  94. Perfect Competition
  95. ARROW, K. J. Arrow, INTRILIGATOR, M.D., HILDENBRAND, W., and SONNENSCHEIN, H., editors. Handbook of Mathematical Economics
  96. Basic Lyapunov theory
  97. LEWIS, Paul. Transforming Economics, Perspectives on the Critical Realist Project. London: Taylor and Francis(Routledge), 2004. ISBN 0415369673
  98. LAWSON, Tony. Why Methodology? Faculty of Economics and Politics, Cambridge, 2003.
  99. John Maynard Keynes
  100. 100.0 100.1 100.2 KEYNES, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan Press; New York: St. Martin's Press,; 1936
  101. KEYNES, John Maynard. Indian Currency and Finance. London: MacMillan & Co., Ltd., 1913
  102. KEYNES, John Maynard. A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1921.
  103. 103.0 103.1 KEYNES, John Maynard. A Treatise on Money. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.; 1st American edition; 1930
  104. Wicksellian Theory of the Credit Cycle
  105. 105.0 105.1 Piero Sraffa Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "SRAFFAHET" defined multiple times with different content
  106. Cambridge-L.S.E.
  107. 107.0 107.1 The Keynesian Revolution
  108. Dennis Robertson
  109. Bertil Ohlin
  110. 110.0 110.1 Keynes's Circus
  111. Joan Robinson
  112. Roy Harrod
  113. 113.0 113.1 "The Neoclassical-Keynesian Synthesis"
  114. 114.0 114.1 American Neo-Keynesians
  115. "Neo-Ricardian"
  116. American Post Keynesian school
  117. Franco Modigliani (1944)
  118. William J. Baumol (1952)
  119. Alban William Phillips, 1914-1975
  120. Richard G. Lipsey, 1928-
  121. Robert A. Mundell, 1962
  122. 122.0 122.1 Axel Leijonhufvud
  123. Monetarist School
  124. New Classical Macroeconomics
  125. New School for Social Research
  126. American Post-Keynesians
  127. Athanasios Asimakopulos
  128. LERNER, Abba. The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics. New York: MacMillan, 1960. First published in 1944
  129. Factor Price Equalization Theorem
  130. NARU - natural rate of unemployment
  131. BRATSIOTIS, George Bratsiotis (University of Manchester), MARTIN, Christopher (Brunel University) and PANAGIOTIDIS, Theo. (Loughborough University) Monetary Policy and the Natural Rate of Unemployment, Sempterr 2003.
  132. LEIJOHNUFVUD, Axel. On Keynesian economics and the economics of Keynes : a study in monetary theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
  133. Clower
  134. "Post Walrasian"
  135. STIGLITZ, Joseph E. Information And The Change In The Paradigm Of Economics.(Prize Lecture, December 8, 2001). New York: Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 2001.
  136. GALEGATI, Mauro et al.Worrying trends in econophysics
  137. STIGLITS, Joseph E. More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Towards The Post Washington Consensus. World Institute for Development Economic Research - WIDER; The United Nations University: 1998 WIDER Annual Lecture.
  138. STIGLITZ, Joseph E. There is no invisible hand. London: The Guardian Comment, December 20, 2002.

Bibliography

  • ASIMAKOPULOS, Athanasios; with CAIRNS, Robert D. and GREEN, Christopher.Economic Theory, Welfare, and the State. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1991. ISBN 0773508538.
  • KEYNES, John Maynard. Treatise on Money, A. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.; 1st American edition; 1930
  • LEIJOHNUFVUD, Axel. On Keynesian economics and the economics of Keynes : a study in monetary theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.
  • LERNER, Abba. The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics. New York: MacMillan, 1960. First published in 1944
  • PARETO, Vilfredo. Cours d'Economie Politique. F.Rouge, Lausanne, 1896.
  • PARETO, Vilfredo. Manual of Political Economy; Translated By Ann S. Schwier; Edited By Ann S. Schwier and Alfred N. Page Pareto; Publisher: Augustus M. Kelley; 1971.
  • STIGLITZ, Joseph E. and GREENWALD, Bruce. Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics. Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0521810345
  • STIGLITZ, Joseph E. Making Globalization Work, W.W. Norton, September, 2006. ISBN 0393061221
  • WALRAS, Léon. Eléments d'économie politique pure, ou Théorie de la richesse sociale. Lausanne: F.Rouge, Paris Guillaumin; Paris: Guillaumin & Cie [etc.], et al.; 1889.