Abstract (may include machine translation)
Ez az írás az intézményi közgazdaságtan és a főáram közel hét évtizedes, ellentmondásos viszonyát tekinti át. A középpontban az összehasonlító megközelítés áll, amelynek fejlődését legkiválóbb képviselője, Kornai János munkásságán keresztül mutatjuk be. Jó három évtizede szerte a világon az általános egyensúlyi megközelítés és a racionális várakozások elmélete képviseli a – neoklasszikus szintézis jelentette – főáramot. Az utóbbit a Kenneth J. Arrow és Gérard Debreu fémjelezte iskola, a tucatnyi kiadást megért, Samuelson–Nordhaus szerzőpáros és Mankiw Magyarországon is használt tankönyvei, valamint az évtizedünkben a gazdaságpolitikában irányadóvá vált új keynesi irányzat jelenítik meg. Kutatási kérdésünk az, hogy miért nem jött létre termékenyebb és közvetlenebb kapcsolat a két irányzat között. Miért nem hozott létre párbeszédet kettejük között a rendszerváltozás és a 2007–2009. évi pénzügyi válság elemzése? Hipotézisünk szerint a valósággal kapcsolatos ismeretelméleti-felfogásbeli eltérések olyan mélyek, hogy áthidalhatatlan módszertani szakadékhoz vezettek. A tudomány versengő megközelítései ezért sem elegyíthetők tetszés szerint.** Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: A10, B25, B31.
This paper reviews the controversial relationship between institutional economics and the mainstream over nearly seven decades. The focus is on the comparative approach, the development of which is illustrated through the work of its most prominent exponent, János Kornai. For a good three decades, the general equilibrium approach and the theory of rational expectations have represented the mainstream - neoclassical synthesis - throughout the world. The latter is represented by the school of Kenneth J. Arrow and Gérard Debreu, the Samuelson-Nordhaus pair of authors, which has been published dozens of times, and the textbooks of Mankiw, which are also used in Hungary, as well as the new Keynesian tendency that has become the dominant trend in economic policy in the last decade. Our research question is why a more productive and direct link between the two movements has not been established. Why did the analysis of the regime change and the financial crisis of 2007-2009 not create a dialogue between the two? Our hypothesis is that the differences in epistemological and conceptual understanding of reality are so profound that they have led to an unbridgeable methodological gap. The competing approaches of science cannot therefore be mixed at will.** Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) code: A10, B25, B31.
This paper reviews the controversial relationship between institutional economics and the mainstream over nearly seven decades. The focus is on the comparative approach, the development of which is illustrated through the work of its most prominent exponent, János Kornai. For a good three decades, the general equilibrium approach and the theory of rational expectations have represented the mainstream - neoclassical synthesis - throughout the world. The latter is represented by the school of Kenneth J. Arrow and Gérard Debreu, the Samuelson-Nordhaus pair of authors, which has been published dozens of times, and the textbooks of Mankiw, which are also used in Hungary, as well as the new Keynesian tendency that has become the dominant trend in economic policy in the last decade. Our research question is why a more productive and direct link between the two movements has not been established. Why did the analysis of the regime change and the financial crisis of 2007-2009 not create a dialogue between the two? Our hypothesis is that the differences in epistemological and conceptual understanding of reality are so profound that they have led to an unbridgeable methodological gap. The competing approaches of science cannot therefore be mixed at will.** Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) code: A10, B25, B31.
Translated title of the contribution | Institutional economics and mainstream |
---|---|
Original language | Hungarian |
Pages (from-to) | 1-23 |
Number of pages | 23 |
Journal | Közgazdasági Szemle |
Volume | 65 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2018 |