Modern economic theory as culture: economic thought as if community (relations and knowledge) mattered

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-310
Author(s):  
Thomas S Brinsmead
Studia Humana ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-36
Author(s):  
Pedro J. Caranti

AbstractMartín de Azpilcueta and his fellow Spanish Scholastics writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca during Spain’s Golden Age are rightly pointed to by historians of economic thought as being major contributors toward, if not outright founders of modern economic theory. Among these is the theory of time-preference for which Azpilcueta has repeatedly been given the credit for discovering. However, this discovery is a curious one given how the same man, Azpilcueta, condemned usury in general during his whole life. If Azpilcueta did in fact discover this theory and fully understand its implications, we would reasonably expect him to have questioned his support for the ban on charging an interest on a loan. This paper, therefore, challenges the claim that Azpilcueta understood and revived time-preference theory and shows how his understanding was much more nuanced, and, at times, inconsistent.


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dotan Leshem

Nearly every economist has at some point in the standard coursework been exposed to a brief explanation that the origin of the word “economy” can be traced back to the Greek word oikonomia, which in turn is composed of two words: oikos, which is usually translated as “household”; and nemein, which is best translated as “management and dispensation.” Thus, the cursory story usually goes, the term oikonomia referred to “household management” and while this was in some loose way linked to the idea of budgeting, it has little or no relevance to contemporary economics. This article introduces in more detail what the ancient Greek philosophers meant by “oikonomia.” It begins with a short history of the word. It then explores some of the key elements of oikonomia, while offering some comparisons and contrasts with modern economic thought. For example, both Ancient Greek oikonomia and contemporary economics study human behavior as a relationship between ends and means which have alternative uses. However, while both approaches hold that the rationality of any economic action is dependent on the frugal use of means, contemporary economics is largely neutral between ends, while in ancient economic theory, an action is considered economically rational only when taken towards a praiseworthy end. Moreover, the ancient philosophers had a distinct view of what constituted such an end—specifically, acting as a philosopher or as an active participant in the life of the city-state.


Author(s):  
Liudmyla Krot

In the conditions of transformational shifts and construction of the national competitive economy of Ukraine, society is a particularly attractive object for socio-economic research. The necessity of deep theoretical comprehension of the processes that take place and determination of the directions of further development of the domestic economy through the reference to the historical experience of studying market transformations by domestic economists is substantiated. There is a tendency of revival of scientific interest in historical and economic research in modern economic theory, where Ukrainian economic thought opens a wide field for scientific research. The aim of the article is to study the development of the ideas of marginalism and their reflection in the domestic economic thought in the works of representatives of the Kyiv School of Economics. The article presents the evolution of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the stages of the marginal revolution. It is noted that in Ukraine there were also powerful scientific centers of marginal orientation. It is claimed that the Kyiv School of Economics, headed by M. H. Bunge and D. I. Pikhno, initiated the subjective-psychological direction of political economy in Ukraine. It is determined that the peculiarity of O. Bilimovich's scientific thought was the complete denial of the labor theory of value. The article states that MI Tugan-Baranovsky has the primacy in the deep substantiation and creation of the synthesis of the labor theory of value and theories of marginal utility. It is noted that the combination of objective and subjective approaches on a methodological basis allowed him to avoid one-sided economic research. It is emphasized that the views of M. Tugan-Baranovsky in this problem were characterized by both undeniably powerful and theoretically weak aspects. Based on the study, it was concluded that marginalism as a powerful direction in the development of world economic theory had its own peculiarities of perception and development in Ukrainian economic thought of the second half of the nineteenth - early twentieth century. Research has revealed a critical perception of methodological individualism as a characteristic feature of the scientific tools of marginalism. It is noted that the fundamental ideas of marginalism in the Ukrainian economic thought of the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries. combined with the methods of the new historical and social schools. The article notes that at that time Ukrainian scientists took into account the influence of non-economic factors on the economic behavior of economic entities,


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidar M. Tufetulov ◽  
Gulnara N. Hadiullina ◽  
Rival R. Shakirov ◽  
Andrey S. Zayats

Economic theory as an independent science arose in the period of the formation of modern market relations. The economic thought history as a separate branch in the system of economic sciences took shape in the first half of the XIX century. The tradition of Russian economic thought at all stages of its development was attention to historical trends and factors of socio-economic development. The reason for this is in the specifics of Russia's socioeconomic and spiritual development. ХIХ century is characterized by the struggle of old and new trends in the economic system of Russia. In these conditions, representatives of various branches of economic thought appealed to the historical experience of the country and humanity in order to prove the truth of their position. The paper presents an analysis the historical process of emergence, development, struggle, and the changing of economic ideas. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the main directions of modern economic theory underlying the decision-making at macro and microeconomic levels. The content of the historical and economic knowledge functions: worldview, practical, axiological, factual and methodological, is defined. The necessity of studying the provisions of alternative economic schools is substantiated, what is considered as a prerequisite for the formation of general cultural and professional competencies of specialists in the field of economics


Author(s):  
A. G. Khudokormov ◽  
A. V. Bannikova ◽  
A. M. Litovchenko ◽  
A. A. Moskaleva ◽  
E. A. Danilenko

The article presents the results of studies of modern economic theory. The views of the Nobel laureates are interpreted: D. MacFadden on the development of microeconomics, T. Schelling on economic conclusions from game theory, E. Prescott in the field of cycle theory, R. Thaler in the field of behavioral economics. The intention was expressed to turn the master's seminar into a platform for the study of the global economic thought of our time.


2007 ◽  
pp. 25-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Rozmainsky

The author analyzes Keynes-Tinbergen controversy in the context of Keynes’ methodological ideas, which he thinks are fully opposite to the methodology of modern economic theory. Using different Keynes’ papers the author considers this difference in detail and shows its links to the critical view held by Keynes towards econometrics


2018 ◽  
pp. 95-110
Author(s):  
L. D. Shirokorad

This article shows how representatives of various theoretical currents in economics at different times in history interpreted the efforts of Nikolay Sieber in defending and developing Marxian economic theory and assessed his legacy and role in forming the Marxist school in Russian political economy. The article defines three stages in this process: publication of Sieber’s work dedicated to the analysis of the first volume of Marx’s Das Kapital and criticism of it by Russian opponents of Marxian economic theory; assessment of Sieber’s work by the narodniks, “Legal Marxists”, Georgiy Plekhanov, and Vladimir Lenin; the decline in interest in Sieber in light of the growing tendency towards an “organic synthesis” of the theory of marginal utility and the Marxist social viewpoint.


2012 ◽  
pp. 67-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Fleurbaey

The first part of the paper is devoted to the monetary indicators of social welfare. It is shown which methods of quantitative estimating the aggregate wealth and well-being are available in the modern economic theory apart from the traditional GDP measure. The limitations of the methods are also discussed. The author shows which measures of welfare are adequate in the dynamic context: he considers the problems of intertemporal welfare analysis using the Net National Product (NNP) for the sustainability policy and in the context of concern for well-being of the future generations.


2019 ◽  
pp. 135-145
Author(s):  
Viktor A. Popov

Deep comprehension of the advanced economic theory, the talent of lecturer enforced by the outstanding working ability forwarded Vladimir Geleznoff scarcely at the end of his thirties to prepare the publication of “The essays of the political economy” (1898). The subsequent publishing success (8 editions in Russia, the 1918­-year edition in Germany) sufficiently demonstrates that Geleznoff well succeded in meeting the intellectual inquiry of the cross­road epoch of the Russian history and by that taking the worthful place in the history of economic thought in Russia. Being an acknowledged historian of science V. Geleznoff was the first and up to now one of the few to demonstrate the worldwide community of economists the theoretically saturated view of Russian economic thought in its most fruitful period (end of XIX — first quarter of XX century).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document