Search results

Context is known to affect evaluation for many goods. For example, a house of any given size is more likely to be viewed as adequate the larger it is relative to other houses in the same locale. If evaluations of some goods are more sensitive to context than others, there is no presumption that privately optimal consumption patterns will be socially optimal. Rather, consumers will spend too much on goods whose evaluations depend most strongly on context and too little on those whose evaluations depend least strongly on context. For instance, if evaluations of houses are more sensitive to context than evaluations of leisure, then people will spend too much money on houses and too little time with family and friends. But if context sensitivity is the same for all goods, no distortions result.

This paper suggests theoretical grounds for expecting context sensitivity to differ across goods. Evaluations should be more sensitive to context for goods whose consumption is more readily observed by others and also for goods for which relative consumption is linked to other important payoffs. The quality of school that a child attends, for example, is often strongly linked to its parents’ relative expenditures on housing.

A survey of empirical evidence suggests that observed differences in context sensitivity track the differences predicted on theoretical grounds.

Hazel Kyrk’s contribution is the most advanced formulation of the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon, an approach to the analysis of consumption that, originated from Veblen’s theory, was developed in the US in the early 20th century. This approach was part of a wider stream of empirical analyses of consumption expenditure that had begun more than a century earlier.

Along with elements that can be traced back to the neoclassical tradition, in Keynes’ analysis of consumption, we find original elements. The dependence of consumption expenditure on the level of income, which is essential for asserting the principle of effective demand, can also be found in a long tradition of empirical studies. In qualifying this relationship, Keynes uses theoretical elements echoing key insights of the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon. There is no documentary evidence that Kyrk or the economics of the social relevance of consumption came to Keynes’ attention. It is possible, however, to develop reasonable speculative considerations to argue a link between Keynes’ elaboration and both the empirical literature on the determinants of consumption and the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon.

This paper aims to provide a history of graduate healthcare management education in the USA with an emphasis on the comparison of business schools and health science settings. It seeks to explain why different organizational cultures exist and how this affects education.

The approach relies on literature review and descriptive analysis using secondary data. Institutional economics helps provide perspective on different academic cultures and orientations.

Healthcare management education originated in the early twentieth century. Business schools at the University of Chicago and Northwestern were early pioneers. By mid‐century, schools of public health and medicine entered and came to dominate with strong graduate programs at Berkeley, Michigan and other leading universities. More recently, business schools have differentiated away from the generic MBA and expanded into this market. Advocates of health science settings commonly see healthcare as different from other forms of management. The externally funded model of medical education relying on patient and grant revenues dominates the health sciences. This can lead to preference for faculty who generate funds and a neglect of core academic areas that historically have not relied on grants and contracts.

This history of health management education provides insight for students, researchers, educators and administrators. It underscores comparative advantage of different academic settings.

This paper serves to fill a gap in the management literature. It provides history and perspective about academic settings not readily available.

One of the most significant changes in monetary economics at the beginning of the twenty-first century has been the virtual disappearance of what was once a dominant focus, the role of money in monetary policy, and parallelly, the disappearance of the liquidity preference-money supply (LM) curve. Economists used to consider monetary policy with the help of the LM curve as part of the analytical framework which captures the demand for money. However, the workhorse model of modern monetary theory and policy, the New Keynesian Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) framework, only comprises the dynamic investment-savings (IS) curve, the New Keynesian (NK) Phillips curve, and a monetary policy rule. The monetary policy rule is generally known as the Taylor rule. It relates the nominal interest rate to the output-gaps and inflation-gaps, but typically not to either the quantity or the growth rate of money. This change in the modern monetary model reflects how the central banks make monetary policy now. This study provides a detailed discussion on the role of money in monetary policy formulation in the context of the NK and the New Monetarist perspectives. The pros and cons of abandonment of money or the LM curve from monetary policy models have been discussed in detail.

A growing number of Muslim countries are expressing the desire, and even in some cases taking serious actions, to turn to strict Islamic laws and teachings in modelling their way of life including their economic behaviour. It is the purpose of this paper to investigate the economic implications of these laws i.e. the teachings of the Holy Qur'an, the traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the practices of early Muslims. In particular, some are concerned that the application of Shariah could impair the economy's ability to accumulate capital since Islamic principles aim at the establishment of a greater degree of social and economic justice through continuous redistribution of income and wealth in favour of the poor and needy. First, Islam does not favour the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The Qur'an says,“… in order that it (i.e. wealth) may not merely make a circuit between the wealthy among you”, secondly, Muslims must contribute a proportion of their income and wealth called “Zakat” for the use of the poor and needy. “Keep up prayer and pay Zakat” is the constant term of the Holy Qur'an. There are at least twenty‐seven passages in the Holy Qur'an where the order to pay Zakat and the order to establish prayer occur jointly. Thirdly, Islam urges the believers to spend generously in the cause of God i.e. on the poor and needy. Thus the Qur'an says, “Speak to my servants who have believed that they may establish regular prayers and spend in charity out of substance” (Chapter 14, Verse 31). The Qur'an also says, “Believe in God and His Prophet and spend in charity out of the substance whereof He has made you heirs. For those of you who believe and spend in charity is a great reward”. The reward for spending in charity is specified in Chapter 2, Verse 261, where God says, “The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of God is that of a grain of corn; it groweth seven ears, and each ear hath a hundred grains. God giveth manifold increase to whom he pleaseth; and God careth for all and He knoweth all things”. Fourthly, Islam urges the wealthy to lend God “beautiful loans” in the form of spending in charity. Thus the Qur'an says, “If ye loan to God a beautiful loan, He will double it to your credit and He will grant your forgiveness. For God is most ready to appreciate service, most forebearing”.

The monograph argues that American racism has two colours (white and black), not one; and that each racism dresses itself not in one clothing, but in four: (1) “Minimal” negative, when one race considers another race inferior to itself in degree, but not in nature; (2) “Maximal” negative, when one race regards another as inherently inferior; (3) “Minimal” positive, when one race elevates another race to a superior status in degree, but not in nature; and (4) “Maximal” positive, when one race believes that the other race is genetically superior. The monograph maintains that the needs of capitalism created black slavery; that black slavery produced white racism as a justification for black slavery; and that black racism is a backlash of white racism. The monograph concludes that the abolition of black slavery and the civil rights movement destroyed the social and political ground for white and black racism, while the modern development of capitalism is demolishing their economic and intellectual ground.

This paper attempts to clarify the issues involved in the recurrent debate on the justification for identifying growth with increased well‐being.