Spory o naturę ekonomii dobrobytu we współczesnej metodologii ekonomii

• Autorzy: Bogusław Czarny

Warianty tytułu

The Debate on the Nature of Welfare Economics in the Contemporary Methodology of Economics

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Moim celem jest opisanie sporów ekonomistów o to, czy ekonomia dobrobytu (ang. welfare economics) jest ekonomią normatywną, czy też ekonomią pozytywną. Formułuję także własny pogląd na przedmiot całej kontrowersji. (fragment tekstu)

EN

In this article I describe dispute about whether welfare economics is normative economics, or the positive economics. The introduction to the discussion was a debate between Ezra Mishan and Pieter Hennipman in 1982-1984. It resulted in Mishan's acceptation of the Hennipman's view, that welfare economics is a part of the positive economics. After a couple of years the topic appeared back in the economic journals. In the first part of this article I present views of George Archibald, Pieter Hennipman and Yew-Kwang Ng,which treat welfare economics as a part of positive economics. In the second part I present contrary opinions of Mark Blaug. In the third part I present counterarguments, which (in my opinion) undermine Blaug's position. I end with the hypothesis that dispute, which I described, can be caused-among others-by the existing, since the time of John Neville Keynes and Max Weber, ambiguity of the terms "positive economics" and "normative economics". (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Ekonomia dobrobytu; Metodologia ekonomii; Teoria ekonomii

EN

Welfare economics; Economic methodology; Economic theory

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia / Uniwersytet Warszawski
• Rocznik: 2011
• Numer: nr 27
• Strony: 3--17

Twórcy

autor

Bogusław Czarny

• Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie

Bibliografia

• Acocella N., 1998, The Foundations of Economic Policy. Values and Techniques, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (polskie wydanie: N. Acocella, Zasady polityki gospodarczej, PWN, Warszawa 2002).
• Albert H., 1956, Das Werturteilsproblem im Lichte der logishen Analyse, "Zeitschrift fürdie Gesammte Sozialwissenschaften" nr 112, s. 410-439.
• Albert H., 1958, Das Ende der Wohlfahrtsökonomik, "Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte" nr 9, s. 33.
• Archibald G.C., 1959, Welfare Economics, Ethics, and Essentialism, "Economica" Vol.26, No. 104, s. 316-327.
• Begg D., Dornbusch R., Fischer S., 1994, Economics, McGraw-Hill, London.
• Blaug M., 1985, Economic Theory in Retrospect, Cambridge (polskie wydanie: Blaug M.Teoria ekonomii. Ujęcie retrospektywne, PWN, Warszawa 1994).
• Blaug M., 1992, Methodology of Economics. Or How Economists Explain, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (polskie wydanie: M. Blaug, Metodologia ekonomii, PWN, Warszawa 1995).
• Blaug M., 1993, Pieter Hennipman On Paretian Welfare Economics: A Comment, "DeEconomist" Vol. 141, No. 1, s. 127-129.
• Blaug M., 1998, The Positive-Normative Distinction, w: J.B. Davis, D.W. Hands, U. Mäki (red.), The Handbook of Economic Methodology, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• Brochier H., 1997, Economics as a Positive and Normative Science, w: A. d'Autume, J. Cartelier (red.), Is Economics Becoming a Hard Science?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
• Cairnes J.E., 1873, Essays in Political Economy, Macmillan, London.
• Czarny B., 1995, Od tłumacza, w: M.Blaug, Metodologia ekonomii, PWN, Warszawa.
• Czarny B., 2004, Pozytywizm i falsyfikacjonizm a sądy wartościujące w ekonomii, SGH, Warszawa.
• Czarny B., Rapacki R., 2002, Podstawy ekonomii, PWE, Warszawa.
• Davis J.B., 2005, Robbins, Textbooks, and the Extreme Value Neutrability View, "Historyof Political Economy" Vol. 37, No. 2, s. 191-196.
• Friedman M., 1953, On the Methodology of Positive Economics, w: Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Gloria-Palermo S., Palermo G., 2005, Austrian Economics and Value Judgements: a Critical Comparison with Neoclassical Economics, "Review of Political Economy" Vol. 17, No. 1, s. 63-78.
• Hausman D.M., McPherson M.S., 2006, Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Hennipman P., 1976, Pareto Optimality: Value Judgement or Analytical Tool, w: J.S.Carmer, A. Heertje, A.P. Venekamp (red.), Relevance and Precision. From Quantitative Analysis to Economy Policy, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
• Hennipman P., 1982, Welfare Economics is in Impasse: Some Observations on Mishan's Vision, "De Economist" Vol. 130, No. 4, s. 457-464.
• Hennipman P., 1984a, Normative or Positive: Mishan's Half-Way House, "De Economist" No. 1, s. 86-99.
• Hennipman P., 1984b,The Nature of Welfare Economics: A Final Note, "De Economist" Vol. 132, No. 2, s. 238.
• Hennipman P., 1992,The Reasoning of a Great Methodologist: Mark Blaug on the Nature of Paretian Welfare Economics, "De Economist" Vol. 140, No. 4, s. 413-445.
• Hennipman P., 1993, Moving in Circles: Blaug Once Again on the Nature of Paretian Welfare Economics, "De Economist" Vol. 141, No. 2, s. 290-294.
• Hutchison, T.W., 1964, Positive Economics and Policy Objectives, Allen and Unwin, London
• Kaplan A., 1964, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, w: G.Riley (red.), Values, Objectivity, and the Social Sciences, Addison-Wesley 1974.
• Keynes J.N., 1891, The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Macmillan & Co., London.
• Machlup F., 1969, Positive and Normative Economics, w: R.Heilbroner (red.), Economics Means and Social Ends, Prentice Hall, New York 1969.
• Mishan E.J., 1965, A Survey of Welfare Economics 1939-1959, w: Surveys of Economic Theory, Vol.1, Money, Interest and Welfare, London.
• Mishan E.J., 1981, Economic Efficiency and Social Welfare, Allen and Unwin, London.
• Mishan E.J., 1984a, The Implications of Alternative Foundations for Welfare Economics, "De Economist" Vol. 132, No. 1, s. 75-85.
• Mishan E.J., 1984b, Welfare Criteria: Concluding Comments, "De Economist" Vol. 132, No. 2, s. 234-238.
• Mongin P., 2006, Value Judgements and Value Neutrality in Economics, "Economica" Vol. 73, No. 290, s. 257-286.
• Nagel E., 1961, The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, London (polskie wydanie: E. Nagel, Struktura Nauki. Zagadnienia logiki wyjaśnień naukowych, PWN, Warszawa 1970).
• Ng Y.-K., 1992, Welfare Economics: Introduction and Development of Basic Concepts, Macmillan, London (reprint wydania z 1983 z poprawkami).
• Pressman S., 2004, The Two Dogmas of Neoclassical Economics, "Science and Society" Vol. 68, No. 4, s. 483-493.
• Putnam H., 2002, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), London.
• Robbins L., 1932, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Macmillan, London.
• Strauss L., 1951, The Social Science of Max Weber, "Measure" Vol. 2, s. 204-230.
• Strauss L., 1953, Natural Right and History, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (niemieckie tłumaczenie: Naturrecht und Geschichte, Stuttgart 1956).
• Walsh V., 1987, Philosophy and economics, w: J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, P. Newman (red.), The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics, t. 3, Macmillan, London.
• Weber M., 1917, Der Sinn der "Wertfreiheit" der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften, w: M. Weber, 1973, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, C.H. Mohr, Tübingen.
• Weston S.C., 1994, Toward a Better Understanding of the Positive/Normative Distinction in Economics, "Economics and Philosophy" Vol.10, No.1, s.1-17