Suchergebnisse

The main thrust of this Element is a critical assessment of the theory and evidence concerning the sources of scale effects. It is argued that the analysis of static scale effects is important because scale effects are embedding in our world, and new technologies associated with an evolving economy often allow their exploitation when they cannot be exploited in less technically advanced and smaller economies. So, although static equilibrium theory is not a good vehicle for studying economic growth, showing how scale effects operate when output varies with given technology helps us to understand the scale effects that occur when output rises as a result of economic growth, even though that is typically driven by technological change

AbstractSecond‐best theory established that a policy's effect on community welfare (or any other objective function) varies with its specific context. In contrast, Ng argues that fulfilling first‐best conditions piecemeal is optimal whenever the policy‐maker's information is insufficient to determine the direction of the change in the variable under consideration that will raise welfare, irrespective of the conditions in that market. It is argued in the present paper: (i) that Ng's own assumptions imply not that first‐best conditions should be established under these circumstances, but that the status quo should be maintained; (ii) that when Ng's key assumption is altered to be empirically relevant, all policy decisions become fully context‐specific; and (iii) that Woo's argument for accepting Ng's conclusions in spite of point (ii) is incorrect. The conclusion discusses valid uses of piecemeal welfare theory in spite of second best.

AbstractThis paper contrasts the static neoclassical and the evolutionary views of the economy and economic policy. It responds to Ng's comments on Lipsey's original criticism of third‐best theory. Under a relevant definition of informational poverty and Ng's other assumptions, the expected value of any policy‐created divergence from the status quo is negative: If there is not enough known to determine what to do, nothing should be done, rather than establishing first‐best conditions as Ng's analysis has it. It is argued that Ng's analysis of his two other information states adds little to what common sense suggests. To address Ng's argument that policies using context‐specific objective functions lack the required welfare basis, the present paper studies how economic policy is actually pursued absent guides provided by welfare economics. Policies that follow from evolutionary economic theory imply that many things that are seen as 'distortions' in welfare economics are actually desirable forces that drive economic growth.

An early post-WWII debate concerned the most desirable demand and inflationary pressures at which to run the economy. Context was provided by Keynesian theory devoid of a full employment equilibrium and containing its mainly forgotten, but still relevant, microeconomic underpinnings. A major input came with the estimates provided by the original Phillips curve. The debate seemed to be rendered obsolete by the curve's expectations-augmented version with its natural rate of unemployment, and associated unique equilibrium GDP, as the only values consistent with stable inflation. The current behavior of economies with the successful inflation targeting is inconsistent with this natural-rate view, but is consistent with evolutionary theory in which economies have a wide range of GDP-compatible stable inflation. Now the early post-WWII debates are seen not to be as misguided as they appeared to be when economists came to accept the assumptions implicit in the expectations-augmented Phillips curve.

Abstract:This paper argues that technological advance is a necessary condition for sustained economic growth. Technologies and institutions co-evolve in a system of mutual causation. Although some institutions inhibit growth while others encourage it, no single institution is either necessary or sufficient to produce sustained growth. However, some non-unique bundle of encouraging institutions is necessary. Sustained growth began with the Industrial Revolutions that did not just 'fall out of the blue' but were instead the culmination of three trajectories of technological advance in steam power, electric power, and the mechanization of textile manufacturing. These stretched over several centuries. Growth then became sustained when the West 'invented how to invent'. A necessary condition for the Industrial Revolutions was Western science whose roots lie as far back as the scholastic philosophers and the medieval universities. Its absence elsewhere is a sufficient reason why no other place developed its own indigenous industrial revolution.

This paper criticizes three Robbinsian positions still often found in modern economics: (1) the methodology of intuitively obvious assumptions; (2) treating facts as illustrations rather than as tests of theoretical propositions; (3) assuming that theory provides universally applicable generalizations independent of the characteristics of individual economies and so are independent of specific historical processes. Two corollaries of point (3) are that theory cannot assist in explaining unique historical events such as the emergence of sustained growth in the West and that economists need not interest themselves in the details of the technologies that produce the nation's wealth.