Please select from the titles below:
What Could the `New' Growth Theory Teach Smith or Ricardo? (p.1)
by H KurzThe paper contains a report of a discussion between Adam Smith and David Ricardo serving on a newly installed research evaluation committee `On the Advancement of Knowledge in Growth Economics, Paying Special Attention to the Contribution of "New" Growth Theory'. The two economists screen some of the most prominent `new' growth models and assess their original novelties. These argue that the main contribution of these models boils down to the suggestion that there is a technology producing a surrogate for what used to be called `labour'. That factor has been given new names and enters the stage as `human capital' or `knowledge'. In this way, labour is rendered an accumulable factor, generated endogenously, and thus cannot constrain economic growth via a falling rate of profit due to diminishing returns to capital as capital accumulates.
Uncertainty in a Strong Sense: Meaning and Sources (p.21)
By D DequechThis paper advocates a strong, or radical, notion of uncertainty, in which knowledge due to the paucity of evidence is incomplete to an extent that makes it not completely reliable as a guide to conduct. The paper begins by examining how this notion is expressed by Keynes's epistemic approach in his A Treatise on Probability and by Davidson's emphasis on nonergodicity. Discussing the relation between epistemology and ontology, I identify some compatibility between these two approaches. Next, I discuss the Expected Utility model and some attempts to generalize it. These attempts go beyond standard EU theory but fail to face the issues of creativity and structural change. I then turn to the issue of the possible gradability of uncertainty in a strong sense. In the final part, before the conclusion, creativity and structural change are highlighted as the most relevant sources of strong uncertainty for economic analyses.
Scientific Metaphors, Socio-economic Theory and Reductionism (p.45)
By E KhalilA number of economists and social theorists refrain from the use of biological metaphors in the substantive sense out of fear of reductionism. Reductionism is understood here as the explanation of properties of one phenomenon in terms of the properties of the components that make up that phenomenon. The paper shows that the fear of biological metaphors is misplaced. Firstly, it distinguishes between methodological individualism in general and biological reductionism in particular. Secondly, it is argued that even when biological metaphors are used in the substantive sense, they need not entail biological reductionism. Social scientists may rather benefit from the employment of biological metaphors insofar as they are used to reveal the unity of phenomena at hand. The exposed similarity between biological and social processes does not necessarily promote a reductionist mode of analysis.
Convergence and Common Cycles in the European Union (p.59)
By H Bai, S Hall, D ShepherdAn important question facing the European Union is whether the degree of economic convergence among the member states is sufficient to ensure the smooth operation of a unified monetary system. In this paper we use the common features test to identify the degree of short-run (cyclical) convergence among the larger EU countries. Our results suggest that GDP growth, exchange rates and nominal interest rates exhibit common cyclical features (represented by common serial correlation features), In contrast, we find that there are generally no common features in real interest rate movements.
Globalisation: Myth and Reality (p.73)
By G Ietto-GilliesThe paper takes P Hirst and G Thompson, Globalization in Question (1996) as the basis for developing some arguments on the globalization debate. Following a summary of the book, the paper focuses on three points. Firstly, the need to divorce the issue of globalism from the issue of liberalism. Secondly, the authors' thesis that very little has changed in the international scene in the last few decades is criticised. It is argued that the major changes are due to the fact that integration is now brought about by the activities of transnational companies rather then through those of uninational companies. Moreover, the paper stresses that trade and foreign direct investment are complementary and they are both controlled by the transnational companies. From this perspective, the major change is seen as due to the fact that the new integration process takes on an ownership rather than a territory configuration. Thirdly, it is claimed that a major qualitative change in the new integration process is due to the dichotomy between those actors in the economic systems that have transnational power and those that do not.
Page last modified on 26 May 2000