|
on Post Keynesian Economics |
| By: | Davis, John B.; ; (Department of Economics Marquette University; Department of Economics Marquette University) |
| Abstract: | This paper discusses the difference between mainstream and heterodox economics in terms of philosophy’s distinction between two types of temporal sequences governing events: the static, truth-tenseless before-after sequence and the dynamic, truth-tensed past-present-future sequence. Mainstream theory and optimization analysis employs the first. However, Aristotle showed long ago this implies fatalism. Heterodox explanations employ the second, which I argue implies people reflexively adjust their choices over time in a combined backward-looking and forward-looking way that rules out optimization. Central to this explanation of behavior is how uncertainty about the future is connected to uncertainty about the past. I show this can be explained in terms of how people engage in counterfactual thinking whereby their uncertainty about the future is investigated through how they re-examine their uncertainty about the past. This behavioral explanation affects how we interpret two different sets of temporal phenomena heterodoxy emphasizes: (i) irreversibility and path-dependence and (ii) emergence and cumulative causation. I argue this demonstrates the need for the open economic thinking heterodoxy employs, not the closed economic thinking the mainstream employs. |
| Keywords: | temporal sequences, fatalism, reflexive adjustment, future-past uncertainty, open economic thinking |
| JEL: | B41 B50 D01 D80 |
| Date: | 2024–05 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mrq:wpaper:2024-03&r= |
| By: | Zhou, Peng (Cardiff Business School) |
| Abstract: | This paper proposes a nonlinear teaching approach, based on learning theories in cognitive psychology, with a special focus on large-cohort economics modules. The fundamental rationale is to match the features of teaching with the nature of learning. This approach was implemented in an undergraduate economics module, which received qualitative feedback and quantitative evaluation. Formal econometric models with both binary and continuous treatment effects were developed and estimated to quantify the effects of the proposed approach. Evidence shows that the nonlinear teaching approach significantly improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the learning-teaching process but does not promote student attendance. |
| Keywords: | nonlinear teaching approach; higher education; experimental action research; treatment effects |
| JEL: | A22 |
| Date: | 2024–06 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cdf:wpaper:2024/12&r= |
| By: | Joana Elisa Maldonado; Anneleen Vandeplas; Lukas Vogel |
| Abstract: | The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a temporary reduction in the quantity and quality of education, with school closures of varying degree implemented across the globe. This paper reviews the literature on learning deficits in compulsory education and their possible economic impact. Studies from different EU Member States show significant learning deficits in primary and secondary education, equivalent to about two months of learning progress during a regular school year on average. The impact of the pandemic on learning outcomes varies widely by country as well as by students’ age. As students with a lower socioeconomic status or weaker previous performance experienced larger learning deficits, inequality in educational achievement has increased between students, schools, and countries. While labour market outcomes of the 2020 graduating cohort seem to be resilient at the current juncture of tight labour markets, the long-term economic impact of learning deficits is likely to be non-negligible. Existing studies project small productivity losses for the coming years but a significant impact in the long term, peaking by the second half of the 21st century, when all affected cohorts of students will have entered the labour market. Estimates of the aggregate real GDP effects of 1-year learning deficits, given the number of affected cohorts of students (corresponding to around one third of the future labour force at the maximum) and assuming that no remedial action is taken and losses are not recovered, reach between –0.5% and –4.7% in 2050 in the contributions surveyed in this paper, compared to a baseline without any learning deficits. For an average learning deficit of circa one fifth of a school year this would translate into real GDP effects between -0.1% and -1% by 2050. |
| Keywords: | learning losses, COVID-19, school closures, macro impact, long term |
| JEL: | I21 I26 J24 |
| Date: | 2024–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:euf:ecobri:078&r= |