Abstract
Professor Joseph Salerno (2019) has commented on my recent reconstruction of the income effect from a causal-realist perspective (Israel, 2018b). In this rejoinder, I clarify my position and show that the main points of criticism in Salerno’s response are unfounded. In particular, I show that my argument does not involve a claim of greater “realism of assumptions” and it by no means contradicts the law of demand. Moreover, I work out in more detail the similarities and differences of my approach to the standard neoclassical decomposition of income and substitution effects. I show that my approach is closer to the Slutsky decomposition as opposed to the Hicks decomposition.
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference16 articles.
1. Block, Walter E. 1980. On Robert Nozick’s “On Austrian Methodology.” Inquiry 23, no. 4: 397–444.
2. Caplan, Bryan. 1999. "The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations." Southern Economic Journal 65, no. 4: 823–38.
3. Friedman, Milton. 1949. "The Marshallian Demand Curve." Journal of Political Economy 57, no. 6: 463–95.
4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2005. "Must Austrians Embrace Indifference?" Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 8, no. 4: 87–91.
5. Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 1999. "Economic Science and Neoclassicism." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2, no. 4: 3–20.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Clarifying the Analysis of Deadweight Loss from Taxation;Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines;2023-06-01