Hasil untuk "Economics"

A. Marshall

E. Dockner, S. Jørgensen, N. Long et al.

P. Evans, T. Wurster

Howard A. Shelanski, Peter G. Klein

Richard R. Nelson, S. G. Winter

L. Coser, Amitai Etzioni

Contents Preface Acknowledgments Chapter 1: The New Paradigm: Underlying Themes PART I: BEYOND PLEASURE: THE CASE FOR DEONTOLOGICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES Introduction Chapter 2: Pleasure, Altruism, and the Great X Chapter 3: Substantive Differences: Moral Not Equal Pleasure Chapter 4: Some Evidence: People Act Unselfishly Chapter 5: The Irreducibility of Moral Behavior PART II: BEYOND RATIONALISM: THE ROLE OF VALUES AND EMOTIONS Introduction Chapter 6: Normative-Affective Factors Chapter 7: How Inefficient? The Scope of Intra-Cognitive Limitations Chapter 8: What Is Rational? Chapter 9: Instrumental Rationality: Supportive Condition Chapter 10: Thoughtless Rationality (Rules of Thumb) PART III: BEYOND RADICAL INDIVIDUALISM: THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY AND POWER Introduction Chapter 11: Collective (Macro) Rationality Chapter 12: Encapsulated Competition Chapter 13: Political Power and Intra-Market Relations Chapter 14: In Conclusion: Policy and Moral Implications Overview and Propositional Inventory Bibliography Name Index Subject Index

L. Tesfatsion

Agent-based computational economics (ACE) is the computational study of economies modeled as evolving systems of autonomous interacting agents. Thus, ACE is a specialization of economics of the basic complex adaptive systems paradigm. This study outlines the main objectives and defining characteristics of the ACE methodology and discusses similarities and distinctions between ACE and artificial life research. Eight ACE research areas are identified, and a number of publications in each area are highlighted for concrete illustration. Open questions and directions for future ACE research are also considered. The study concludes with a discussion of the potential benefits associated with ACE modeling, as well as some potential difficulties.

K. Small, E. Verhoef

George A. Akerlof, R. Kranton

Why have the relative rates of women smoking grown so much in the last 100 years? How can the U.S. military do so well with a relatively flat pay scale? Standard economics hasn't a clue, but according to Berkeley economist George Akerlof and Duke economist Rachel Kranton, the answers lie in a new field called identity economics.

Héctor Gómez-Dantés

Below we reprint the excecutive summary of an important new report published by the World Bank. This report has its origins in the converging eVorts of several partners to address a shared problem: the relative neglect of economic contributions to the debate on tobacco control. In 1997, at the tenth world conference on tobacco in Beijing,China, the World Bank organised a consultation session on the economics of tobacco control. The meeting was part of an ongoing review of the Bank’s own control policies. There was clear recognition at this meeting that insufficient global attention was being paid to the economics of smokingrelated deaths. The meeting’s participants also agreed that the discipline of economics was not being applied to tobacco control in many countries, and that even where economic approaches were being used, their methodology was of variable quality. At the same time that the World Bank began reviewing its policies, economists at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, had begun a project on the economics of tobacco control for southern Africa. These initiatives were brought together, in partnership with economists at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and others, to form a wider review. The work culminated in a conference in Cape Town in February 1998.The proceedings of the conference have been published separately. The collaboration led to a broader analysis of the economics of tobacco control, involving economists and others from a wide range of countries and institutions. This report summarises the findings of those studies as they are relevant to policymakers.

R. Tella, Robert J. MacCulloch

Hillel Rapoport, Hillel Rapoport, F. Docquier

This chapter reviews the recent theoretical and empirical economic literature on migrants' remittances. It is divided between a microeconomic section on the determinants of remittances and a macroeconomic section on their growth effects. At the micro level we first present in a fully harmonized framework the various motivations to remit described so far in the literature. We show that models based on different motives share many common predictions, making it difficult to implement truly discriminative tests in the absence of sufficiently detailed data on migrants and receiving households' characteristics and on the timing of remittances. The results from selected empirical studies show that a mixture of individualistic and familial motives explains the likelihood and size of remittances. At the macro level we first briefly review the standard (Keynesian) and the trade-theoretic literature on the short-run impact of remittances. We then use an endogenous growth framework to describe the growth potential of remittances and present the evidence for different growth channels. We then explore the relationship between remittances and inequality. This relationship appears to be non-monotonic. This is consistent with different theoretical arguments regarding the role of migration networks and/or the dynamics of wealth transmission between successive generations.

J. Metcalfe

V. Smith

Ross J. Anderson, T. Moore

Oz Shy

T. Adrian, H. Shin

Kasey Buckles, Daniel M. Hungerman

T. Stanley, Hristos Doucouliagos, M. Giles et al.

Ning Li

Autonomous AI systems can now generate complete economics research papers, but they substantially underperform human-authored publications in head-to-head comparisons. This paper decomposes the quality gap into two independent components: research idea quality and execution quality. Using a two-model ensemble of fine-tuned language models trained on publication decisions (Gong, Li, and Zhou, 2026) to evaluate idea quality and a comprehensive six-dimension rubric assessed by Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite -- the same model family used as the APE tournament judge, ensuring methodological consistency -- to evaluate execution quality, we analyze 953 economics papers -- 912 AI-generated papers from the APE project and 41 human papers published in the American Economic Review and AEJ: Economic Policy. The idea quality gap is large (Cohen's d = 2.23, p < 0.001), with human papers achieving 47.1% mean ensemble exceptional probability versus 16.5% for AI. The execution quality gap is also significant but smaller (d = 0.90, p < 0.001), with human papers scoring 4.38/5.0 versus 3.84. Idea quality accounts for approximately 71% of the overall quality difference, with execution contributing 29%. The largest execution weakness is mechanism analysis depth (d = 1.43); no significant difference is found on robustness. We document that 74% of AI papers employ difference-in-differences, and only 7 AI papers (0.8%) surpass the median human paper on both idea and execution quality simultaneously. The primary bottleneck to competitive AI-generated economics research remains ideation.