Thesis (M.A.)--Boston University / In Chapter I, the object of the study is outlined, followed by a discussion of Pre-Pigovian welfare economics. The purpose of our study consists in a critical analysis of Professor Pigou1s welfare concept and propositions in the light of ideas held by his predecessors and successors. Pre-Pigovian welfare economics is dealt with under three different groups among which a logical classification is possible, These groups are English classical economists (A. Smith, B. Say, D. Ricardo, and others), continental classical economists (V. Pareto, L. Walras, E. Barone) and neo-claseical economists (H. Sidgwick, A. Marshall, and others), It is shown that the English classical economists regarded free competition as a means to the widening of the economy rather than to a rational allocation of resources, The continental economists, Pareto and Barone formulated the concept of subjective optimum and dealt with the problem of allocation in the static sense. The neo-classical economists made a compromise. While accepting the doctrine of marginal utility, they were not preoccupied with the static problem of allocation. In the manner of the English classicists, they discussed the forces which govern the supply of ultimate factors of production and human wants. A typical feature of neo-classical economics is Marshall's partial surplus analysis.

The problem with which this investigation is concerned is that of ascertaining whether or not A. C. Pigou led to the development of a modern school of Welfare Economics. This study has a threefold purpose. The first is to examine the welfare criterion of the classical tradition. The second is to examine the welfare criterion of the neoclassical tradition. The third is to develop a synthesis of classical and neoclassical into a modern welfare criterion. This study concludes that A. C. Pigou has founded a modern school of Welfare Economics. Pigou accomplished this by synthesizing the welfare doctrines of the classical tradition with that of the neoclassical tradition.

Thesis (M. Econ.)--University of Hong Kong, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf 156).

Thesis (M.Econ.)--University of Hong Kong, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 156). Also available in print.

某種經濟行為的結果，影響了不相干的第三者，就產生了外部效果 （EXTERNALITY） ，外部效果雖有正有負，但環境污染是屬負的外部效果，本文即以負的外部效果為探 討範圍。 一九六○年代，經濟學家目睹當時環境日趨惡化，以及公害問題的不斷發生，而在此 環境危機下卻沒有適當的「價格」誘因使污染減少，因此，當時的經濟學家除仍致力 於環境污染發生問題之研究外，而對解決環境問題之公共政策亦逐漸重視而一併討論 著，而外部效果解決之途徑正與公共政策息息相關。 早在一九六○年前MARSHALL和PIGOU 即曾提出以租稅方式來解決外部效果問題，此即 為著名的皮古稅（PIGOVIAN TAX），然近年來，皮古稅無論在理論上或政策實施上均 遭受甚多的質疑，因此，取而代之如：直接控制（DIRECT CONTROL），補貼（SUBSID Y） ，出售污染權（MARKETABLE EMISSION PERMIT），等解決外部效果之途徑正逐漸 的被重視而熱絡的討論著。 近期，公害問題日趨嚴重，環境問題亦愈受重視，本文即是從外部效果之定義及其發 生之原因為探討之開始，進而對外部效果解決途徑逐一介紹，最後再將各外部效果解 決途徑予以詳加比較，本文之目的，即是在各種解決途徑之比較中，若能理出一些脈 絡，當能成為今日環境政策粗淺之參考。

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:48:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Alexandre Flavio Silva Andrada.pdf: 670430 bytes, checksum: d317a9a7393cab2f5438d96670a8d051 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-05-20 / The present work aims to provide a critique to the Walrasian approach in Macroeconomics. The debate between Keynesians (Keynes, New Keynesians and Post-Keynesians) and Neoclassical (Monetarists and New Classical) about method, expectations, and equilibrium is presented. Trying so to refuse Lucas s critique, which says that Keynes did not respect economic analyze straightjacket , i.e., selfish agents and clear markets. About unemployment a critical revision of General Theory s second chapter is made as well the concepts of natural rate and involuntary unemployment. The conclusions are: do not seem that Friedman s instrumentalist approach is the correct referential to Macroeconomics, rational expectations hypothesis do not explain men effective behavior, continuous market clear is tautological, and involuntary unemployment referred to a foreign economic agent individual characteristics situation. It is a Macroeconomic unemployment. At last while Microeconomics can avoid historicists considerations, Macroeconomics can not. Macroeconomics issues are related to historical moment, stage of institutions development and to a more human economic agent behavior / O presente trabalho visa apresentar uma crítica à abordagem walrasiana na Macroeconomia. Apresenta-se o debate entre Keynesianos (Keynes, Novos Keynesianos e Pós Keynesianos) e Neoclássicos (Monetaristas e Novos Clássicos) sobre o método, as expectativas e o equilíbrio na análise econômica. Tenta-se, assim, refutar a crítica de Lucas segundo a qual Keynes não teria respeitado a camisa-de-força da economia, isto é, agentes egoístas e equilíbrio nos mercados. A respeito do desemprego, faz-se uma revisão crítica do segundo capítulo da Teoria Geral, bem como dos conceitos de taxa natural de desemprego e desemprego involuntário. As conclusões obtidas são as seguintes: não parece ser correta a abordagem instrumentalista de Friedman como referência para a Macroeconomia, a hipótese de expectativas racionais pouco diz sobre o comportamento real dos homens, o equilíbrio contínuo dos mercados é tautológico e o desemprego involuntário diz respeito a uma situação alheia às características individuais do agente econômico. É um desemprego macroeconômico. Por fim, enquanto a microeconomia pode abster-se de considerações historicistas, a Macroeconomia não o pode. As questões Macroeconômicas estão ligadas ao momento histórico, ao grau de desenvolvimento das instituições e ao comportamento mais humano do homem econômico