Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Kudos to Janine R. Wedel for “Bureaucracy shouldn’t be a dirty word: the role of
people-responsive bureaucracy in a robust public economy.” An excellent contribution to a topic that needs much more attention from the left.
We know very well that opponents on the right have a great interest in making sure a “public economy” fails and so we have to do what we can to make sure that when we are able to pass legislation mandating a new service or public good that it is provided to people with a minimum of hassle, waiting, and maximum of joy.
That is not easy. The need for fairness and equality in access often end up being implemented with long and difficult procedural hurdles for the people being served. Private markets are less complicated in this regard… they are not fair or equal… if you have the money price you get the service or good, often with a smile; if you don’t have the money you get nothing. So the “public economy” is much more demanding in this regard. We have to get better at it… for everyone.
Galbraiths whole paper deserves a lot of contemplation and conversation . While I support the concept of the need for rules and laws I also believe for a law or rule to be effective it has to be supported by the populace. In my humble opinion this requires democratic conversation between the law makers and the populace , not laws made exclusively bye political and wealthy elites. Obviously this requires an education system that teaches the populace how to think not what to think so that they are able to understand the democratic process and take part in it. Ted
I appreciate the comments on the history of deregulation and the way this has been applied to the environment. The data clearly demonstrates that protecting the environment is good for the long term health of the economy, but most of the economists I run into lie about it. I think a discussion of the stupidity of “business climates” would add to the article.
I appreciate Michael Lind’s approach and the favourale view in theories like mercantilism, German historical school, Reinert or Ha -Joon Chang. The vision is equal chances for development to any political unit. What’s lacking in the article is a view on dwindling resources – how much of our species our old earth can bear?
As the grandson of Gerhard Colm, I appreciated Sekera’s explanation of Colm’s approach to understanding the public sector and its role in our economy. I wonder if she, or others, know about the 1960-61 meeting between Gerhard Colm and James M. Buchanan, the father of economic choice theory.
Regarding James K. Galbraith’s “The need for a new public administration,” I have tried to take economics one step closer to making government and other sectors more important in economic thinking. Most notably, I describe the idea that ideally, nonmarket sectors, among other things, set up the market for success and correct for market failure.
Beyond Profit and Self-interest: Economics with a Broader Scope. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2003. Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar, 2004. Chapter 5.
“The Theory of Political and Social Economics: Beyond the Neoclassical Perspective,” Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, Vol. 9, No.2, 1998, pp.93-124.
“Economics Outside the (Edgeworth) Box,” Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue no. 17, December 4, 2002, article 6. (http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/review/issue17.htm )