B59 - Current Heterodox Approaches: OtherNávrat zpět

Revision of Marc Lavoie's Monetary Model by the Endogenization of the Parameter γ This paper tries to point out a fallacy in Lavoie's (2006) conclusion that incorporation of deep endogeneity of parameters into the PKA model suffices to bring about irreversibility of such a system. The arguments of the authors are supported by Setterfield's (1998a, 2008) concept of hysteresis as path-dependence in the long-run outcome of systems with direct shocks. The paper shows that extension of Lavoie's PKA model by deep endogeneity of the parameter γ causes the fulfillment of the necessary condition of hysteresis - Setterfi eld's condition (a) ensuring deep endogeneity of the alleged exogenous parameter and, by means of this, path dependence in the long-run output - but not the fulfi llment of the sufficient condition of hysteresis - condition (c) ensuring the presence of adjustment asymmetry and, by means of this, irreversibility. Thus, deependogenisation of the parameter γ does not bring about Setterfi eld's hysteresis and, in effect, does not cause irreversibility.

In this paper I am trying to provide the reader with a brief overview of contemporary discussion about recently frequently mentioned topic of economics and happiness. In the last few years the number of publications related to happiness from the economic perspective growth exponentially. As the importance of this topic seems to grow significantly, I modestly intend to provide Czech public with a very starting reference point for further research in this field. In the first part I sum up the basic terms of subjective well-being and Easterlin paradox and give an overview of the most striking empirical observations. The second part shortly describes approach to the happiness problem of selected key historical personalities, namely Aristotle, Smith and Genovesi. In the third part I outline present key challenge for the economic theory - tackling with the reciprocity phenomenon.

This paper summarizes the major events in the recent history of modelling human decisions under risk. After presenting the basics of expected utility theory, the key pieces of evidence are described which showed that under certain circumstances, this theory is not descriptively valid. The most promising alternative, cumulative prospect theory, is then presented in some detail, including a brief discussion of how it avoids violations of stochastic dominance and how it explains the above evidence. It is pointed out that there are other empirical observations which cannot be explained by cumulative prospect theory either, so that a model which would explain all evidence on decisions under risk is still to be found.

This article presents three competing models of money supply determination as derived in Palley (1996). Two of the models can be considered post-keynesian in nature and identified with accommodationist and structuralist approach to money endogeneity. Post-keynesian models are contrasted with orthodox money multiplier model. Presentation of the models enables not only to derive hypothesis for empirical testing but also to compare the two post-keynesian models. The accommodationist and structuralist models are not viewed as mutually inconsistent but rather as complements. Scope for potential synthesis and future research is indicated.