三民網路書店 / 搜尋結果

Public pensions in the United States face an impending funding crisis in the wake of the financial crisis and the COVID-19 recession. Many cities and states will struggle to meet these growing obligations without major cuts in government services, reneging on pension promises, or raising taxes. This Element examines the development of the pension crisis through the lens of political economy. We analyze the knowledge and incentive problems inherent in the institutional structure, governance, and accounting of public pensions. We conclude by offering several institutional, governance, and reporting reforms to address the pension funding crisis.

This Element surveys the field of defense, peace, and war economics with particular emphasis on the contributions made by Austrian economists. I first review treatments of defense, peace, and war by the classical economists. I then discuss the rise of a distinct and systematic defense, peace, and war economics field of study starting in the 1960s. Next, I consider the contributions by Austrian economists to the field. This includes the economic analysis of the nature of the war economy, problems with the public good justification for the state-provision of defense, the seen and unseen costs of war, the idea of the liberal peace, and the realities and limitations of foreign intervention. I conclude with a discussion of some open areas for future research.

Economists commit a category mistake when they treat democratic governments as indebted. Monarchs can be indebted, as can individuals. In contrast, democracies can't truly be indebted. They are financial intermediaries that form a bridge between what are often willing borrowers and forced lenders. The language of public debt is an ideological language that promotes politically expressed desires and is not a scientific language that clarifies the practice of public finance. Economists have gone astray by assuming that a government is just another person whose impulses toward prudent action will restrict recourse to public debt and induce rational political action.

Increasingly, economists realize that a deeper understanding of culture can improve their insights into the most important questions in economics. The Austrian school of political economy, which has always taken economics to be a science of meaning, and therefore, a science of culture, offers a unique approach to the study of culture in economic life. We consider three important differences between these Austrian and non-Austrian approaches: the Austrian focus on culture as meaning rather than culture as norms, beliefs, or attitudes; the Austrian emphasis on culture as an interpretative lens rather than as a tool or form of capital; and the Austrian insistence that cultural analysis be a qualitative exercise rather than a quantitative one. We also examine Geertz's description of culture, Gadamer's approach to hermeneutics, and Weber's interpretative sociology, demonstrating their connections to the Austrian approach and offering examples of what Austrian cultural economics can look