University of Missouri Kansas City

Other documents for Econ502

Syllabus (doc)
Detailed outline
Problem sets
Other Courses
Econ202
Econ302
Econ307
Econ488
Econ508
Econ602

Economics 502: Advanced Microeconomic Analysis,
Winter 2006

Lecture:   Wednesday, 7.00-9.45, Royall Hall, Room 213

Required Texts:    B. R. Binger and E. Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus
                           E. Silberberg and W. Suen, The Structure of Economics
                           A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (online version is found at http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP.html )

Optional Text:      H. R. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis

Support Material:

  • F. S. Lee, Microeconomic Analysis Lecture Notes (intermediate level lecture notes that cover neoclassical microeconomics and heterodox microeconomics—available by e-mail)

  • F. S. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes (lecture notes for the course; copies will be e-mailed to you)

  • F. S. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics:  A Mathematical Approach Made Simple (copies will be e-mailed to you)

 Assessment:        

  • Take home exam handed out on February 8, 2006 and returned on February 15, 2006—worth 15% of your final grade

  • In-class Exam I covers parts I - III, neoclassical microeconomics (March 1, 2006)—worth 30% of your final grade Take home exam handed out on April 12, 2006 and returned on April 19, 2006—worth 15% of your final grade

  • A set essay of 2,500-3,000 words, typed. It is due on April 16, 2006. It is worth 10% of your grade.

  • Final Exam covers parts IV - VI , heterodox microeconomics (May 3, 2006 from 8.00p.m. – 10.00p.m.)—worth 30% of your final grade

Problem Sets: Problem sets will be e-mailed to you.

Course Description: The course provides a critical survey of neoclassical microeconomic theory, including methodology, demand theory, production and costs theory, theory of competitive and non-competitive markets, distribution, welfare, and general equilibrium.

 

COURSE OUTLINE AND READING LIST

 “Well, in our country, “ said Alice, still panting a little, “you’d generally get somewhere else—if you ran very fast for a long time….”  “A slow sort of country!” said the Queen.  “Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.  If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” Through the Looking-Glass

Preview of the course
Detailed course outline (MS-Word)
"Neoclassical Microeconomics: A Mathematical Approach Made Simple" by Fred Lee
Note to students: # means the link to the article through UMKC subscribing   database. Students can download articles by way of UMKC computers.  

 

 I.   Historical Background to Neoclassical Microeconomics

 

      A. Brief Survey of Classical Political Economy

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book I, ch. 1 and Appendix.

  2. Bharadwaj, K.1989.  Themes in Value and Distribution:  Classical Theory Reappraised.  London:  Unwin Hyman, ch. 3, ch. 4, and ch. 5.

  3. Bharadwaj, K.  1986.  Classical Political Economy and Rise to Dominance of Supply and Demand Theories.  Calcutta:  Longman Orient.

  4. Garegnani, P.  1984.  “Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx.” Oxford Economic Papers 36:  291-325 #

  5. Walsh, V. and Gram, H.  1980.  Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium:  Historical Origins and Mathematical Structure.  New York:  Oxford University Press, ch 1. ch 2, ch 3, ch 4.

  6. Kurz, H. D. and Salvadori, N. (eds.)  1998.  Understanding ‘Classical’ Economics:  Studies in long-period theory.: London: Routledge, ch. 1.

  7. Kurz and Salvadori, Theory of Production, ch. 1 and ch. 2.

  8. Eatwell, J.  1982.  “Competition.”  In Classical and Marxian Political Economy, pp. 203 – 228.  Edited by I. Bradley and M. Howard.  London:  The Macmillan Press Ltd.

  9. Roncaglia, A.  2005.  The Wealth of Ideas:  A History of Economic Thought.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, chs. 3, 4, 7, and 9.

       B. The Rise to Dominance of Neoclassical Economics

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book I, ch. 1 and Book II, ch. 1.

  2. Bharadwaj, K.  1989.  Themes in Value and Distribution:  Classical Theory Reappraised.  London:  Unwin Hyman, ch. 6.

  3. Bharadwaj, K.  1986.  Classical Political Economy and Rise to Dominance of Supply and Demand Theories.  Calcutta: Longman Orient.

  4. Moore,G. 2003. “John Neville Keynes’s Solution to the English Methodenstreit.Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25.1 (March):  5 – 38.

  5. Moore, G.  1995.  “T. E. Cliffe Leslie and the English Methodenstreit.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17.1 (Spring): 57 – 77.

  6. Moore, G.  1996.  “The Practical Economics of Walter Bagehot.”  Journal of the History of Economic Thought 18.2 (Fall):  229 – 249.

  7. Roncaglia, A.  2005.  The Wealth of Ideas:  A History of Economic Thought.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, chs. 10 and 11.

  8. Mirowski, P.  2004.  The Effortless Economy of Science?  Durham:  Duke University Press, chs. 13-14.

  9. Mirowski, P.  1989.  More Heat Than Light.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

     

II. Neoclassical Methodology and Models

 

       A. Marshall on Methodology

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 2.

  2. Marshall, A.  1972.  Principles of Economics.  8th Edition.  London:  The Macmillan Press Ltd., Books I and II.

  3. Raffaelli, T.  2003.  Marshall’s Evolutionary Economics.  London:  Routledge.

  4. Roncaglia, A.  2005.  The Wealth of Ideas:  A History of Economic Thought.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch. 13.

      B.  Modern Methodology and Models 

  1. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 1 – 4.

  2. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, chs. 1 – 6.

  3. Gibbard, A. and Varian, H. R.  1978.  “Economic Models.”  The Journal of Philosophy 75.11 (November):  664 – 677.#

  4. Robbins, L.  1932.  An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science.  London:  Macmillan and Co.

  5.  Friedman, M.  1953.  “The Methodology of Positive Economics.”  In Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 3 – 43.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

      C. Criticisms 

  1. Keen, S.  2001.  Debunking Economics.  Pluto Press Australia, chs. 6, 7, and 12.

  2. Clower, R. W.  1994.  “Economics as an Inductive Science.”  Southern Economic Journal 60.4 (April):  805 – 814.

  3. Lawson, T.  1997.  Economics and Reality.  London:  Routledge, part II.

  4. Lawson, T.  2003.  Reorienting Economics.  London:  Routledge, ch. 1 (Four Theses on the state of modern economics).

  5. Matthaei, J.  1984.  “Rethinking Scarcity:  Neoclassicism, NeoMalthusianism, and NeoMarxism.”  Review of Radical Political Economics 16.2/3 (Fall):  81 – 94.

 III.       Theory of Consumer Behavior and Demand

 

      A.   Marshallian Analysis of Demand

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 2.

  2. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book III.

  3. Parsons, T.  1931.  “Wants and Activities in Marshall.”  Quarterly Journal of Economics 46 (December):  101 – 140. #

  4. Shove, G. F.  1942.  “The Place of Marshall’s Principles in the Development of Economic Theory.” The Economic Journal 52 (December):  294 – 329.#

  5. Walker, D. A.  1982.  “A Defense of Marshall on Substitutes and Complements in Consumption.”  Eastern Economic Journal 8:  67 – 78.

  6. Martinoia, R.  2003.  “That Which is Desired, Which Pleases, and Which Satisfies:  Utility According to Alfred Marshall.”  Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25.3 (September):  349 – 364.

  7. Ormazabal, K. M.  1995.  “The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility in Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics.”  The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 2.1 (Spring):  91 – 126.

 

     B.         Modern Utility and Preference Theory 

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book IV, chs. 1 – 2.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 5.

  3. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp. 252 -  272.

  4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp.  94 – 115.

  5. Deaton, A. Muellbauer, J.  1980.  Economics and Consumer Behaviour.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 – 47.

  6. Hicks, J. R.  1946. Value and Capital.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, pp. 11 – 25.

  7. Phlips, L.  1974.  Applied Consumption Analysis.  New York:  American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., ch. 1.

  8. Wong, S.  1978.  The Foundations of Paul Samuelson’s Revealed Preference Theory:  A Study by the Method of Rational Reconstruction.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., ch. 3.

 

     C.        Consumer Demand Theory 

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book IV, ch. 3.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 6 - 8.

  3. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp.  272 – 297.

  4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp.  116 – 143.

  5. Houthakker, H. S.  1957.  “An International Comparison of Household Expenditures Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel’s Law.”  Econometrica 25 (October):  532 – 551.#

  6. Hicks, J. R.  1946. Value and Capital.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, pp. 26 – 41.

  7. Phlips, L. 1974.  Applied Consumption Analysis.  New York:  American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., ch. 2.

  8. Stigler, G.J. and Becker, G.S. 1977. “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.”  American Economic Review 67.2 (March): 76– 90.#

       D.     Special Topics in Consumer Demand Theory

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book IV, ch. 4.

  2. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp.  297 - 299, 304 – 306, 314 – 332.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp.  144 – 159.

  4. Deaton and Muellbauer, Economics and Consumer Behaviour, pp. 37 – 42, 47 – 53, and 119 - 147.

  5. Phlips, L.  1974.  Applied Consumption Analysis.  New York:  American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., ch. 3.

  6. Hicks, J. R.  1946. Value and Capital.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, pp. 42 – 52.

  7. Samuelson, P. A.  1948.  “Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference.”  Economica 15 (November):  243 – 253.#

  

      E.      Market Demand Curve

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book IV, ch. 3.

  2. Deaton and Muellbauer, Economics and Consumer Behaviour, ch. 6.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, ch. 9.4.

   

       F.   Criticisms

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book IV, ch. 5.

  2. Keen, S.  2001.  Debunking Economics.New York City:  St. Martin’s Press, ch. 2.

  3. Steedman, I.  1989.  “Economic Theory and Intrinsically Non-Autonomous Preferences and Belief.” In From Exploitation to Altruism, pp. 205 – 221.  Boulder:  Westview Press.

  4. Baker, D.  1988.  “The Logic of Choice Theory”.

  5. Baker, D.  1988.  “The Logic of Neo-classical Consumption Theory.”  Ph. D. dissertation.  University of Michigan.

  6. Rizvi, S.  1998.  “Responses to Arbitrariness in Contemporary Economics.”  In New Economics and Its History, pp. 272 – 288.  Edited by J. B. Davis.  Durham:  Duke University Press.

  7. Rizvi, S.  2001.  “Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice.”  Review of Political Economy 13.2 (April):  141 – 159.

  8. Sippel, R.  1997.  “An Experiment on the Pure Theory of Consumer’s Behaviour.”  The Economic Journal 107 (September):        1431 – 1444.#

  9. Drakopoulos, S. A.  1994.  “Hierarchical Choice in Economics.”  Journal of Economic Surveys 8.2:  133 – 153.

  10. Veblen, T.  1909.  “The Limitations of Marginal Utility.”  Journal of Political Economy 17 (November):  620 – 636..#

  11. Drakopoulos, S. A. and Karayiannis, A. D.  2004.  “The Historical Development of Hierarchical Behavior in Economic Thought.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 26.3 (September):  363 – 378.

  12. Prasch, R. E.  2003.  “Are Economists Amoral?  Contemporary Economic Thought and the Distinction Between Values and   Prices.” Forum for Social Economics 32.2 (Spring):  13 – 22.

  13. Davis, J. B.  2003.  The Theory of the Individual in Economics:  Identity and Value.  London:  Routledge.

 IV.       Theory of Production and Costs

    

  A.        Marshall’s Analysis of Supply

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 4.

  2. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book IV.

  3. Bullock, C. J.  1902.  “The Variation of Productive Forces.”  The Quarterly Journal of Economics 16 (August):  473 – 513.#

  4. Wicksteed, P. H.  1914.  “The Scope and Method of Political Economy in the light of the `marginal’ theory of value and of distribution.”  The Economic Journal 24 (March):  1 – 23. #

      B.         Theory of Production

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, chs. 1 and 2.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 10.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 1 – 24.

  4. Ferguson, C. E.  1969.  The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch.1 and ch. 4.

  5. Cassels, J. M.  1936.   “On the Law of Variable Proportions."  In Explorations in Economics:  Notes and Essays Contributed in Honor of F. W. Taussig.  New York:  McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,  pp. 223 – 236.

  6. Maxwell, W. D.  1965.  “Short-Run Returns to Scale and the Production of Services.”  Southern Economic Journal (July):  1 – 14. 

     C.        Theory of Costs:  Changes in the Level of Output

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, ch. 3.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 11.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 49 – 81.

  4. Ferguson, C. E.  1969.  The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch. 6 and ch. 7.

  5. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp. 175 - 224.

  6. Viner, J.  1952.  “Cost Curves and Supply Curves."  In A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory, pp. 198 – 232.  Edited by G. J. Stigler and K. E. Boulding.  Chicago:  Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 

  7. Maxwell, W. D.  1969.  “Production Theory and Cost Curves.”  Applied Economics 1:  211 – 224.

  8. Larson, B.  1991.  “A Dilemma in the Theory of Short-Run Production and Cost.”  Southern Economic Journal 58.2 (October):  465 – 474

     D.        Special Topics in Production and Cost Theory

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, ch. 4.

  2. Ferguson, C. E.  1969.  The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, chs. 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9.

  3. Silberberg, The Structure of Economics, pp.  225 - 251.

  4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 82 – 93.

       E.         Criticisms

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, ch. 5.

  2. Keen, Debunking Economics, ch. 3

  3. Aslanbeigui, N. and Naples, M. I.  1996.  “Scissors or Horizon:  Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply, 1926 – 1942.”  Southern Economic Journal 64.2:  517 – 530.

  4. Yordon, W. J.  1970.  “The Short-Run Cost Function in Manufacturing.”  Quarterly Review of Economics and Statistics 10:  55 – 67.

  5. Steedman, I.  1988.  “Sraffian Interdependence and Partial Equilibrium Analysis.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 12.1 (March):  85 – 95.

  6. Yordon, W. J.  1992.  “Stigler’s Adaptable and Indivisible Plant and the Micro/Macro Schism.”  History of Political Economy 24.2 (Summer):  455 – 470.

 

V.        Price Theory:  Perfect Competition

 

        A.        Marshall’s Theory of Prices

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 5.

  2. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book V and Appendix H.

  3. Loasby, B. J.  1978.  “Whatever Happened to Marshall’s Theory of Value.”  Scottish Journal of Political Economy 25:  1 – 12.

  4. Prendergast, R.  1992.  “Increasing Returns and Competitive Equilibrium—the content and development of Marshall’s theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 16 (December):  447 – 462.

  5. Hart, N.  1996.  “Marshall’s Theory of Value:  the role of external economies.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 20 (May):  353 – 370.

  6. Hart, N.  2003.  “Marshall’s Dilemma:  Equilibrium versus Evolution.”  Journal of Economic Issues37.4 (December):  1139 – 1160.#

       B.         The Years of Turmoil, 1920 – 1933

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 1.

  2. Sraffa, P.  1925.  “On the Relation Between Cost and Quantity Produced.”

  3. Roncaglia, A.  1991.  “Sraffa’s 1925 Article and Marshall’s Theory.”  Quaderni di Storia dell’Economia Politica 9.1-2:  373 – 397.

  4. Panico, C.  1991.  “Some Notes on Marshallian Supply Functions.”  The Economic Journal 101 (May):  557 – 569.#

  5. Maneschi, A.  1986.  “A Comparative Evaluation of Sraffa’s `The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions,’ and its Italian Precursor.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 10 (March):  1 – 12.

  6. Pigou, A. C.  1928.  “Analysis of Supply.”  The Economic Journal 38 (June):  188 - 197..#

  7. Robbins, L.  1928.  “The Representative Firm.”  The Economic Journal 38 (September):  387 – 404.#

  8. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm:  A Symposium.”  1930.  The Economic Journal 40 (March):  79 – 116.#

  9. Harrod, R.  1972.  Economic Essays. Second Edition.  London:  The Macmillan Press Ltd., ch. 3, ch.4, ch. 5.         

  10. Mongiovi, G.  1996.  “Sraffa’s Critique of Marshall:  a reassessment.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 20 (March):  207 – 224.

  11. Marcuzzo, M. C.  1994.  “R. F. Kahn and Imperfect Competition.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 18 (February):  25 – 40.

  12. O’Shaughnessy, T. J.  1994.  “Kahn on the Economics of the Short Period.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 18 (February):  41 – 54.

  13. Aslanbeigui, N. and Naples, M. I.  1996.  “Scissors or Horizon:  Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply, 1926 – 1942.”  Southern Economic Journal 64.2:  517 – 530.

  14. Freni, G.  2001.  “Sraffa’s Early Contribution to Competitive Price Theory.”  European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 8.3(Autumn):  363 – 390.

  15. Robbins, L.  1930.  “On the Elasticity of Demand for Income in Terms of Effort.”  The Economic Journal 40 (June):  123 – 129.#

  16. Roncaglia, A.  2005.  The Wealth of Ideas:  A History of Economic Thought.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch. 16.

     C.        Perfect Competition and the Supply Curve

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 2.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 12 – 13.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 25 – 48, 215 – 235.

  4. Kaldor, N.  1934.  “The Equilibrium of the Firm.”  The Economic Journal 44  (March):  60 – 76..#

  5. Jaffee, W.  1967.  “Walras’ Theory of Tatonnement:  A Critique of Recent Interpretations.”  The Journal of Political Economy 75:  1 – 19#

  6. Walker, D. A.  1973.  “Edgeworth’s Theory of Recontracts.”  The Economic Journal 83:  138 – 149.#

  7. Robinson, J.  1966.  Collected Economic Papers Vol. 1.  Oxford:  Basil Blackwell, pp. 20 – 34.

     D.        Criticisms

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 4.

  2. Keen, Debunking Economics, ch. 3.

  3. Aslanbeigui, N. and Naples, M. I.  1996.  “Scissors or Horizon:  Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply, 1926 – 1942.”  Southern Economic Journal 64.2:  517 – 530.

  4. Sraffa, P.  1925.  “On the Relation Between Cost and Quantity Produced.” http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/Lee/Sraffa/pdf

  5. Panico, C.  1991.  “Some Notes on Marshallian Supply Functions.”  The Economic Journal 101 (May):  557 – 569.#

  6. Ozanne, A.  1996.  “Do Supply Curves Slope Up?  The Empirical Relevance of the Sraffian Critique of  Neoclassical Production Economics.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 20.6 (November):  749 – 762.

 VI.       Price Theory:  Imperfect Competition and the Firm

    

      A.        Monopoly 

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 3.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 15.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 236 – 259.

  4. Hicks, J. R.  1935.  “Annual Survey of Economic Theory:  The Theory of Monopoly.”  Econometrica 3 (January):  1 – 20.#       

     B.         Monopolistic/Imperfect Competition 

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VII, chs. 1 and 2.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 16.

  3. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

  4. Robinson, J.  1938.  The Economics of Imperfect Competition.  London:  Macmillan and Co., Ltd., chs. 1 – 14.

  5. Harrod, R.  1972.  Economic Essays. Second Edition.  London:  The Macmillan Press Ltd., ch. 7, ch. 8.

  6. Kaldor, N.  1960.  Essays on Value and Distribution.  Glencoe:  The Free Press, ch. 3, ch. 4, ch.5.

  7. Pigou, A. C.  1933.  “A Note on Imperfect Competition.”  The Economic Journal 43 (March):  108 – 112.#   

  8. Robinson, J.  1966.  Collected Economic Papers Vol. 1.  Oxford:  Basil Blackwell, pp. 35 - 43.

  9. Sherrard, A.  1951.  “Advertising, Product Variation, and the Limits of Economics.”  Journal of Political Economy 59 (April):  126 – 142..#  

  10. Keppler, J. H.  1998.  “The Genesis of ‘Positive Economics’ and the Rejection of Monopolistic Competition Theory:  A Methodological Debate.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 22.3 (May):  261 – 276.

     C.        Oligopoly

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VII, ch. 3.

  2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 16.

  3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 285 – 313.

  4. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, ch. 3.

  5. Hall, R. L. and Hitch, C. J.  1939.  “Price Theory and Business Behavior.”  Oxford Economic Papers 2 (May):  12 – 45..#   

  6. Lerner, A. P.  1934.  “The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power.”  The Review of Economic Studies 1 (June):  157 – 175..#   

  7. Stigler, G. J.  1968.  The Organization of Industry.  Homewood:  Richard D. Irwin, Inc., ch. 5,  ch. 9, and ch. 18.

  8. Ono, Y.  1982.  “Price Leadership:  A theoretical analysis.”  Economica 49:  11 – 20..#   

  9. Hotelling, H.  1929.  “Stability in Competition.”  The Economic Journal 39 (March):  41 – 57.#

  10. Koutsoyiannis, A.  1979.  Modern Microeconomics.Second edition.  London:  Macmillan, chs. 9 – 14.

  11. Reid, G.  1981.  The Kinked Demand Curve Analysis of Oligopoly.  Edinburg:  Edinburgh University Press.

     D.        Behavioral and Managerial Theories of the Firm 

  1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VII, ch. 4.

  2. Koutsoyiannis, A.  1979.  Modern Microeconomics.  Second edition. London:  Macmillian, chs. 15 - 18.

  3. Scitovsky, T.  1943.  “A Note on Profit Maximization and its Implications.”  The Review of Economic Studies 11 (Winter): 57 – 60.

  4. Machlup, F.  1967.  “Theories of the Firm:  Marginalist, Behavioral, Managerial.”  The American Economic Review 57 (March):  1 – 33.#

  5. Baumol, W. J.  1958.  “On the Theory of Oligopoly.”  Economica 25 (August):  187 – 198.#

  6. Baumol, W. J.  1962.  “On the Theory of the Expansion of the Firm.”  The American Economic Review 52 (December): 1078 – 1087.#

  7. Marris, R. L.  1963.  “A Model of the Managerial Enterprise.”  Quarterly Journal of Economics 77 (May):  185 – 209.#

  8. Williamson, J.  1966.  “Profit, Growth and Sales Maximization.”  Economica 33 (February):  1 – 16.#

  9. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G.  1963.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, Inc., chs. 1 – 9. 

     E.         Game Theory

  1. Fisher, F. M.  1989.  “Games Economists Play:  A Noncooperative View.”  Rand Journal of Economics 20.1 (Spring):  113 – 124.#

  2. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, ch. 15.

  3. Rizvi, S. A. T.  1994b.  “Game Theory to the Rescue?”  Contributions to Political Economy 13:  1 – 28.

     F.         Problems with Marginalism

  1. Keen, Debunking Economics, ch.4.

  2. Lee, F. S.  1984.  “The Marginalist Controversy and the Demise of Full Cost Pricing.”  Journal of Economic Issues 18 (December): 1107 – 1132.#

  3. Lee, F. S. and Irving-Lessmann, J.  1992.  “The Fate of an Errant Hypothesis:  The Doctrine of Normal-Cost Prices.”  History of Political Economy 24.2:  273 – 309.

  4. Nordquist, G. L.  1965.  “The Breakup of the Maximization Principle.”  Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 5:  33 – 46.

  5. Bianchi, M.  1990.  “The Unsatisfactoriness of Satisficing:  From Bounded Rationality to Innovative Rationality.”                       Review of Political Economy 2 (July):  149 – 167.

  6. Hodgson, G. M.  1993.  “Institutional Economics:  Surveying the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’.”  Metroeconomica 44.1:  1 – 28.

 VII.      Factor Input Markets and Distribution

    

    A.        Demand and Supply of Factor Inputs Under Competitive Conditions 

  1. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 17 and 18.

  2. Michl, T. R.  1987.  “Is There Evidence for a Marginalist Demand for Labor.”  Cambridge Journal of Economics 11 (December):  361 – 373.

    

    B.         Demand and Supply of Factor Inputs Under Non-Competitive Conditions 

  1. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 17 and 18.

    

    C.        Distribution of Income 

    

    D.        Criticisms

 

 VIII.     General Equilibrium and Welfare Economics

    

      A.        General Equilibrium

  1. Walsh and Gram, Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium, chs. 6 – 10, 14.

  2. Ingrao, B. and Israel, G.  1990.  The Invisible Hand:  Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science.  Cambridge:  The MIT Press, chs. 1, 10 – 12.

  3. Hicks, J. R.  1960.  “Linear Theory.”  Economic Journal 70 (December):  671 – 709.#

  4. Punzo, L. F.  1989.  “Von Neumann and Karl Menger’s Mathematical Colloquium.”  In John von Neumann and Modern Economics, pp. 29 – 65.  Edited by M. Dore, S. Chakravarty, and R. Goodwin.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press.

  5. Koopmans, T. C.  1957.  Three Essays on the State of Economic Science.  New York City:  McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., ch. 1.

  6. Weintraub, E. R.  2002.  How Economics Became a Mathematical Science.  Durham:  Duke University Press, chs. 1 – 4.

  7. Weintraub, E. R. and Mirowski, P.  1994.  “The Pure and the Applied:  Bourbakism Comes to Mathematical Economics.” Science in Context 7.2 Summer):  245 – 272.

  8. Punzo, L. F.  1991.  “The School of Mathematical Formalism and the Viennese Circle of Mathematical Economists.”   Journal of the History of Economic Thought13.1 (Spring):  1 – 18.

  9. Giocoli, N.  2003.  “Fixing the Point:  The Contribution of Early Game Theory to the Tool-Box of Modern Economics.”  The Journal of Economic Methodology 10.1 (March):  1 – 39.

  10. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 14.

  11. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, chs. 17 – 18.

  12. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, chs. 17 and 21.

  13. Roncaglia, A.  2005.  The Wealth of Ideas:  A History of Economic Thought.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch. 12.

     B.         Welfare Economics

  1. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, chs. 17 and 22.

  2. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, ch. 19.

 

    C.        Criticisms 

  1. Ackerman, F.  2002.  “Still Dead After all these Years:  Interpreting the Failure of General Equilibrium Theory.” Journal of Economic Methodology 9.2:  119 – 139.

  2. Montes, L.  2003.  “Smith and Newton:  Some Methodological Issues Concerning General Economic Equilibrium Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 27.5 (September):  623 – 646.#

  3. Clower, R. W.  1995.  “Axiomatics in Economics.”  Southern Economic Journal 62.2 (October):  307 – 319.

  4. Rizvi, S. A. T.  1991.  “Specialisation and the Existence Problem in General Equilibrium Theory.” Contributions to Political Economy 10:  1 – 20.

  5. Rizvi, S. A. T.  1994.  “The Microfoundations Project in General Equilibrium Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 18.4 (August):  357 – 377.

 

Department of Economics, 211 Haag Hall, University of Missouri-Kansas City 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64110 U.S.A
Phone: (816) 235-1314 Fax: (816) 235-2834, E-mail: economics@umkc.edu