文献一覧: 滋賀大学経済学会 (出版者)

3 0 0 0 OA フランク・ナイトの経済思想 : リスクと不確実性の概念を中心として

著者: 酒井泰弘
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.第394号, pp.38-57, 2012-12 (Released:2013-01-21)

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the economic thought of Frank H. Knight (1885-1972) with special reference to his ideas of risk and uncertainty. Knight, the “Grand Old Man” of Chicago, is one of the most influential thinker American economics has ever produced. Although hefailed to acquire many faithful followers around himself, we can see some traces of his perspective in the work of Martin Bronfenbrenner(1914-1997), a Chicago Ph.D., with whom I established a close acquaintance at Kobe and Pittsburgh. According to Knight, uncertainty must be taken categorically distinct from the familiar notion of risk. Risk means a quantity susceptible of measurement, so that it is not in effect anuncertainty at all. In contrast, uncertainty is ofthe non-quantity type in the sense that it cannotbe described by any distribution function.It is this “true” uncertainty, and not risk, whichforms the basis of a valid theory of profit. Business decisions deal with situations which are far too unique for any sort of statistical tabulation to have any value of guidance. Such true uncertainty gives the characteristic form of enterprise to economic organization as a whole and accounts for profit or the peculiar income of the entrepreneur. We live in the world of risk and uncertainty.The Great East Japan Earthquake of 11 March 2011 has demonstrated a great lesson against the myth of absolute safety, indicating the necessity of rethinking of presumably “unthinkable events.” We can learn new lessons from old teachings : The legacy of Frank H. Knight is still alive and will remain so throughout the new century.

http://jairo.nii.ac.jp/0125/00009774

3 0 0 0 OA ケインズの蓋然性論とナイトの不確実性論 : 奇跡の1921年を考える

著者: 酒井泰弘
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.第398号, pp.50-69, 2013-12 (Released:2014-01-14)

The main purpose of this paper is to criticallydiscuss and lucidly compare J. M. Keynes (1883-1946) and F. H. Knight (1886-1972), two towering figures in the history of economic thought. It is in 1921 that they both published apparently similar books on risk, probability and uncertainty. While Knight’ contribution on the economics of risk and uncertainty has been well-known and very influential in the economics profession, Keynes’accomplishments on probability and uncertainty have been more or less underestimated in the dark shadow of his most famous book (1936) The General Theory of Unemployment, Interest and Money.The present paper aims to focus on an earlieryet equally important book (1921) A Treatise onProbability, hopefully shedding a new light onhis outstanding ideas and everlasting influenceson his later works including The General Theory.According to Keynes, many probabilities, which are incapable of numerical measurement, can be placed nevertheless between numerical upper and lower limits. Keynes has demonstrated whether and to what extent animal spirits contributes to the working and performance of the market economy. Remarkably, Keynes' concept of probability and uncertainty can be well-compared to Knight's distinction between a measurable risk and a non-measurable uncertainty. I believe that it is high time for us to unify Keynes and Knight into a new,comprehensive approach to very complex human behavior.

http://jairo.nii.ac.jp/0125/00010771

3 0 0 0 OA ケインズとナイトと同時代人たち : 「想定外」を想定する

著者: 酒井泰弘
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.第400号, pp.82-105, 2014-06 (Released:2014-07-02)

As the saying goes, we can learn new lessonsfrom old teachings. This paper aims to givecritical assessment of J. M. Keynes (1883-1946)and F. H. Knight (1885-1972), two great economistson probability and uncertainty. It is quiteremarkable to see that there are many contemporariesof outstanding achievement in theKeynes-Knight era: A. Marshall (1842-1924),H. Poincaré (1854-1912), M. Weber (1864-1920), Soseki Natsume (1867-1916), TorahikoTerada (1878-1935), and A. Einstein (1879-1955). While these men are somewhat differentin personality and research field, there is onething in common: They are all deep thinkersof unthinkable phenomena such as bubbles,chance, chaos, complexity, crisis, earthquakes,hazards, and sufferings.In the light of the history of economicthought, we understand that some economistsmay be micro-oriented or macro-orientedwhereas others may be concerned with certaintyor uncertainty. We find it quite convenientto classify all the economists from the time ofAdam Smith to the present day into the followingfour groups. They are:(1)micro andcertainty, (2)macro and certainty, (3)macro anduncertainty, and (4)micro and uncertainty. Inmy opinion, the first group is represented by L.W. McKenzie, an authority in general equilibriumtheory and incidentally my mentor atRochester; and the second one by Karl Marx,the founder of the Marxian school. The thirdgroup is led by J. M. Keynes, perhaps the greatesteconomist of the 20th century and theoriginator of the Keynesian school; and thefourth one by F.H. Knight, the grandfather ofthe original Chicago school.According to Torahiko Terada, a famous scientistand essayist, natural disasters will returnwhen they are out of people’s memory. Likewise,academic geniuses will return before oldheroes are out of our scene. At the beginningof the 21st century, it is quite regrettable thatneither Keynes nor Knight is in sight. We needa Keynes or a Knight in order to establish anew, synthetic social science, thus combiningeconomics, psychology, history, biology, physics,and other related fields.

http://jairo.nii.ac.jp/0125/00011645

3 0 0 0 OA 「東西冷戦」から「不確実性の時代」へ : 戦後70年経済科学の歩みと私の研究者人生

著者: 酒井泰弘
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.第406号, pp.38-59, 2015-12 (Released:2016-01-04)

http://jairo.nii.ac.jp/0125/00012577

3 0 0 0 IR 指示、注意、意識 : Campbellの議論の問題点

著者: 西村正秀
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.393, pp.38-49, 2012

In "Visual Attention and the Epistemic Role of Consciousness" (2011), John Campbell defends the claim that consciousness is necessary for visual attention. It has been thought that this claim was incoherent with the cases of blindsight where a subject seemed to attend to an object without having a conscious experience of it. In order to dismiss this objection, Campbell appeals to the Boolean map theory of visual attention, a psychological theory developed by Liqiang Huang and Harold Pashler. On this theory, attention consists of two stages, selection and access. The opponents of Campbell suppose that attention is identical to access. This is the reason why blindsight has been regarded as a counterexample of Campbell's claim, because at least a blindsighted subject has an access to an object. Campbell denies this supposition. He argues that consciousness is not connected to access but to selection. If his arguments are sound, we can interpret that a blindsighted subject does not attend to an object because he does not select it consciously. My aim in this paper is to show that Campbell's arguments for the connection between consciousness and selection are not fully convincing.This conclusion supports a slogan endorsed bysome cognitive scientists and philosophers suchthat consciousness is not required for perceptual reference.

2015-06-02 18:06:41
3 + 5 Twitter

https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/40019480115

2 0 0 0 OA ハム・ソーセージにおける発色剤の現況について (高野美之先生還暦記念論文集)

著者: 岡部昭二
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.第158・159号, pp.53-67, 1972-11

2023-02-07 00:41:01
2 + 3 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/10441/2692

2 0 0 0 OA 判例から見た村八分 (<特集>法学)

著者: 森順次
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.第85号, pp.62-81, 1962-01

2022-07-24 10:16:21
2 + 2 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/10441/3430

2 0 0 0 IR グリルパルツァーの保守革命とナポレオン--オットカーとルドルフ一世をめぐって

著者: 青地伯水
出版者: 滋賀大学経済学会
雑誌: 彦根論叢 (ISSN:03875989)
巻号頁・発行日: no.386, pp.66-79, 2010

This paper aims at clarifying Grillparzer's political view in King Ottkars Lucky and End.Grillparzer is generally regarded as a liberalistic constitutional monarchist under the influence of the Enlightenment. However, he is neither liberalistic nor constitutional in this work. In the 13th Century, the king of Bohemia Ottokar II is defeated in the war against the Emperor Rudolf I and dies. The hero Rudolf, who worships the Roman Catholic Church and is a Feudalist based on the Lehn system, becomes the founder of the Hapsburg Monarchy. Grillparzer, who finds similarity in the lives of Ottkar and Napoleon I, describes Napoleon's life in this drama. After the death of the modern individualist Napoleon, who trusted solely in his talents and endeavors in the continual pursuit of victory, the Hapsburg Monarchy remained firmly in Austria. In 1823, after the century of the Enlightenment, it is the medieval order ORDO that Grillparzer praises. In the view of Grillparzer, who describes Rudolf as an ideal emperor, the Hapsburg Monarchy should rely on medieval faith and domination. Because he finds his Utopia in a world before the Renaissance and Reformation, he is considered a Conservative Revolutionist such asHugo von Hofmannsthal who lives in the fin de siecle and hopes for the eternal domination of the Hapsburg Monarchy.