著者
若田部 昌澄
出版者
経済学史学会
雑誌
経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.54, no.1, pp.22-42, 2012 (Released:2019-08-22)

The year 2012 marks the centennial anniversary of Milton Friedmanʼs birthday and the 50th an-niversary of the publication of Capitalism and Freedom (1962). This paper examines the his-torical significance of his contributions, by mainly reviewing the growing recent research on his economics. Friedman has been popularly described as the Chicago school, monetarist, market fundamentalist, and neo-liberal; I argue that it is necessary to examine these convention-al labels from a historical perspective. Friedman witnessed several and sometimes overlapping historical eras, and the paper focuses on the his-torical contexts of the following: economic sci-ence in the latter half of the twentieth century, the National Bureau of Economic Research tra-dition, the Chicago school research tradition, money and business cycle theories, the role and responsibility of public intellectuals, and the neo-liberalism movement. This paper arrives on the following conclusion. Friedmanʼs ideas drew upon the economics of mathematical and empir-ical nature, seen in the latter twentieth century, yet his approach deviated from the more domi-nant Cowles or MIT approaches, as he regarded economics as an applied and empirical policy science. His works shared common characteris-tics with the NBER tradition, and he changed the nature of the post-War Chicago school by importing the NBER tradition. His monetary and business cycle analysis is a mixture of old Chi-cago monetary tradition and the NBER tradition. His active role as a public intellectual was met with success and controversies, as did his in-volvement with the neo-liberal movement. Al-though Friedman should be primarily studied from a historical perspective, one cannot avoid reviewing his contributions only because he ex-erted a great influence on the history of econom-ics. This becomes more acute especially in the wake of the current economic and financial cri-sis. The paper primarily examines three ques-tions: whether Friedmanʼs ideas contributed to the current crisis, what Friedman would have done if he were alive, and what could be done to improve on Friedmanʼs contributions. The paper concludes that historians of economics would and should continue arguing about and with Friedman. JEL classification numbers: B20, B22, B31.
著者
若田部 昌澄
出版者
The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought
雑誌
経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.51, no.2, pp.18-32, 2009 (Released:2019-08-08)
参考文献数
49

This paper proposes a way to understand the evolution of macroeconomic thinking. The macroeconomic thinking, not necessarily synonymous with macroeconomics, has been dealing with the questions of money and business cycles. Money and business cycles, in turn, have been closely connected with the international monetary arrangements such as the Gold Standard, the Bimetallic Standard, the Bretton Woods system, and the Flexible Exchange Rate. I shall argue that the evolution of macroeconomic thinking is best understood as the responses of economists to, and their interaction with, the changing monetary and exchange rate regimes. The theoretical foundation of the paper is rather simple: the so-called trilemma, or “irreconcilable or impossible trinity.” A policymaker cannot simultaneously choose a fixed exchange rate, free mobility of capital, and domestic price stability via independent monetary policy. Facing this constraint, the policymaker can, at most, choose two from among these three goals. Therefore, further questions emerge: which goal or goals should be given priority from among these three, and what is the exact tool or mechanism that can ensure the achievement of preset policy goals. The answer to the first question determines the nature of international monetary arrangements, which, in turn, are shaped by political and economic factors. With respect to the second issue, institutions, or what we might call the institutional or social governance technology, play a crucial role. Throughout history, concerns over “unrestrained inflation” have been widespread, since there have always been strong incentives for a government to raise seigniorage by over-issuing money. The choice of international monetary arrangements depends on the availability, credibility, and effectiveness of a specific social governance technology that acts as a constraint upon policymakers, which, in turn, depend on the specific political and economic structure. JEL classification numbers: B 20, B 22, E 42.
著者
須賀 晃一 吉原 直毅 薮下 史郎 若田部 昌澄 若松 良樹 船木 由喜彦 須賀 晃一 藪下 史郎 飯島 昇藏 船木 由喜彦 若松 良樹 梅森 直之 川岸 令和 清水 和巳 若田部 昌澄 谷澤 正嗣
出版者
早稲田大学
雑誌
基盤研究(C)
巻号頁・発行日
2006

社会的正義の基本概念は、今日の社会的問題、公共的問題に解決策を示唆しうるもの、また社会の歴史的・民主的発展に適合的な内実を備えたものであるべき点が明らかにされた。さらに、社会的正義の諸要素間の論理的整合性を追及する一方で、政策理論の基礎を与える組合せを、対象となる財・サービスごとに検討すべきことで合意が得られ、公共財・準公共財・価値財などに関していくつかの試みがなされた。公開性、公正性、接近可能性が重視される一方で、匿名性の処遇については意見が分かれた。
著者
若田部 昌澄
出版者
早稲田大学
雑誌
基盤研究(C)
巻号頁・発行日
2010

1970 年代日本のマクロ経済思想と経済政策の関係について歴史的な考察を行った。この場合の歴史的というのは、経済史的な事実を踏まえるだけではなく、経済学史、経済思想史的な観点から、当時のマクロ経済政策を分析することを意味している。この研究では、大きく言って三つの成果を得た。第一に、1970 年代の大インフレはそれを許容する経済思想のもとで生まれた。当時の政策担当者の間においてはインフレを許容する思想が強かった。為替政策については円高を恐れる発想が強く、財政政策については福祉国家建設が。第二に、日本銀行においては複数の思想があったものの、70 年代の経験を通じて物価安定化を強調する思想が強化されることになった。第三に、国際通貨制度の変化に対して当時の政策担当者、経済学者は一部の例外を除いてブレトン・ウッズ体制を前提としており、それが70 年代大インフレに貢献したと考えられる。
著者
若田部 昌澄
出版者
PHP研究所
雑誌
ボイス (ISSN:03873552)
巻号頁・発行日
no.385, pp.25-27, 2010-01