|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
By: | David Colander |
Date: | 2010–04 |
URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mdl:mdlpap:1004&r=pke |
By: | McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen |
Abstract: | Since trade was not an engine, neither was a part of trade, such as the trade in slaves. And certainly the profits from the trade did not finance the Industrial Revolution. Imperialism, too, was a mere part of trade, and despite the well-deserved guilt that Europeans feel in having perpetrated it, it was not an engine of their growth. Stealing from poor people is not a good business plan. Certainly the possession of India did little for the great British public, except tax them for the Navy. That Europeans did not benefit from imperialism does not mean that imperialism was good for the imperalized. That a thief kills his victim does not add to the thief’s monetary profit, and some imperialism was certainly killing. The cases of simple theft, such as the Belgian Congo, did nothing to enrich the average Belgian. Nor have internal imperialisms, such as apartheid, been profitable. The episode of economic success in Europe came from domestic sources of innovation, not from exploitation. |
Keywords: | trade; industrial revolution; imperialism; England; slavery; europe; innovation; economic innovation |
JEL: | N73 N70 N0 |
Date: | 2009–07 |
URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:20696&r=pke |
By: | Nancy Birdsall |
Abstract: | In the light of this simple idea of the bank as a global credit club, what are the issues that arise with respect to its current governance structure? How might various proposals for reform strengthen the bank by returning it to its spirit as a “club of nations†whose objectives are shared by all club members? [CGD Essay] |
Keywords: | World bank, reform, governance |
Date: | 2010 |
URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:2419&r=pke |
By: | David Colander |
Date: | 2010–05 |
URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mdl:mdlpap:1005&r=pke |
By: | David Colander; Richard P.F. Holt; J. Barkley Rosser |
Abstract: | This article argues that the neoclassical era in economics has ended and is being replaced by a new era. What best characterizes the new era is its acceptance that the economy is complex, and thus that it might be called the complexity era. The complexity era has not arrived through a revolution. Instead, it has evolved out of the many strains of neoclassical work, along with work done by less orthodox mainstream and heterodox economists. It is only in its beginning stages. The article discusses the work that is forming the foundation of the complexity era, and how that work will likely change the way in which we understand economic phenomena and the economics profession. |
Date: | 2010–01 |
URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mdl:mdlpap:1001&r=pke |
By: | Huillery, Elise (Département d'économie) |
Abstract: | Cette publication n'a pas de résumé |
JEL: | N37 O11 P16 |
Date: | 2009–04 |
URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ner:sciepo:info:hdl:2441/10262&r=pke |