景気循環論におけるミッチェルとシュムペーター(制度派経済学の研究,共同研究)

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Despite the fact that criticism of the modern economists has been going on for over 10 years, as yet no valid systematization has emerged. To be sure, even leaving aside the Marxists, criticism by those adhering to Monetarism, Rational Expectation, European Welfare Statism, including the Radicals, has been vigorous and has attracted attention. But although the voices of the critics are loud, not one can be relied upon for practical content, and as they themselves acknowledge, they have no conclusions. That is to say, that systematic arguments are forthcoming. For the modern economist they only produce variations which hold little promise for the future. In this paper I am not adopting the rash position taken from a single standpoint that the whole of modern economics should collapse. The intention is to make a dispassionate examination of the modern paradigm of mainstream economics and then to research into the possibilities of supplementing the faulty systems. In my opinion the situation of modern economics is partially reflected, in a vague sense, in the lack of an historical and structural perspective. The way the economists view things finds its origins in our history of learning. The German historicists and American institutionalists are examples of this. Nowadays there is an influential group researching from these standpoints, including G. Myrdal, K. Boulding as well as Galbraith and K. W. Kapp. Since there are very great differences between these researchers, placing them in the same category could lead to misunderstandings, but one could venture to call them the "New Institutionalists." As instances of these new institutionalists W. C. Mitchell and J. A. Schumpeter are given in this paper. Mitchell took over the leadership of the institutionalists from the founder, Veblen, and developed his own ideas regarding the business cycle, while Schumpeter, always keeping very strictly to G. Schmoller's line, has resurrected historicism, and like Mitchell, his main work concerns the business cycle. As has already been indicated the relationship between the historicists and the institutonalists is important. Thus, with the historicists as mediators, Mitchell and Schumpter have a great deal in common, and with the same perceptions and the same themes they have little to say to each other. So here, wherein a comparative study of Mitchell and Schumpeter is conducted from the point of view of supplying historical and structural perceptions, which are lacking to modern economics, not a few implications can be detected.
日本大学の論文
1983-03-20

著者

金指基
日本大学商学部

景気循環論におけるミッチェルとシュムペーター(制度派経済学の研究,共同研究)

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク