Robbins’s central contribution to the debate on market versus plan links with identification of economics as science of how societies handle scarcity, a central contribution of the Essay. This was not a narrow focus on static efficiency; inflation was a key part of Robbins’s conception of (mis)handling scarcity. The irony that transition to the market led to movement away from the market in economics is analysed, highlighting the obscured role of macroeconomics, and questioning a new conventional wisdom that Russia should have followed the Chinese path of gradual and Pareto-improving institutional development. A conclusion is that the demise of the Washington Consensus should not lead to a new dogma: the neoclassical paradigm is not being replaced but extended.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research in its series Working Papers with number
11.
Find related papers by JEL classification: P21 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Systems and Transition Economies - - - Planning, Coordination, and Reform B31 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Thought: Individuals - - - Individuals
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: