Why There Is (as Yet) No Such Thing as an Economics of Knowledge

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Mirowski
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Cutting Edge ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
National Wealth ◽  
Classical Notion ◽  
Static Allocation ◽  
David Ricardo

Once upon a time, say around the era of David Ricardo and Karl Marx, political economy was primarily concerned with the production of national wealth. This “classical” notion tended to hang on long into the twentieth century, well after the invention of neoclassical economics in the 1870s. Nevertheless, there was no denying that within neoclassical economics, exchange had displaced production as the primary topic of interest. But subsequently, something rather extraordinary happened around the middle of the twentieth century, gaining momentum as the century waned. More and more, economics at the cutting edge became relatively cavalier about treating trade as static allocation. This article endeavors to point out that all major existing modern traditions of the Economics of Knowledge have encountered their comeuppance solely from within, leading various economists to concede that their own constructions of the epistemology of the agent were structurally incoherent.

scholarly journals Special Issue Foreword: On the Political Economy of Amateur Athletics

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Joshua I. Newman ◽  
Kyle S. Bunds
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Economic Behavior ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Thorstein Veblen ◽  
State Governance ◽  
David Ricardo ◽  
Field Of Inquiry

In its most artless definition, political economy refers to the study of inter- and intrastate transaction—concerned in large part with the dialectics of state governance and the production/consumption functions therein. Many of us, with varying degrees of deliberation, have read the works of forerunning political economists such as Adam Smith (c. 1723-1790), David Ricardo (c. 1772-1823), Thomas Malthus (c. 1766-1834), John Stuart Mill (c. 1806-1873), Karl Marx (c. 1818-1883), and Thorstein Veblen (c. 1857-1929). These classic political economists and their contemporaries shared a concern for the extent to which land, labor, income, capital, and the population derived value from, and maintained contingency with, state polity. While each diverged from the others in how to best organize the State in relation to markets and exchange activities (and vice versa) so as to optimize the citizenry’s well-being, these scholars and their contemporaries laid the foundations for the long-standing field of inquiry fixed on exploring how various national political systems (democracy, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc.), markets, and political and economic behavior could bring about national prosperity, maximize individual freedom, or raise collective utility.

scholarly journals KRITIK TERHADAP SISTEM EKONOMISOSIALIS DAN KAPITALIS

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
M. Sholahuddin
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
New Synthesis ◽  
Economic Ideology ◽  
Islamic Economic ◽  
David Ricardo

The failure of economic capitalism system stated by Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1823) actually have been criticized by Karl Marx (1818-1883) in his book "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (1857) and "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (1859). Karl Marx and Engels compile a new synthesis of economic socialist system. Stranger enough, socialism particularly as economic ideology is destroyed earlier than Capitalism. Meanwhile, capitalism still survives by transforming performance. For examples, at the time of the glory of Socialism age, capitalism was transformed into socialism state with social justice and welfare state concepts, and when Islam began to rise, it was transformed into new performance as if it has characteristic of Islam, but in fact it is still capitalism. This writing tries to criticize both of them by Islamic economic perspective.

Classical Political Economy and the Evolution of Central Banks: Endogenous Money and the Fiscal-Military State

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 660-667
Author(s):  
Matías Vernengo
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Central Bank ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
Central Banking ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Alternative Theory ◽  
Endogenous Money ◽  
David Ricardo

The paper analyzes briefly the changing ideas on the role of money and banks from William Petty to Thomas Tooke, including the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. It analyzes the role of ideas in shaping the evolution of central bank regulation. Particular importance is given to the Bank of England’s inconvertibility period, from 1797 to 1821, and the ensuing debate in shaping Robert Peel’s Bank Act of 1844, which is often seen as the birth of modern central banking. The importance of the Say’s Law, and the inexistence of an alternative theory of the determination of output, is shown to play an essential role in the policy prescriptions of the so-called Bullionist authors, who won the debates that shaped central banking practices in the nineteenth century. The paper concludes with a brief analysis of what is a central bank according to the dominant (marginalist) mainstream of the profession, and what an alternative conception based on what may be termed classical-Keynesian political economy would be. JEL Classification: B10, N20, E58

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Ryan Walter
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Usual Treatment ◽  
Classical Political Economy ◽  
Linguistic Evidence ◽  
David Ricardo

This chapter describes how the book departs from the existing historiography that concerns the work of Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. In short, the approach here is to focus on intellectual contexts and linguistic evidence. This excludes the usual treatment of these authors in terms of their methods and models, and it also forecloses the study of their work in relation to ‘classical political economy’ since this category is a retrospective invention of Karl Marx that he coined for the purpose of establishing his supersession of these writers. The implications of the general revision attempted here are far-reaching, especially in relation to the propriety of approaching past thinkers in terms of their ‘method’ and the nature of political economy as a vocation in the early nineteenth century.

Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie im 21. Jahrhundert.

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (188) ◽  
pp. 453-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Peter Büttner
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
New World ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
Price Theory ◽  
Transformation Problem ◽  
Iron Cage ◽  
Analytical Tools

While the majority of the scientific community holds Marxian Value and Price Theory to be internally inconsistent because of the so-called “transformation problem”, these claims can be sufficiently refuted. The key to the solution of the “transformation problem” is quite simple, so this contribution, because it requires the rejection of simultanism and physicalism, which represent the genuine method of neoclassical economics, a method that is completely incompatible with Marxian Critique of Political Economy. Outside of the iron cage of neoclassical equilibrium economics, Marxian ‘Capital’ can be reconstructed without neoclassical “pathologies” and offers us a whole new world of analytical tools for a critical theory of capitalist societies and its dynamics.

IRVING FISHER AND THE MECHANISTIC CHARACTER OF TWENTIETH CENTURY ACCOUNTING THOUGHT

1995 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 43-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Mouck
Keyword(s):  
Economic Theory ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
World View ◽  
Neoclassical Economic ◽  
Neoclassical Economics ◽  
Newtonian Mechanics ◽  
Neoclassical Economic Theory

This paper provides an overview of the influence of Newtonian mechanics on the development of neoclassical economic theory and highlights Fisher's role in the popularization of the resulting mechanical conception of economics. The paper also portrays Fisher's The Nature of Capital and Income — a work which has been aptly characterized as the “first economic theory of accounting” — as the first move toward the colonization of accounting by economics. The result of Fisher's influence has been a paradigmatic linkage between the Newtonian world view of science, neoclassical economics, and mainstream academic accounting thought. The picture that emerges from this linkage is then used as a backdrop against which the emerging challenges to economics-based accounting thought are highlighted.

Geschichte des modernen ökonomischen Denkens

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Pierenkemper
Keyword(s):  
Karl Marx ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
Friedrich List ◽  
John Maynard Keynes ◽  
Milton Friedman ◽  
David Ricardo

Realökonomische Probleme haben zu allen Zeiten die Theorien der Ökonomie und ihrer großen Denker beeinflusst. Wichtige Themen der Ökonomie sind das gesamtwirtschaftliche Wachstum, Verteilungsprobleme, individuelle Nutzenmaximierung, Keynesianismus, Monetarismus – und ganz neue Ansätze wie Evolutorik, Spieltheorie oder Verhaltensökonomie, die ihr Potenzial noch beweisen müssen. Sie verbinden sich in der Moderne mit Namen von Ökonomen wie Adam Smith, Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich List, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes oder Milton Friedman. Oder die Betrachtung der Ökonomie verdichtet sich in Stichworten wie Marginalanalyse, Historische Schule, Neoklassik, Institutionalismus, Neue-Institutionenökonomik und Monetarismus – neuerdings auch Evolutorik, Verhaltensökonomik oder Spieltheorie. Für alle, die zur Ökonomie gründlich aufbereitetes und grundlegendes Überblickswissen mit Prüfungsrelevanz suchen.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document