scholarly journals PEMIKIRAN EKONOMI IBNU TAIMIYAH

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-127
Author(s):  
Fasiha Fasiha

The development of Islamic economics can not be separated from the historical development of Islamic civilization. The study of the history of economic thought by analyzing the description of economic thinking Ibn Taymiyyah and the history of life that affect the economic thinking of Ibn Taymiyyah. According to Ibn Taymiyyah pricing by the government is good, but not absolute, because the actual prices are set by the forces of demand and supply. Another case, if the price increases caused by injustice market mechanism, the government may intervene in pricing. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary formation hisbah institutions with the aim of protecting the interests of buyers and sellers

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-102
Author(s):  
William S. Kern

The development of economic thinking has seldom taken place entirely independently of developments in other disciplines. There is a long history of interdisciplinary influences among economics, mathematics, physics, biology, and philosophy. Among the most influential of these other disciplines has been physics. Numerous authors have attributed significant influence upon economics to Newtonian mechanics (Taylor 1960, Georgescu-Roegen 1971). The strength of that influence is perhaps best illustrated by William Stanley Jevons's proclamation of his attempt to reconstruct economics as “the mechanics of utility and self interest.“ Frank Knight, having observed what Jevons and others had wrought, concluded that mechanics had become the “sister science” of economics (Knight 1976, p. 85).


1998 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Clower

Although the ground I cover in this address is familiar, I approach it as a novice (Clower, 1973). I have written some history of economic thought papers over the past fifty years, but the bulk of my work has been theoretical; and I have known too many good historians of thought to imagine I belong in that class. As W. J. Ashley (1891) observed, “The economic historian … is apt to be confused in theory; [and] the … theorist runs the risk of being unhistorical” (compare Wicksell, 1904, p. 61). Unhistorical or not, I shall discuss some major vicissitudes of economic inquiry over the past three centuries.


1947 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Schumpeter

Economic historians and economic theorists can make an interesting and socially valuable journey together, if they will. It would be an investigation into the sadly neglected area of economic change.As anyone familiar with the history of economic thought will immediately recognize, practically all the economists of the nineteenth century and many of the twentieth have believed uncritically that all that is needed to explain a given historical development is to indicate conditioning or causal factors, such as an increase in population or the supply of capital. But this is sufficient only in the rarest of cases.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Vallois

In the early twentieth century, an economic doctrine known as “non-proletarianization theory” became influential among left-wing Zionists in Russia. According to this theory, Jewish workers were unable to “proletarianize”—that is, to integrate large-scale industry; hence, Jewish territorial autonomy was required, whether in Palestine or elsewhere. This article analyzes this theory’s historical development, focusing on the works of three authors: Khaim Dov Horovitz, Yakov Leshchinsky, and Ber Borochov. I claim that discussions of Jewish non-proletarianization can be considered a specific and coherent intellectual tradition in the history of economic thought. I also discuss these theories’ relation to the anti-sweatshop campaign of the Progressive Era, particularly John R. Commons’s writings on Jewish immigrants that were recently debated in this journal.


2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 725-726

Dennis R. Appleyard of Davidson College reviews “Famous Figures and Diagrams in Economics” edited by Mark Blaug and Peter Lloyd. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins “Fifty-eight papers examine figures and diagrams commonly used in economic theory, their roles in economic analysis, and their histories. The figures and diagrams discussed fall under the categories of basic tools of demand and supply curve analysis; welfare economics; special markets and topics; basic tools of general equilibrium analysis; open economies; macroeconomic analysis and stabilization; and growth, income distribution, and other topics. Blaug is Professor Emeritus at the University of London and the University of Buckingham. Lloyd is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Economics at the University of Melbourne. Index. Subject Descriptor(s): History of Economic Thought through 1925: General B10 History of Economic Thought since 1925: General B20 Microeconomics: General D00 Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics: General E00”


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 511-524

The question of inequality is not new in the history of economic thought; from the very birth of political economy as an independent discipline, the issues of the distribution of wealth, poverty and economic inequality were present. Obviously, the subject exceeds the disciplinary field of the economists because, as Piketty has pointed out at the beginning of his book: “... the distribution of wealth is too important an issue to be left to economists, sociologists, historians, and philosophers. It is of interest to everyone, and that is a good thing”. However, among economists the issue has become more important in recent years because of the deepening of the level of inequality that has accompanied the process of growth and globalization of the world economy. Transformations that accompanied the emergence of capitalism since the nineteenth century raised the first questions, and its evolution throughout the twentieth century and in the current century have faced different responses from different economic schools. Some very relevant questions which political economy can help answer are: Does capitalism inevitably lead to greater inequality? Or does the market mechanism itself tend to reduce inequalities? Does greater inequality contribute to economic growth? Or does inequality just cause cyclical crises? This last two questions are very relevant for less developed (emerging?) countries. The history of economic thought shows us that economists have given different answers, at different times of the evolution of economic ideas. In this paper the vision that the main thinkers of political economy have had on this issue is reviewed. Among the latter are the classical school, the extreme optimism of Adam Smith and Jean B. Say, the doubts on the future of David Ricardo, the negative predictions of Malthus and the eclecticism of Mill. Marx and his ideas about the fall of capitalism. Neoclassical blind confidence in the markets and Keynes and the capitalist crises. Lastly, a final consideration is made about the reality of inequality in the 21st century, neoliberalism and the commitment of economists as intellectuals.


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
John B. Davis

This paper discusses how Mark Blaug reversed his thinking about the historiography of economics, abandoning 'rational' for 'historical' reconstruction, and using an economics of scientific knowledge argument against Paul Samuelson and others that rational reconstructions of past ideas and theories in the "marketplace of ideas" were Pareto inefficient. Blaug's positive argument for historical reconstruction was built on the concept of "lost content" and his rejection of the end-state view of competition in favor of a process view. He used these ideas to emphasize path dependency in the development of economic thinking, thereby advancing an evolutionary view of economics that has connections to a Lakatosian understanding of economic methodology. The paper argues that Blaug was essentially successful in criticizing the standard rational reconstructionist view of the history of economic thought in economics, and that this is borne out by the nature of the change in recent economics.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter DeScioli

AbstractThe target article by Boyer & Petersen (B&P) contributes a vital message: that people have folk economic theories that shape their thoughts and behavior in the marketplace. This message is all the more important because, in the history of economic thought, Homo economicus was increasingly stripped of mental capacities. Intuitive theories can help restore the mind of Homo economicus.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document