Schools of economic thought

Доцент д-р Теодор Седларски е преподавател в катедра Икономика към Стопанския факултет на Софийския университет „Св. Климент Охридски”. От 2012 г. е ръководител на Центъра за икономически теории и стопански политики към СУ (www.economy.uni-sofia.bg). Чете лекции по Икономически теории, Институционална икономика, Международна икономика, Икономика на публичния сектор, Пари, банки и финансови пазари. Сред последните му публикации са книгите „Нова институционална икономика“ (2013), „Институционални аспекти на пазара“ (2013), „Международна икономика“ (2013, в съавторство с Х. Албек), „Институционална икономика: възможности и неизползван потенциал“ (2012, в съавторство с Т. Попов).

Учебникът Икономически теории (История на икономическата мисъл) се състои от десет глави, всяка посветена на значимо теоретично направление или етап в развитието на икономическата мисъл. Книгата предлага достъпно въведение в еволюцията на икономическата наука от зараждането й до днес: от наченките на икономическата мисъл в Древна Гърция и Рим, през икономическите разсъждения и препоръки на меркантилистите,  развитието на класическата политическа икономия – от Уилям Пети и Пиер Боагилбер, през школата на физиократите, Адам Смит, Дейвид Рикардо и Томас Робърт Малтус до Жан-Батист Сей, немската историческа школа, неокласическата икономическа теория – маржиналистката революция в Англия, Австрия и Швейцария и „епохата на Маршал“, Кейнсовия икономически анализ, монетаристката контрареволюция срещу кейнсианските идеи в творчеството на Милтън Фридман, до съвременното научно направление на новата институционална икономика и актуалните достижения в икономическия анализ на правото.

It is widely accepted that inequality has increased sharply recently in developed countries, but no consensus exists so far about the importance of inequality in the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The aim of this article is to outline and contrast the theoretical underpinnings of Marxian, post-Keynesian, and mainstream crisis theories, and to compare their viewpoints regarding the role that income inequality played in the crisis. The results of this review suggest that, despite important differences in their theoretical concepts, several economists of these three strands offer a similar explanation on why income inequality was an important contributing factor to the financial crisis.

In most universities in the UK history of economic thought, when it is taught, is taught either as a specialist or an optional module in the second and third year of the degree. This contribution argues in favour of introducing elements from the history of economic thought into the first year introductory economics module. The reasons why I see this to be an important change in developing curricula that teach economics through its history and evolution, are the following: 1) students learn from the beginning the context of economic ideas, instead of being introduced to economic theory in a de-contextualised way. This provides a framing effect for their whole undergraduate education in economics. 2) It allows history of economic thought to be seen in an integrated way as foundational of all knowledge in economic theory instead of another specialist topic, similar to other specialist topics like e.g. labour or financial economics, occasionally taught as options in years 2 and 3 in most degrees. This distinction is important, as specialist topics are seen as extensions of neoclassical theory into a specific domain of knowledge or application. History of economic thought, by its very subject matter, does not easily fit within such a framework. 3) It allows history to play a role in other modules, because it provides a unified framework for seeing knowledge in economics. 4) It allows the problimatisation of concepts that are still in dispute and discussion between economists, by presenting the historical context of modern conventions and conversations. 5) Finally, it allows the introduction of pluralism in economic curricula, as the differences between alternative paradigms or world views, can be presented from the beginning of the undergraduate programme of studies, allowing a broader and more diversified menu of optional and core module choices in years 2 and 3 of the degree.

In this paper, we comparatively analyze the views and role of labor in Marxian, mainstream and Islamic economics. We argue that Marxian view of labor undermines the role of entrepreneur. Indeed, the slave trade, industrialization and Colonialism resulted in exploitation of the labor. But, to correct matters, undermining the role of entrepreneur to the extent of abandoning private property rights is not the right solution either as it was also proved in the later part of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, mainstream economics too is unable to create an equitable balance between the capitalists and the labor class, especially in the presence of extractive institutions like interest based earnings on accumulated wealth and incapacitated wealth redistribution mechanisms. These extractive institutions perpetuate the dominance of wealthy capitalists by making their accumulated wealth immune to entrepreneurial risks. This also results in concentration of wealth, increase in income inequality and low levels of capital formation. Indeed, the recent evidence of jobless growth, high youth unemployment despite high per capita income and high income inequality supports this view. In Islamic economic framework, prohibition of interest encourages productive enterprise and capital formation. These factors boost the labor demanded by the firms. In the microeconomic decisions in consumption-leisure choice framework, Islamic institutions positively boost the labor supply. In an Islamic economy, wealth redistribution through Zakat and inheritance laws ensures circulation of wealth. Prohibition of interest closes the door for riskless non-labor income on money capital. This increases the cost of leisure and encourages the person to supply more labor and/or invest money capital in productive enterprise. Finally, we discuss the impact of Islamic work ethics on dealing with the problems of moral hazard, labor shirking and rigidity in the labor market due to efficiency wages and insider-outsider relationships.