The standard theory of decision making under uncertainty advises the decision maker to form a statistical model linking outcomes to decisions and then to choose the optimal distribution of outcomes. This assumes that the decision maker trusts the model completely. But what should a decision maker do if the model cannot be trusted? Lars Hansen and Thomas Sargent, two leading macroeconomists, push the field forward as they set about answering this question. They adapt robust control techniques and apply them to economics. By using this theory to let decision makers acknowledge misspecification in economic modeling, the authors develop applications to a variety of problems in dynamic macroeconomics. Technical, rigorous, and self-contained, this book will be useful for macroeconomists who seek to improve the robustness of decision-making processes.
The need to understand the theories and applications of economic and finance risk has been clear to everyone since the financial crisis, and this collection of original essays proffers broad, high-level explanations of risk and uncertainty. The economics of risk and uncertainty is unlike most branches of economics in spanning from the individual decision-maker to the market (and indeed, social decisions), and ranging from purely theoretical analysis through individual experimentation, empirical analysis, and applied and policy decisions. It also has close and sometimes conflicting relationships with theoretical and applied statistics, and psychology. The aim of this volume is to provide an overview of diverse aspects of this field, ranging from classical and foundational work through current developments. - Presents coherent summaries of risk and uncertainty that inform major areas in economics and finance - Divides coverage between theoretical, empirical, and experimental findings - Makes the economics of risk and uncertainty accessible to scholars in fields outside economics
New Keynesian Economics has been the most significant development in economics in recent years. However, many modern thinkers have asked whether it actually builds upon or merely distorts Keynes' work. This unique volume provides the first full-scale critique of the New Keynesian school of thought. Within its pages, Post-Keynesian economists, including many from the United States, challenge New Keynesianism both on the grounds that it is not Keynesian, and does not provide an adequate account of our current economic problems. Sure to provoke much new debate and even controversy, New Keynesian Economicsseeks to reconcile these two seemingly intractable systems.
The New Keynesian Economics has been the most significant development in economics in recent years. Does it actually build upon Keynes' work? In this volume, leading post Keynesian economists challenge New Keynesianism both on the grounds that it is not Keynesian, and does not provide an adequate account of our current economic problems.
I have three reasons for bringing out the ensuing collection of essays. First, since analysis without measurement (this is generally not the same thing as what is commonly referred to as "qualitative methods" or "qualitative research" in the social science literature) is a relatively new scholarly endeavor, I am striving to enhance its visibility by attracting a wider audience than what would normally be possible with single, narrowly-focused essays published in scat tered journals. Second, several of these essays may, in the minds of potential readers, appear to have been published in places that, if not obscure, are at least inconvenient to locate. Collecting them in a single anthology, then, will help to increase their accessibility. Third, I am trying to suggest, as strongly as I can, that analysis without measurement is a viable intellectual enterprise that ought to be taken seriously in social science. This last point will clearly be en hanced if the whole that follows turns out, as I hope and suspect it does, to be greater than the sum of its parts. All the same, each reader will have to judge for himself or herself the extent to which I have, through the present collection, successfully made the case for taking up analysis without measurement. The partitioning of these essays into two groups is somewhat, though by no means completely arbitrary.
The rancorous debate over the future of Social Security reached a fever pitch in 2005 when President Bush unsuccessfully proposed a plan for private retirement accounts. Although efforts to reform Social Security seem to have reached an impasse, the long-term problem—the projected Social Security deficit—remains. In Pension Puzzles, sociologists Melissa Hardy and Lawrence Hazelrigg explain for a general audience the fiscal challenges facing Social Security and explore the larger political context of the Social Security debate. Pension Puzzles cuts through the sloganeering of politicians in both parties, presenting Social Security's technical problems evenhandedly and showing how the Social Security debate is one piece of a larger political struggle. Hardy and Hazelrigg strip away the ideological baggage to explicate the basic terms and concepts needed to understand the predicament of Social Security. They compare the cases for privatizing Social Security and for preserving the program in its current form with adjustments to taxes and benefits, and they examine the different economic projections assumed by proponents of each approach. In pursuit of its privatization agenda, Hardy and Hazelrigg argue, the Bush administration has misled the public on an issue that was already widely misunderstood. The authors show how privatization proponents have relied on dubious assumptions about future rates of return to stock market investments and about the average citizen's ability to make informed investment decisions. In addition, the administration has painted the real but manageable shortfalls in Social Security revenue as a fiscal crisis. Projections of Social Security revenues and benefits by the Social Security Administration have treated revenues as fixed, when in fact they are determined by choices made by Congress. Ultimately, as Hardy and Hazelrigg point out, the clash over Social Security is about more than technical fiscal issues: it is part of the larger culture wars and the ideological struggle over what kind of social responsibilities and rights American citizens should have. This rancorous partisan wrangling, the alarmist talk about a "crisis" in Social Security, and the outright deception employed in this debate have all undermined the trust between citizens and government that is needed to restore the solvency of Social Security for future generations of retirees. Drawing together economic analyses, public opinion data, and historical narratives, Pension Puzzles is a lucid and engaging guide to the major proposals for Social Security reform. It is also an insightful exploration of what that debate reveals about American political culture in the twenty-first century. A Volume in the American Sociological Association's Rose Series in Sociology
Volume 14 addresses the central issue of entrepreneurial action: while many factors are important to the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship does not happen until someone takes action!
This book tells the story of an academic department that underwent rapid, wrenching changes at a time and in a place that one would not have expected them to have occurred. The time was the late 1960s through the 1970s and the place was a public university heavily dependent on state funding. The Cold War was raging, the US public was fearful of communism and the Soviet Union, and politicians were speaking to these fears for political ends. Protests against racial discrimination and the Vietnam War were creating social disorder and sometimes inciting violence. And the Economics Department at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst was in turmoil. In this environment, a significant proportion of the Department's visible faculty of traditional economists was rapidly created. In spite of the anti-Marxist political climate and the dependence of the university on state politicians for funding, these traditional economists were quickly replaced by a significant and visible group of Marxian economists. The story told covers the particulars of the background for these events relating to the University of Massachusetts, the political activism of the period, and the state of the economics profession. In considerable detail, Katzner describes the events, the multi-year turmoil within the Economics Department associated with them, the eventual resolution of that turmoil into an intellectually exciting and friendly atmosphere, the significance of the events in terms of academic endeavor, and their legacy for the economics profession.