Topic
Managerial economics
About: Managerial economics is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1524 publications have been published within this topic receiving 83965 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The welfare economics of markets in a dynamic, nonequilibrium, evolutionary framework was proposed by as discussed by the authors, who argued that the intersection between economics and ethics will necessarily assume more significance.
Abstract: Economics in the future should embody "the welfare economics of markets" in a dynamic, nonequilibrium, evolutionary framework. This economics will include a "return to increasing returns" as a central research program. And, relatedly, the intersection between economics and ethics will necessarily assume more significance.
11 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: The economics of scientific knowledge as mentioned in this paper demonstrates how contemporary economic theories, such as rational choice theory, public choice theory and game theory, can be successfully applied to resolve the issues currently existing in science studies and science and technology policy.
Abstract: The Economics of Scientific Knowledge demonstrates how contemporary economic theories, such as rational choice theory, public choice theory, game theory, and neo-institutionalist economics can be successfully applied to resolve the issues currently existing in science studies and science and technology policy.
11 citations
TL;DR: For example, the authors argued that mathematical analysis is more efficient, in the sense that the conclusions are proved more directly and that it is easier to verify the steps performed in the proof.
Abstract: IN RECENT years there has been considerable discussion of the merits of mathematical analysis in economics.' The discussion has been primarily concerned with the advantages of mathematical techniques for certain kinds of problems, the potential pitfalls in the use of these techniques, and the problem of communication between mathematical and non-mathematical economists. The mathematical economists claim the following advantages for their techniques: The assumptions on which the analysis is based are made explicit.2 The conclusions follow rigorously from the assumptions, with no necessity for heuristic arguments. The analysis is more efficient, in the sense that the conclusions are proved more directly and that it is easier to verify the steps performed in the proof. Literary economists, however, frequently have trouble determining the assumptions underlying mathematical analysis. This is because mathematical economists are more concerned about the mathematical assumptions, which are usually made clear, while literary economists are more concerned about the economic assumptions, which are frequently obscure. Literary economists consider this a very important shortcoming because they cannot make adequate use of the results of mathematical analysis unless they understand the economic assumptions involved. In addition, mathematical economists are criticized for (a) letting their mathematics run away with them, (b) making assumptions which are convenient mathematically but poor economics, and (c) concluding that mathematics are a substitute for good economics. The critics of mathematical economics, however, have in general been rather vague, which has led Professor Koopmans to complain that some of them have not "itemized [their] objections to, or insisted on asking searching questions about, particular named articles." FurI J. M. Clark, "Mathematical Economists and Others: A Plea for Communicability," Econometrica, XV, No. 2 (April, 1947), 75-78; G. J. Stigler, "The Mathematical Method in Economics," in his Five Lectures on Economic Problems (New York: Macmillan Co., 1950); P. A. Samuelson, "Economic Theory and Mathematics-an Appraisal," American Economic Review, XLII, No. 2 (May, 1952), 56-66; M. Allais, "L'Utilisation de l'outil mathematique en 6conomique," Econometrica, XXII, No. 1 (January, 1954), 58-71; D. Novick, "Mathematics: Logic, Quantity, and Method," Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXVI, No. 4 (November, 1954), 35758; P. A. Samuelson, L. R. Klein, J. S. Duesenberry, J. S. Chipman, J. Tinbergen, D. G. Champernowne, R. Solow, R. Dorfman, T. C. Koopmans, and S. E. Harris, "Mathematics in Economics: Discussion of Mr. Novick's Article," Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXVI, No. 4 (November, 1954), 359-86. 2 Allais goes so far as to say that the assumptions must be stated explicitly: "En traduisant rigoureusement toute theorie en un module abstrait, la formulation mathematique a l'inappreciable avantage de forcer l'esprit a la reflexion et a la precision. Toute hypothese introduite doit 6tre necessairement explicitee et justifie'e" (op. cit., p. 63). Samuelson says that mathematical economists are "forced to lay our cards on the table" (op. cit., p. 64). However, he implies that they are "forced" to do so only if they want to.
11 citations