The Evolution of Keynesian Economics: From Keynesian to New Classical to New Keynesian

Colander, David

doi:10.4324/9781315489056-7

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, I have presented the data so collected variously and tried to explain and analyze those data according to methodology prescribed that could fulfill the objectives proposed. (Colander, 1992) On Policy : According to Greenwald & Stiglitz (1987), 'There has been a longstanding controversy over what governments should do in the face of unemployment: (a) nothing; (b) encourage wage reductions; (c) use monetary policy; or (d) increase government expenditures. The success of Keynesian theory has much to do with the fact that it provided a theoretical justification for those who wished to take the fourth course.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He thinks NC has fallen out of favor and NK has prominence in the academic world as always is wide-spread and widely used. Colander (1992) in his paper provided his definition of NK, what its relation is with other schools of macro and why its emergence is an important development in macro theory under the topic 'New Keynesian Economics in Perspective'. He believed that the nomenclature issue is more than a terminological debate that points out what should be the current issue between Keynesians and Classicals.…”

Section: Reviews On Classical and Keynesian School Of Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Keynesian and New Classical Debate on Contemporary Macroceconomic Development: Review

Mool

2023

J. Econ. Students

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes the extended debate between two schools of economic thought – Keynes and Classics with recently updated ideas noted as New Keynesianism (NK) and New Classicism (NC). Here, ideas on Keynesian and classical economics, their similarities, differences, successes, applicability and criticisms has been studied comparatively through descriptive analysis of previous articles from researchers and renowned economists since decades before. The paper suggests that the nomenclature issue between these macroeconomic developments is more than a terminological debate that points out what should be the current issue between Keynesians and Classicals. There are both similarities and differences within the schools of thoughts. The analysis shows the assumptions, criticisms and successes of two of these schools of economic thought viz. NC and NK and explains which of them is appropriate to be applied for assessing policy, monetarism and business cycle theory. Nevertheless, no matter how much they criticize and compete with one another or how many theories and explanations are added, their core remains the same while their applicability always differs in accordance to time and place.

show abstract

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviews On Classical and Keynesian School Of Thoughtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Keynesian and New Classical Debate on Contemporary Macroceconomic Development: Review

Mool

2023

J. Econ. Students

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mainstream method in the current literature is to describe the user decision problem as a model of random utility theory [9] or expected utility theory [10] and guide users to choose the best charging scheme through price, incentive policies or other methods. This type of model belongs to the decision model in neoclassical economics [11], and one of its basic assumptions is that the decision‐maker is a “rational person” with complete rationality [12]. However, in reality, EV users are essentially “behavioural persons” with bounded rationality [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bounded rational real‐time charging pricing strategy under the traffic‐grid coupling network

Wang

Cai

et al. 2022

IET Electrical Syst in Trans

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes a bounded rational charging guidance strategy based on mental account theory, which guides users to charge in an orderly manner by formulating real‐time charging prices. Firstly, an orderly guidance framework for fast‐charging EVs under the traffic‐grid coupling network is constructed, and the influencing factors of various dimensions when users make charging decisions are analysed. Secondly, considering the bounded rational behaviour of users when making charging decisions, a multifactor bounded rational charging model for EV users based on mental account theory is proposed so as to obtain different charging costs for users when selecting charging stations. On this basis, a real‐time charging price strategy based on the Stackelberg game model is constructed, with the goal of maximising the economic benefits of charging station operators while reducing the charging cost of EV users as much as possible. Finally, the particle swarm optimisation algorithm is used to solve the game model so as to solve the real‐time charging price under various constraints. The simulation of an example verifies the rationality of the proposed real‐time charging price formulation method and the superiority of the bounded rational charging guidance strategy.

show abstract

Digital economy: theoretical and applied aspect

Filipenko¹

2020

Ekon. teor.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economics has always had an underlying tension between two visions of economics. One is an equilibrium vision that conceptualizes the economy as relatively stable and focuses on the forces that push the economy toward a long-run equilibrium. The other is a complexity vision that conceptualizes the economy as in constant flux, evolving in ways that we cannot predict. Both visions focus on competition, but the equilibrium vision focuses on competition as a state or market structure, while the complexity vision focuses on competition as an unending process. The two visions are not mutually exclusive, and an economist can see both as useful reference points when trying to understand the economy. Which is more useful depends on the question being asked.While the two visions can be simultaneously held, generally, in setting a research agenda, one or the other dominates, and in recent years the equilibrium vision has dominated. This domination has influenced economic methodology and the way economists approach policy questions. Nonetheless, the complexity vision is still held and respected within the mainstream profession as demonstrated in the Nobel Prizes given to economists whose work reflects a complexity vision, such as Herbert Simon, Frederick Hayek, Douglas North, Eleanor Ostrom, and Ronald Coase. Their work is considered mainstream, but is seen as part of a separate tradition in economics that is not so much an alternative to standard mainstream economics, but rather another, less explored, parallel track. One of the goals of this paper is to encourage exploration of this alternative track. Differences in theoretical methodology: equilibrium vs. complexity visionThe two visions draw lessons from theory differently, and are associated with quite different research programs, especially as they relate to policy. The equilibrium vision sees formal theory as providing a necessary blueprint for policy. Franklin Fisher (2011) nicely captures this view. He writes,

show abstract

The Evolution of Keynesian Economics: From Keynesian to New Classical to New Keynesian

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

New Keynesian and New Classical Debate on Contemporary Macroceconomic Development: Review

New Keynesian and New Classical Debate on Contemporary Macroceconomic Development: Review

Bounded rational real‐time charging pricing strategy under the traffic‐grid coupling network

Digital economy: theoretical and applied aspect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About