Amartya Sen's wide-ranging book grasps a point ignored by many economists. Economists are generally alive to the virtues of markets, and few since the collapse of communism have a good word to say about central planning.
The debate concerns the issue of whether the Austrian or the neo-classical vision more closely approaches the truth in economics, with regard to such issues as methodology,
This paper has incorporated challenges to the dominant neoclassical model that were fashioned by Rothbard and, to a much lesser extent, Baumol.
In the nineteenth century, scholars trained in both mathematics and political economy began to construct economic theory in mathematical form.
How rational are humans? Many important implications hinge on this seemingly innocuous question hinge, for not only economists, but all social scientists.
All human institutions — governments, markets, money, etc. — suffer from the same problem: the imperfections so bitterly denounced by Schmookler. Greed, ignorance, myopia, irrationality are endemic in them all.
Supporters of Kaldor-Hicks believe it useful to have a quantitative measure to assess the efficiency of different situations. Although it may appear convenient to be able to judge policies
oth the establishment of property rights and their violation spring from actions: acts of appropriation and expropriation. However, in addition to a physical appearance, actions also have an internal, subjective aspect.
Austrians have frequently criticized neoclassical economics for the unrealistic character of its assumptions. Neoclassical models are typically “idealized”;
What is certain is that mathematics cannot possibly be a valid means (to advances in economic understanding) unless and until it is used properly. That means that dimensions must be used consistently and correctly.
