The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’

The case for increasing returns is accepted by most heterodox economists. Yet allegiance to decreasing returns in orthodox circles still endures directly and in the form of substitution assumptions. In forty short years from 1928 to 1968, beliefs shifted from Pigou calling rising cost ‘inadmissible’...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Frederic B. Jennings Jr.
Formato: article
Lenguaje:DE
EN
FR
Publicado: Editura ASE Bucuresti 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/a53df5b89fb543bd83fc8edcddc5d5b1
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:a53df5b89fb543bd83fc8edcddc5d5b1
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:a53df5b89fb543bd83fc8edcddc5d5b12021-12-02T01:24:05ZThe case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’1843-22981844-8208https://doaj.org/article/a53df5b89fb543bd83fc8edcddc5d5b12015-11-01T00:00:00Z http://jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=7303 https://doaj.org/toc/1843-2298https://doaj.org/toc/1844-8208The case for increasing returns is accepted by most heterodox economists. Yet allegiance to decreasing returns in orthodox circles still endures directly and in the form of substitution assumptions. In forty short years from 1928 to 1968, beliefs shifted from Pigou calling rising cost ‘inadmissible’ to Alchian deeming decreasing returns ‘a universally valid law’ until Kaldor revived the case for increasing returns in the 1970s. How did these shifts of view occur? After dapham opened the door and Pigou defined the orthodox stand, the 1930s debates swept through imperfect competition and many other issues into Keynesian disequilibrium theory. In 1939, ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ opened an Age of Denial leading to equilibrium theories based on substitution; then during the 1960s a second challenge to rising cost based on learning and technical change was defeated by ‘The Hirshleifer Bescue’ of decreasing returns and thus substitution in neoclassical theory. Why economists' substitution assumptions still hold sway is the focus of this study. First, the paper reviews ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ in its context and with respect to equilibrium models. Second, the paper analyzes and disproves ‘The Hirshleifer Bescue’ as an invalid argument based on a non-sequitur and thus simply asserted. Third, the case for increasing returns is developed into a theory of planning horizons supporting a generalized complementarity in economics. Some methodological implications are explored at the end.Frederic B. Jennings Jr.Editura ASE Bucurestiarticleincreasing returnsefficiencycostoutputcomplementarityequilibriumplanning horizonsproductionEconomics as a scienceHB71-74DEENFRJournal of Philosophical Economics, Vol IX, Iss 1, Pp 5-51 (2015)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language DE
EN
FR
topic increasing returns
efficiency
cost
output
complementarity
equilibrium
planning horizons
production
Economics as a science
HB71-74
spellingShingle increasing returns
efficiency
cost
output
complementarity
equilibrium
planning horizons
production
Economics as a science
HB71-74
Frederic B. Jennings Jr.
The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’
description The case for increasing returns is accepted by most heterodox economists. Yet allegiance to decreasing returns in orthodox circles still endures directly and in the form of substitution assumptions. In forty short years from 1928 to 1968, beliefs shifted from Pigou calling rising cost ‘inadmissible’ to Alchian deeming decreasing returns ‘a universally valid law’ until Kaldor revived the case for increasing returns in the 1970s. How did these shifts of view occur? After dapham opened the door and Pigou defined the orthodox stand, the 1930s debates swept through imperfect competition and many other issues into Keynesian disequilibrium theory. In 1939, ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ opened an Age of Denial leading to equilibrium theories based on substitution; then during the 1960s a second challenge to rising cost based on learning and technical change was defeated by ‘The Hirshleifer Bescue’ of decreasing returns and thus substitution in neoclassical theory. Why economists' substitution assumptions still hold sway is the focus of this study. First, the paper reviews ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ in its context and with respect to equilibrium models. Second, the paper analyzes and disproves ‘The Hirshleifer Bescue’ as an invalid argument based on a non-sequitur and thus simply asserted. Third, the case for increasing returns is developed into a theory of planning horizons supporting a generalized complementarity in economics. Some methodological implications are explored at the end.
format article
author Frederic B. Jennings Jr.
author_facet Frederic B. Jennings Jr.
author_sort Frederic B. Jennings Jr.
title The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’
title_short The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’
title_full The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’
title_fullStr The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’
title_full_unstemmed The case for increasing returns I: ‘The Hicksian Getaway’ and ‘The Hirshleifer Rescue’
title_sort case for increasing returns i: ‘the hicksian getaway’ and ‘the hirshleifer rescue’
publisher Editura ASE Bucuresti
publishDate 2015
url https://doaj.org/article/a53df5b89fb543bd83fc8edcddc5d5b1
work_keys_str_mv AT fredericbjenningsjr thecaseforincreasingreturnsithehicksiangetawayandthehirshleiferrescue
AT fredericbjenningsjr caseforincreasingreturnsithehicksiangetawayandthehirshleiferrescue
_version_ 1718403093323841536