English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

All sciences evolve over time thanks to new theoretical and empirical results. Progress in natural sciences (like Physics) largely depends on new "hard" (laboratory) results while evolution in the social sciences (like Sociology) derives from new "soft" findings. Social sciences (including Economics) focus on "complex systems", in particular, on the consequences of human and social behaviour and interactions; in addition, a significant emphasis is placed on the role of economic-institutional-social structures and dynamics in shaping the course of history. However, more than a century ago, especially with the diffusion of "General Economic Equilibrium" theory, the Economics profession, started on an ambitious path moving from the ambit of social sciences and attempting to approach the realm of the natural sciences (e.g. Vercelli, 1991). Was that evolution the beginning of a virtuous advancement toward a necessary rigorous and consistent apparatus or was it the first sign of a dangerous involution? The answer to this question is not simple, but we can propose some observations. First of all, it should be noted that this evolution of Economics has not been linear, nor unchallenged; a significant exception was provided by Keynes who based his General Theory (1936) on the rejection of the ergodic axiom (e.g. Davidson, 2012). Despite this, in the last half a century many keynesians also substantially favoured or accepted the "ergodic hypothesis" for Economics (e.g. Samuelson, 1969), in addition to the economists of the non-keynesian schools (e.g. Lucas and Sargent, 1981). As argued, especially by some post-keynesians, in an ergodic world all future events are predetermined, and the role of human decisions and actions is dramatically reduced (i.e. adopting a reductionist concept of rationality), as the importance of the temporal dimension is overlooked (i.e. reducing the role of uncertainty and the importance of irreversibility). So, where does Comparative Economics fit within this paradigm? Comparative Economics is an important branch of Economics and has itself experienced a significant evolution, during the past half a

hikaku keizai kenkyu/hikaku keizai kenkyuu

Economics as Social Science and the Role of Comparative Economics : "very-short paper" for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Japan Association for Comparative Economic Studies (JACES)