Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Rejoinder to Kalecki - a Pioneer of Modern Macroeconomics by Jerzy Osiatyński

100%

Bludnik I.

|

nr nr 3

135-137

EN

The aforementioned article by Jerzy Osiatyński provides the readers with an insight into the achievements of Michał Kalecki, one of the most outstanding Polish economists, whose work appears to be as up to date now as it was in the 1930s, when the Keynesian revolution was planting the roots of modern macroeconomics. Osiatyński focuses mainly on Kalecki's contribution to macroeconomic studies in the cyclical fluctuations and economic dynamics of the capitalist economy, recalling the impact that these have had on the evolution of heterodox Keynesianism. It is visible scepticism regarding the influence of Kalecki's works on the developments of Keynesian theory. (fragment of text)

2

Rejoinder to Comparative Economics and the Mainstream by László Csaba

100%

Vergara-Fernández M.

|

nr nr 3

138-142

EN

Throughout the paper, as the title might suggest, there is running commentary with respect to the relationship between Kornai's work and 'mainstream economics'. The underlying question throughout the paper is why Kornai's work did not become more influential in the mainstream, if Kornai offered all the necessary ingredients mfor his work to become more recognised than it has actually been. Csaba's concern is that "Given his unparalleled embeddedness in the Western academic world ever since the mid-1960s...his highly original and equally unusually influential ideas have had a limited, if any, impact on mainstream economics, as taught in global economics programmes at PhD level". Csaba's narrative suggests that there was a kind of progression in Kornai's work that should have made him acceptable to the mainstream, but that, in the end, his "subject nof analysis as well as the conditions under which the author formulated his academic interests... kept him within the confines of institutional economics". Due to space limitations I will only focus on two aspects that are important from the perspective of the philosophy of economics. (fragment of text)

3

Rejoinder to the Motivation of Business Leaders in Socialist and Marketbased Systems by Péter Mihályi

100%

Maziarz M.

|

nr nr 3

151-154

EN

This rejoinder has the following two aims. First, Mihalyi's analysis is further developed and shown that, in spite of the common motivation across the two economic systems, the behaviour of business leaders can lead to divergent results. Namely, certain managerial decisions can create a disequilibrium mechanism leading to recessions. Second, the current state of macroeconomics is commented upon.(fragment of text)

4

Rejoinder to Methodology...?! Why? Some Methodological Aspects of the Controversy between Mainstream Economics and Institutionalism by Peter Galbács

88%

Stępień B.

|

nr nr 3

155-158

EN

This question, and the rejoinder itself, were inspired by the article of Peter Galbacs, in which he claims that the reason mainstream and heterodox economics cannot converge their perspectives is the methodology we employ. But do the distant methodological standpoints preclude convergence? The answer to these questions depends, for me, on a clarification of the following areas in this long - going, active, but still unresolved dispute: 1. the way we define, treat and use the methodology in our reasoning, 2. the way we justify the choice of assumptions serving as the methodological restraint, 3. the way we understand and operationalize rationality. (fragment of text)

5

Rejoinder to Perspectival Representation in DSGE Models by Paweł Kawalec

88%

Kolasa M.

|

nr nr 3

148-150

EN

In this short rejoinder I am going to share my own views on the current stance and prospects for DSGE models, drawing from my experience as a researcher and central bank economist. It is useful to start from a proposition that DSGE models are a compromise between rigorous academic research and policy makers' pragmatism. The former favors relatively small models, where key mechanisms can be clearly understood. The structure ideally includes only those ingredients that are necessary for exposing these mechanisms, and its validation uses only a narrow set of data that the model seeks to explain. It very often does not make sense to apply such models to address questions that are too distant from the ones originally asked. In other words, academic models are usually quite specialized, even in macroeconomic applications, and despite the fact that their very core, consisting of a description of household preferences or production technology, might be highly standardized. (fragment of text)

6

Rejoinder to Evidence and the Micro-Foundations of Economic Growth by Michael Joffe

88%

Hamilton E.

|

nr nr 3

143-147

EN

This is a response to Joffe (this issue) and aims to demonstrate that economics needs theory that is developed in collaboration with real-world data and that approaches utilised in other disciplines may be transferred to enable this goal. Building better theory will enable improved explanation of economic phenomena to aid the understanding of causation in interacting systems. In turn, this will allow more effective application to policy problems as such theory can inform intervention within these systems. With poor theory, data collection, analysis and interpretation can all be misdirected and misleading. This paper has suggested carrying out multimethod research, combining within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. The within-case in-depth study can provide evidence of causal mechanisms while the cross-case analysis can demonstrate the distribution of causal patterns. Additionally, set-theoretic within-case and cross-case methods are proposed, as they enable the analysis of mechanisms and 'conjunctural causation', both characteristics of causal systems. (fragment of text)