ããã£ãã³ã®ã·ã«ã´å¦æ´¾ã®ä»æã«å¯¾ããèå¯ãç´¹ä»ãã7/4のエントリã«å¯¾ãã
ã«ã¼ã«ã¹ä»¥åããããã¯ããªã¼ããã³ãã¹ãã£ã°ã©ã¼ãããã«ã¼ãã³ã¼ã¹ä»¥åã®ã·ã«ã´å¦æ´¾ã®ææ³ã«ã¯ãã©ããªå¶ç´ãã«ã¼ã«ã®ä¸ã§ãââã«ã¼ã«ã®ã¾ã£ããåå¨ããªãã»ã¼ç¡æ¿åºç¶æ ãå«ãââå¸å ´ã¯æ©è½ããããªã©ã¨ããå¦æ³ã¯ä¸ååå¨ããªãã£ããã¨ã§ããã
ããã®ã以åãã¨ãã表ç¾ãæ°ã«ãªãã¾ããããªã¼ããã³ãã¯å¦æ³ã«åããã¦ãªãã£ãã¨ããããã®ããªï¼ã§ãã«ã¼ã«ã¹ãå«ãã¦ããã®ã§ããããï¼
ã¨ããã³ã¡ã³ããé ãããç´æ¥ã®åçã«ãªããã¯ã©ããã¯åãããªããã7/4ã®ã¨ã³ããªã§ã¯ããã£ãã³ã®ãã©ããã®åé ã¨çµããã®æ¹ã®ã¿æ½åºãã¦ç´¹ä»ããã®ã§ãä»æ¥ã¯çä¸ã®ç¬¬3ç¯ãç´¹ä»ãã¦ã¿ãã
III. Transition
The basic contrast between the âoldâ and ânewâ Chicago School thinking can be summarized in terms of two stylized attitudes, located at the two ends of an imagined spectrum. In the first stance, outlined in section II, the role of the economist is to offer an understanding of the workings of an idealized model of economic interaction—an understanding that, once achieved, allows the use of criteria for evaluating alternative constraints, a step that is necessarily grounded in a normative foundation. The role of the economist in this âoldâ Chicago thinking was not primarily that of describing economic reality in some manner akin to the activity of the practitioners of the hard sciences.
The ânewâ Chicago thinking, by comparison, embodied scientific thrust. Clearly, the disciplinary reach was extended. Important transition contributions to this halfcentury shift in thinking were made by Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Gary Becker, and Ronald Coase, each of whom variously stressed the explanatory power of models based on rational choice behavior—models that could yield falsifiable hypotheses. Friedman, in particular, remained linked to the âoldâ way of thinking, and especially in his popular writing. He did not succumb to the temptation seemingly offered by evolutionary analogues to institutional development. At the same time, however, he joined Stigler in the emphasis on the relevance of empirical testing. Beckerâs transitional role was to push out the frontiers of behavior amenable to economic explanation, under the often implicit rationality postulate. The impact of Coaseâs emphasis on the behavioral implications of nonexhausted gains from trade extended well beyond the applications in law.
There is relatively little distance from the positions associated with these intellectual-analytical âgiantsâ in the inclusive Chicago tradition to that stylized here as the ânewâ Chicago School.
ï¼æ訳ï¼
ï¼ï¼å¤å®¹
ãæ§ãã¨ãæ°ãã®ã·ã«ã´å¦æ´¾ã®ææ³ã®åºæ¬çãªéãã¯ãä»®æ³çãªã¹ãã¯ãã«ã®ä¸¡æ¥µç«¯ã«ä½ç½®ãã2ã¤ã®é¡ååãããã¹ã¿ã³ã¹ã¨ãã¦ç«¯çã«è¡¨ç¾ãããã¨ãã§ããã第2ç¯ã§æ¦è¦ãç´¹ä»ãã第ä¸ã®ã¹ã¿ã³ã¹ã«ããã¦ã¯ãçµæ¸å¦è
ã®å½¹å²ã¯ãçµæ¸çãªç¸äºä½ç¨ãç念åããã¢ãã«ã®åãã«å¯¾ããç解ãæä¾ãããã¨ã«ãããããããã£ããç解ããã°ãé¸æè¢ã«ãããå¶ç´æ¡ä»¶ãè©ä¾¡ããéã«åºæºãç¨ãããã¨ãå¯è½ã«ãªãããããã¯è¦ç¯è«çãªåå°ãç¯ãä¸ã§ã¯æ¬ ãããªãã¹ãããã§ããããã®ãæ§ãã·ã«ã´å¦æ´¾ã®ææ³ã«ããã¦ã¯ãèªç¶ç§å¦è
ã¨åæ§ã®ããæ¹ã§çµæ¸çãªç¾å®ãæåãããã¨ã¯ãçµæ¸å¦è
ã®ä¸»ããä»»åã¯ã§ã¯ãªãã£ãã
ããã«å¯¾ãããæ°ãã·ã«ã´å¦æ´¾ã®ææ³ã¯ãç§å¦ã®ä¼¸å¼µãä½ç¾ãã¦ããã対象åéã®ç¯å²ã¯æããã«æ¡å¤§ããããã®ä¸ç´åã°ã§ã®ææ³ã®å¤å®¹ã«å¤§ããå¯ä¸ããã®ã¯ããã«ãã³ã»ããªã¼ããã³ãã¸ã§ã¼ã¸ã»ã¹ãã£ã°ã©ã¼ãã²ã¼ãªã¼ã»ããã«ã¼ãããã¦ããã«ãã»ã³ã¼ã¹ã§ãã£ãããããåæ°ã¯ãåççé¸æè¡åã«åºç¤ãç½®ãã¢ãã«ãå証å¯è½ãªä»®èª¬ãçã¿åºããã¢ãã«ã®èª¬æåãæ§ã
ãªå½¢ã§å¼·èª¿ããããã®ä¸ã§ãããªã¼ããã³ã¯ããå¤ããèãæ¹ãç¶æãç¶ãã¦ããããã®ãã¨ã¯å½¼ã®ä¸è¬åãã®èä½ã«ç¹ã«è¡¨ãã¦ãããå½¼ã¯ãå¶åº¦ã®çºå±ãé²åè«ã«æºãã¦è§£éããã¨ããèªæã«å±ãããã¨ã¯ç¡ãã£ãããã®ä¸æ¹ã§å½¼ã¯ãå®è¨¼çæ¤å®ã®éè¦æ§ã強調ããã¹ãã£ã°ã©ã¼ã¨åãæ¦åã«å ãã£ããããã«ã¼ãå¤å®¹ã«æãããå½¹å²ã¯ãçµæ¸å¦çãªè§£éã®å¯¾è±¡ã¨ãªãè¡åã®ç¯å²ãåºãããã¨ã«ãã£ããåå¼ã®æ³¢åçãªå©çã人ã
ã®è¡åã«ä¸ããå½±é¿ãã³ã¼ã¹ã強調ãããã¨ã®ã¤ã³ãã¯ãã¯ãåãªãæ³å¾ã®é©ç¨ã¨ãã話ãé¥ãã«è¶
ãã¦åºãã£ãã
ã·ã«ã´ã®ä¼çµ±å
¨ä½ãèããæãããããç¥çãã¤åæçãªã巨人ãã¡ãã®ç«ã¡ä½ç½®ã¯ãæ¬ã¨ãã»ã¤ã§ãæ°ãã·ã«ã´å¦æ´¾ã¨ãã¦é¡ååãããã®ã®ç«ã¡ä½ç½®ã¨ãå®ã¯ããã»ã©é¢ãã¦ããããã§ã¯ãªãã