A critique of the new comparative economics

Rosser, J. Barkley; Rosser, Marina V.

doi:10.1007/s11138-006-0011-z

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mises' theory is a predecessor to what would later be known as the impossibility of a "modified Political Coase Theorem," though Acemoglu dismisses this explanation in favor of an incentive-centered impossibility. 3 See, for example, Boettke et al's (2005) work on a new comparative political economy that combines Mises's and Hayek's insights with Public Choice theory and Rosser and Rosser (2008), who challenged NCE scholars to refine their model to incorporate insights from the old institutionalists.…”

Section: The Rise Of the Regulatory Statementioning

confidence: 99%

After Shleifer, who needs Mises?

Faria

Subrick

2023

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The demise of socialism in Eastern Europe and the transition to a market economy in China and India marked the end of traditional comparative economics as a field. The debate between capitalism and socialism was settled. The economic calculation argument of Ludwig von Mises seemed no longer relevant. In its place, the new comparative economics (NCE) arose.The NCE focuses on the institutional differences that affect the protection of contract and property rights. The research program of Andrei Shleifer has provided numerous insights into how markets operate. This paper examines the Shleifer-inspired program in comparative economics in light of the economic calculation argument Mises made. Although the recent developments in comparative economics have extended and complemented the contributions of Mises, it has not displaced them. An account of the economic calculation problem is still missing in the new comparative economics.

show abstract

Section: The Rise Of the Regulatory Statementioning

confidence: 99%

After Shleifer, who needs Mises?

Faria

Subrick

2023

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certainly, both discussion of what the mainstream is and how comparative economics developed as a sub discipline would require separate monographs. In the current piece I avoid replicating our recent reading of events (Csaba, 2016) and also the controversial self-reflection of comparative economists (Djankov, Glaser, LaPorta, Lopez-Silanes, & Shleifer, 2003;Dallago, 2004;Roesser & Roesser, 2008;Kornai, 2015). We just take it for granted, that mainstream economics has continued to revolve around mathematically constructed abstract models, while comparative economics has never allowed for itself to be detached from down-to-earth issues, institutional, political and country-specific peculiar features and the interpretation of same.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Comparative economics and the mainstream

Csaba¹

2017

EBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: This essay reviews the complex love-hate relationship between comparative economics, as represented by its most outstanding representative, János Kornai, and mainstream economics, based on rational expectations and general equilibrium theorizing, as represented by Kenneth Arrow and his disciples Paul Samuelson, Olivier Blanchard and the New Keynesian line adopted by the IMF under his reign. The ultimate question is why the interaction has not been more productive and direct over the decades? Why has the post-communist era not brought about a rapprochement? The essay reviews major milestones presented in academic volumes in the oeuvre of Kornai through the decades. It highlights a special form of micro-founded macroeconomics, whose epistemological features are distinct from that of the neoclassical synthesis.

show abstract

“…As a framework to describe different institutional choices, the Institutional Possibilities Frontier has been criticised for being excessively vague, and for being unable to distinguish between different political systems (Rosser Jr and Rosser 2008). Allen and Berg (2016) build a framework of subjective political economy by modifying the Djankov et al (2003) approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%