مواد ڏانھن هلو

اقتصاديات

ڳنڍڻن کي سنواريو
کليل ڄاڻ چيڪلي، وڪيپيڊيا مان

اقتصاديات (Economics) هڪ سماجي سائنس آهي جيڪا شين ۽ خدمتن جي پيداوار، ورڇ ۽ استعمال جو مطالعو ڪري ٿي. اقتصاديات اقتصادي ايجنٽ جي رويي ۽ رابطي ۽ اقتصاديات ڪيئن ڪم ڪن ٿيون، تي ڌيان ڏئي ٿي. مائيڪرو اقتصاديات (Microeconomics) معيشتن ۾، بنيادي عنصرن جي طور تي ڏٺي وڃي ٿي، بشمول انفرادي ايجنٽ ۽ مارڪيٽ، انهن جي وچ ۾ رابطي ۽ ڳالهين جا نتيجن جو تجزيو ڪري ٿي. انفرادي ايجنٽ ۾، گھر، فرم، خريد ڪندڙ، ۽ وڪرو ڪندڙ شامل ٿي سگھي ٿو. ميڪرو اقتصاديات (Macroeconomics) اقتصاديات جو نظام جي طور تي تجزيو ڪري ٿي، جتي پيداوار، ورڇ، واپرائڻ، بچت ۽ سيڙپڪاري جي خرچن جو وچ ۾ تعلق آهي ۽ ان کي متاثر ڪندڙ عنصر، پيداوار جا عنصر؛ جهڙوڪ مزدور، سرمايو، زمين ۽ ڪاروبار، افراط زر، معاشي ترقي ۽ عوامي پاليسيون جيڪي انهن عناصر تي اثر انداز ٿين ٿيون، جو مطالعو ڪري ٿي. اهو پڻ عالمي معيشت جو تجزيو ۽ بيان ڪرڻ جي ڪوشش ڪري ٿي. اقتصاديات جي اندر ٻيا وسيع تفاوت شامل آهن جيڪي مثبت اقتصاديات "ڇا آهي" ۽ معياري اقتصاديات، "ڇا ٿيڻ گهرجي" جي حمايت ڪندي؛ اقتصادي نظريي ۽ لاڳو اقتصاديات جي وچ ۾؛ عقلي ۽ رويي جي اقتصاديات جي وچ ۾؛ ۽ مکيه وهڪرو اقتصاديات ۽ هيٽروڊڪس اقتصاديات جي وچ ۾ فرق بيان ڪئي ٿي.

اقتصادي تجزيو سڄي سماج، بشمول ڪاروبار، فنانس، سائبر سيڪيورٽي، صحت جي سار سنڀال، انجنيئرنگ ۽ حڪومت ۾ لاڳو ٿي سگھي ٿو. اهو پڻ مختلف مضامين جهڙوڪ تعليم، خاندان، فيمينزم، قانون، جرم، فلسفو، سياست، سماجي ادارا، مذهب، جنگ، سائنس ۽ ماحول تي لاڳو ڪي ويندي آهي.

اقتصاديات جي تعريف

[سنواريو]

اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو اقتصاديات جي تعريف

نظم و ضبط لاءِ اڳوڻو اصطلاح ”سياسي معيشت“ هو، پر 19هين صديءَ جي آخر کان وٺي، ان کي عام طور تي ”معاشيات“ سڏيو ويو آهي. اصطلاح آخرڪار قديم يوناني οἰκονομία (oikonomia) مان نڪتل آهي، جيڪو هڪ اصطلاح آهي "طريقو (nomos) گھر هلائڻ جو طريقو (oikos)، يا ٻين لفظن ۾ ڄاڻ وارو طريقو οἰκονομικός (oikonomikos)، يا "household. يا هوم اسٽيڊ مينيجر“. نڪتل اصطلاحن جهڙوڪ "معيشت" جو مطلب اڪثر ڪري سگھي ٿو "مفيد" يا "ٿلهي". توسيع سان، "سياسي معيشت" پولس يا رياست کي منظم ڪرڻ جو طريقو هو. اقتصاديات جون جديد وصفون مختلف آهن. ڪجھ موضوع جي ترقي يافته نظرين کي ظاهر ڪن ٿا يا اقتصاديات جي وچ ۾ مختلف نظريا. اسڪاٽش فيلسوف ايڊم سمٿ (1776) وضاحت ڪئي ته ان وقت سياسي معيشت کي ”قومن جي دولت جي نوعيت ۽ سببن جي تحقيق“، خاص طور تي: هڪ سياستدان يا قانون ساز جي سائنس جي هڪ شاخ [فراهم ڪرڻ جي ٻن مقصدن سان] ماڻهن لاءِ ڀرپور آمدني يا رزق ... [۽] رياست يا دولت مشترڪه کي پبلڪ سروسز لاءِ آمدني سان فراهم ڪرڻ. Jean-Baptiste Say (1803)، موضوع کي ان جي عوامي پاليسي جي استعمال کان ڌار ڪندي، ان کي پيداوار، تقسيم، ۽ دولت جي استعمال جي سائنس طور بيان ڪيو. طنز واري پاسي، ٿامس ڪارلائل (1849) ”دي ڊسمل سائنس“ کي ڪلاسيڪل اقتصاديات لاءِ اختصار جي طور تي جوڙيو، ان حوالي سان، عام طور تي مالٿس (1798) جي مايوسي واري تجزيي سان ڳنڍيل آهي. جان اسٽوارٽ مل (1844ع) ان موضوع کي وڌيڪ محدود ڪيو: اها سائنس جيڪا سماج جي اهڙن واقعن جي قانونن جو پتو لڳائي ٿي، جيڪي دولت جي پيداوار لاءِ انسانن جي گڏيل عملن مان پيدا ٿين ٿا، ايتري قدر جو انهن واقعن کي ڪنهن ٻئي شئي جي ڳولا ۾ تبديل نه ڪيو ويو آهي.

earlier term for the discipline was "political economy", but since the late 19th century, it has commonly been called "economics".[1] The term is ultimately derived from Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (oikonomia) which is a term for the "way (nomos) to run a household (oikos)", or in other words the know-how of an οἰκονομικός (oikonomikos), or "household or homestead manager". Derived terms such as "economy" can therefore often mean "frugal" or "thrifty".[2][3][4][5] By extension then, "political economy" was the way to manage a polis or state.

There are a variety of modern definitions of economics; some reflect evolving views of the subject or different views among economists.[6][7] Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as "an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations", in particular as:

a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people ... [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.[8]

Jean-Baptiste Say (1803), distinguishing the subject matter from its public-policy uses, defined it as the science of production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.[9] On the satirical side, Thomas Carlyle (1849) coined "the dismal science" as an epithet for classical economics, in this context, commonly linked to the pessimistic analysis of Malthus (1798).[10] John Stuart Mill (1844) delimited the subject matter further:

The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.[11]

Alfred Marshall provided a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extended analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:

Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.[12]

Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed "[p]erhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject":[7]

Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.[13]

Robbins described the definition as not classificatory in "pick[ing] out certain kinds of behaviour" but rather analytical in "focus[ing] attention on a particular aspect of behaviour, the form imposed by the influence of scarcity."[14] He affirmed that previous economists have usually centred their studies on the analysis of wealth: how wealth is created (production), distributed, and consumed; and how wealth can grow.[15] But he said that economics can be used to study other things, such as war, that are outside its usual focus. This is because war has as the goal winning it (as a sought after end), generates both cost and benefits; and, resources (human life and other costs) are used to attain the goal. If the war is not winnable or if the expected costs outweigh the benefits, the deciding actors (assuming they are rational) may never go to war (a decision) but rather explore other alternatives. Economics cannot be defined as the science that studies wealth, war, crime, education, and any other field economic analysis can be applied to; but, as the science that studies a particular common aspect of each of those subjects (they all use scarce resources to attain a sought after end).

Some subsequent comments criticised the definition as overly broad in failing to limit its subject matter to analysis of markets. From the 1960s, however, such comments abated as the economic theory of maximizing behaviour and rational-choice modelling expanded the domain of the subject to areas previously treated in other fields.[16] There are other criticisms as well, such as in scarcity not accounting for the macroeconomics of high unemployment.[17]

Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, described the approach he favoured as "combin[ing the] assumptions of maximizing behaviour, stable preferences, and market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly."[18] One commentary characterises the remark as making economics an approach rather than a subject matter but with great specificity as to the "choice process and the type of social interaction that [such] analysis involves." The same source reviews a range of definitions included in principles of economics textbooks and concludes that the lack of agreement need not affect the subject-matter that the texts treat. Among economists more generally, it argues that a particular definition presented may reflect the direction toward which the author believes economics is evolving, or should evolve.[7]

Many economists including nobel prize winners James M. Buchanan and Ronald Coase reject the method-based definition of Robbins and continue to prefer definitions like those of Say, in terms of its subject matter.[16] Ha-Joon Chang has for example argued that the definition of Robbins would make economics very peculiar because all other sciences define themselves in terms of the area of inquiry or object of inquiry rather than the methodology. In the biology department, they do not say that all biology should be studied with DNA analysis. People study living organisms in many different ways, so some people will do DNA analysis, others might do anatomy, and still others might build game theoretic models of animal behaviour. But they are all called biology because they all study living organisms. According to Ha Joon Chang, this view that the economy can and should be studied in only one way (for example by studying only rational choices), and going even one step further and basically redefining economics as a theory of everything, is very peculiar.[19]

اثاثو ۽ واجبات

[سنواريو]

اقتصاديات جي علم مطابق ڪنهن به شخص يا ڪمپبي وٽ جيڪو مال ۽ ملڪيت هجي، جن جو ڪاٿو Financial Value رقم ۾ ٿي سگهي ان کي اثاثو Assets سمجهو ويندو آهي ۽ جيڪي رهتون يا قرض يا وياج هجن، انهن کي رھتُون يا واجبات يا Liabilities چئبو آهي. ان وصف مطابق جنهن وٽ پنهنجو گهر، گاڏي، زرعي زمين، شهري پلاٽ، بئنڪ بئلنس، ڪا سيڙپ وغيره هجي ته انهن کي اثاثو سمجهيو ويندو آهي ۽ ساڳي وقت هن تي ڪو قرض، وياج، ڏنڊ، اوڌر، يا ڪا ٻي چٽي رهيل هجي ته ان کي واجبات سمجهو ويندو آهي. سال جي آخر ۾ ماڻهو يا ڪمپنيون پنهنجا اثاثا Assets ۽ واجبات Liabilities جو توازن ڪري Balance sheet ٺاهي اندازو ڪندا آهن ته هو مالدار آهن يا مقروض آهن. پر شخصي مالي معاملن Personal Finances جا ماهر اثاثن ۽ واجبات جي تشريح مختلف طريقن سان ڪن ٿا. هنن مطابق اثاثو ان ملڪيت کي چئبو آهي، جيڪا هر مهيني توهان کي ڪجھ پيسا ڪمائي ڏي ۽ رھت يا واجبات Liability ان کي چئبو آهي، جنهن تي هر مهيني کيسي مان خرچ ڪجي. مثال طور توهان هڪ ڪروڙ روپين جو گهر وٺي جيڪڏهن ان ۾ پاڻ رهو ٿا ۽ ان جي بجلي، پاڻي رنگ روغن تي هر مهيني خرچ ڪيو ٿا ته اهو اثاثو Asset نه آهي. پر چٽي Liability آهي. پر جيڪڏهن هڪ ڪروڙ جو گهر وٺي ان کي مسواڙ تي ڏيو ٿا ته اهو توهان جو اثاثو Asset آهي ڇالاء ته اھو مسواڙ جي مد ۾ هر مهيني ڪجھ ڏڪڙ توهان کي ڪمائي ڏي ٿو . ساڳي طرح جيڪڏهن ڪار وٺي پاڻ چڙهو ٿا ۽ ان جي پئٽرول ۽ مئنٽيننس تي کيسي مان خرچ ڪفيو ٿا ته اها چٽي liability آهي، پر ساڳي ڪار ٽئڪسي يا رينٽ اَي ڪار تي هلايو ٿا ته اها اثاثو ٿي وڃي ٿي. ساڳيو مثال؛ سون، زيور، ٽي وي ، فرج ، سمارٽ فون وغيره جو آهي. اهي توهان کي هر مهيني ڪمائي ڪونه ٿا ڏين، پر هر مهيني انهن جي قدر قيمت ۾ گهٽتائي ٿي اچي. تنهنڪري اهڙن ماهرن نتيجو ڪڍيو آهي ته توهان جيڪڏهن پاڻ کي مالي طور تي خودمختيار Financially Independent ٿيڻ چاهيو ٿا ته سدائين مٿين تشريح مطابق اثاثا خريد ڪرڻ شروع ڪريو. جيڪڏهن توهان ساه سڪائي صرف Liabilities خريد ڪندا رهندئو ته ڪڏهن به مالي طور تي خودمختيار ڪونه ٿي سگهندئو.

اقتصادي سوچ جي تاريخ

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون/مضمونن جي لاءِ ڏسو اقتصادي سوچ جي تاريخ  ۽ ميڪرو اڪنامڪ سوچ جي تاريخ

قديم زماني کان وٺي فزيوڪريٽس تائين

[سنواريو]
A seaport with a ship arriving
سال 1638ع ۾ هڪ فرينچ بندرگاهه جي هڪ پينٽنگ واپار جي عروج جي ڏينهن دوران

وسيلن جي ورڇ جي حوالي سان سوال هيسيوڊ جي لکڻين ۾ ڪيترن ئي جائن تي مليا آهن ۽ ڪيترن ئي معاشي مورخن هيسيوڊ کي پاڻ ”پهريون ماهر اقتصاديات“ قرار ڏنو آهي.[20] تنهن هوندي به، يوناني لفظ اوئڪوس (Oikos)، جنهن مان معيشت (Economics) جو لفظ نڪتل آهي، بجاءِ ڪجهه معياري سماج جي حوالي سان وسيلن جي ورڇ جو نظام، جيڪو تمام گهڻو تازو رجحان آهي، انهن مسئلن لاءِ استعمال ڪيو ويندو هو ته جيئن ڪنهن گهراڻي (زميندار، سندس خاندان ۽ غلام) جو انتظام ڪيئن ڪجي. [21][22] [23] [24] زينوفون (Xenophon)، اوئڪونوميڪس (Oeconomicus) جو مصنف، کي فلولوگس پاران معنوي لفظ معيشت جو ذريعو هجڻ جو ڪريڊٽ ڏنو ويو آهي.[25] جوزف شومپيٽر 16هين ۽ 17هين صديءَ جي علمي ليکڪن، جن ۾ توماس ڊي مرڪاڊو، لوئس ڊي مولينا ۽ جوآن ڊي لوگو شامل آهن، جيئن پئسي، مفاد ۽ قدر جي حوالي سان فطري قانون جي قدر جي نظريي جي پس منظر ۾ ”سائنسي اقتصاديات جا باني" هجڻ جي ڪنهن ٻئي گروهه کان وڌيڪ ويجھو اچي رهيا هئا. [26]

ٻه ٻيا گروهه، جن کي بعد ۾ "مرڪنٽائيلسٽ" ۽ "فزيوڪريٽس" سڏيو ويو، وڌيڪ سڌو سنئون موضوع جي ايندڙ ترقي تي اثر انداز ٿيا. ٻنهي گروهن جو تعلق يورپ ۾ معاشي قوم پرستي ۽ جديد سرمائيداري جي عروج سان هو. مرڪنٽائلزم هڪ معاشي نظريو هو، جيڪو 16هين کان 18هين صدي عيسويءَ تائين پمفليٽ ادب، چاهي واپارين جو هجي يا سياستدانن جو، ۾ وڌو. هن نظريي مطابق؛

"هڪ قوم جي دولت سون ۽ چاندي جا ذخيرا جمع ڪرڻ تي منحصر آهي. جن قومن وٽ (سون ۽ چاندي جي) ڪانن تائين رسائي نه هوندي آهي، اها رڳو ٻاهران مال وڪڻڻ ۽ سون ۽ چانديءَ کان سواءِ ٻيون درآمدون محدود ڪري، واپار مان سون ۽ چانديءَ کي حاصل ڪري سگھن ٿيون."

اهو نظريو سستو خام مال درآمد ڪرڻ، پيداوار جي سامان ۾ استعمال ڪيڻ جيڪا برآمد ٿي سگهي ۽ رياست جي ضابطي لاءِ پرڏيهي ٺاهيل سامان تي حفاظتي محصول لاڳو ڪرڻ ۽ نوآبادين ۾ پيداوار کي منع ڪرڻ، جو مطالبو ڪيو.[27]

فزيوڪريٽس، 18هين صدي جي فرانسيسي مفڪرن ۽ اديبن جو هڪ گروپ، معيشت جي خيال کي آمدني ۽ پيداوار جي گردش جي وهڪري جي طور تي ترقي ڏني. فزيوڪريٽس جو خيال هو ته صرف زرعي پيداوار ئي لاڳت کان وڌيڪ واضح اضافو پيدا ڪري ٿي، تنهنڪري زراعت ئي سموري دولت جو بنياد آهي. [28] اهڙيءَ طرح، هنن زراعت جي خرچ تي پيداوار ۽ واپار کي فروغ ڏيڻ واري واپاري پاليسي جي مخالفت ڪئي، جنهن ۾ درآمدي محصول شامل هئا. فزيوڪريٽس انتظامي طور تي قيمتي ٽيڪس گڏ ڪرڻ جي متبادل طور تي زمين جي مالڪن جي آمدني تي هڪ واحد ٽيڪس گڏ ڪرڻ جي حمايت ڪئي. وڏي پئماني تي واپاري ضابطن جي خلاف رد عمل ۾، فزيوڪريٽس "ليسيز-فيئر" جي پاليسي جي حمايت ڪئي،[29] جنهن ۾ معيشت ۾ گهٽ ۾ گهٽ حڪومتي مداخلت جو مطالبو ڪيو ويو.[30]

ايڊم اسمٿ (1723ع-1790ع) هڪ ابتدائي معاشي نظريادان هو.[31] اسمٿ مرڪنٽائيلسٽ (واپارين) تي سخت تنقيد ڪئي پر فزيوڪريٽن جي نظام کي "پنهنجي سمورين خامين سان" بيان ڪيو ته؛

"شايد حقيقت جي سڀ کان خالص شڪل جيڪا هن موضوع تي اڃا تائين شايع ڪئي وئي آهي."[32]

ڪلاسيڪل سياسي معيشت

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو ڪلاسيڪل اقتصاديات
Picture of Adam Smith facing to the right
The publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776 is considered to be the first formalisation of economic thought.

The publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1776, has been described as "the effective birth of economics as a separate discipline."[33] The book identified land, labour, and capital as the three factors of production and the major contributors to a nation's wealth, as distinct from the physiocratic idea that only agriculture was productive.

Smith discusses potential benefits of specialisation by division of labour, including increased labour productivity and gains from trade, whether between town and country or across countries.[34] His "theorem" that "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market" has been described as the "core of a theory of the functions of firm and industry" and a "fundamental principle of economic organization."[35] To Smith has also been ascribed "the most important substantive proposition in all of economics" and foundation of resource-allocation theory—that, under competition, resource owners (of labour, land, and capital) seek their most profitable uses, resulting in an equal rate of return for all uses in equilibrium (adjusted for apparent differences arising from such factors as training and unemployment).[36]

In an argument that includes "one of the most famous passages in all economics,"[37] Smith represents every individual as trying to employ any capital they might command for their own advantage, not that of the society,[lower-alpha 1] and for the sake of profit, which is necessary at some level for employing capital in domestic industry, and positively related to the value of produce.[39] In this:

He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.[40]

The Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1798) used the concept of diminishing returns to explain low living standards. Human population, he argued, tended to increase geometrically, outstripping the production of food, which increased arithmetically. The force of a rapidly growing population against a limited amount of land meant diminishing returns to labour. The result, he claimed, was chronically low wages, which prevented the standard of living for most of the population from rising above the subsistence level.[41][غير بنيادي ذريعو جي ضرورت آهي] Economist Julian Simon has criticised Malthus's conclusions.[42]

While Adam Smith emphasised production and income, David Ricardo (1817) focused on the distribution of income among landowners, workers, and capitalists. Ricardo saw an inherent conflict between landowners on the one hand and labour and capital on the other. He posited that the growth of population and capital, pressing against a fixed supply of land, pushes up rents and holds down wages and profits. Ricardo was also the first to state and prove the principle of comparative advantage, according to which each country should specialise in producing and exporting goods in that it has a lower relative cost of production, rather relying only on its own production.[43] It has been termed a "fundamental analytical explanation" for gains from trade.[44]

Coming at the end of the classical tradition, John Stuart Mill (1848) parted company with the earlier classical economists on the inevitability of the distribution of income produced by the market system. Mill pointed to a distinct difference between the market's two roles: allocation of resources and distribution of income. The market might be efficient in allocating resources but not in distributing income, he wrote, making it necessary for society to intervene.[45]

Value theory was important in classical theory. Smith wrote that the "real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it". Smith maintained that, with rent and profit, other costs besides wages also enter the price of a commodity.[46] Other classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value'. Classical economics focused on the tendency of any market economy to settle in a final stationary state made up of a constant stock of physical wealth (capital) and a constant population size.

Marxian economics

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو Marxian economics
Photograph of Karl Marx facing the viewer
The Marxist critique of political economy comes from the work of German philosopher Karl Marx.

Marxist (later, Marxian) economics descends from classical economics and it derives from the work of Karl Marx. The first volume of Marx's major work, Das Kapital, was published in 1867. Marx focused on the labour theory of value and theory of surplus value. Marx wrote that they were mechanisms used by capital to exploit labour.[47] The labour theory of value held that the value of an exchanged commodity was determined by the labour that went into its production, and the theory of surplus value demonstrated how workers were only paid a proportion of the value their work had created.[48]

Marxian economics was further developed by Karl Kautsky (1854–1938)'s The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx and The Class Struggle (Erfurt Program), Rudolf Hilferding's (1877–1941) Finance Capital, Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924)'s The Development of Capitalism in Russia and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)'s The Accumulation of Capital.

Neoclassical economics

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو Neoclassical economics

At its inception as a social science, economics was defined and discussed at length as the study of production, distribution, and consumption of wealth by Jean-Baptiste Say in his Treatise on Political Economy or, The Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth (1803). These three items were considered only in relation to the increase or diminution of wealth, and not in reference to their processes of execution.[lower-alpha 2] Say's definition has survived in part up to the present, modified by substituting the word "wealth" for "goods and services" meaning that wealth may include non-material objects as well. One hundred and thirty years later, Lionel Robbins noticed that this definition no longer sufficed,[lower-alpha 3] because many economists were making theoretical and philosophical inroads in other areas of human activity. In his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, he proposed a definition of economics as a study of human behaviour, subject to and constrained by scarcity,[lower-alpha 4] which forces people to choose, allocate scarce resources to competing ends, and economise (seeking the greatest welfare while avoiding the wasting of scarce resources). According to Robbins: "Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses".[14] Robbins' definition eventually became widely accepted by mainstream economists, and found its way into current textbooks.[49] Although far from unanimous, most mainstream economists would accept some version of Robbins' definition, even though many have raised serious objections to the scope and method of economics, emanating from that definition.[50]

A body of theory later termed "neoclassical economics" formed from about 1870 to 1910. The term "economics" was popularised by such neoclassical economists as Alfred Marshall and Mary Paley Marshall as a concise synonym for "economic science" and a substitute for the earlier "political economy".[4][5] This corresponded to the influence on the subject of mathematical methods used in the natural sciences.[51]

Neoclassical economics systematically integrated supply and demand as joint determinants of both price and quantity in market equilibrium, influencing the allocation of output and income distribution. It rejected the classical economics' labour theory of value in favour of a marginal utility theory of value on the demand side and a more comprehensive theory of costs on the supply side.[52] In the 20th century, neoclassical theorists departed from an earlier idea that suggested measuring total utility for a society, opting instead for ordinal utility, which posits behaviour-based relations across individuals.[53][54]

In microeconomics, neoclassical economics represents incentives and costs as playing a pervasive role in shaping decision making. An immediate example of this is the consumer theory of individual demand, which isolates how prices (as costs) and income affect quantity demanded.[53] In macroeconomics it is reflected in an early and lasting neoclassical synthesis with Keynesian macroeconomics.[55][53]

Neoclassical economics is occasionally referred as orthodox economics whether by its critics or sympathisers. Modern mainstream economics builds on neoclassical economics but with many refinements that either supplement or generalise earlier analysis, such as econometrics, game theory, analysis of market failure and imperfect competition, and the neoclassical model of economic growth for analysing long-run variables affecting national income.

Neoclassical economics studies the behaviour of individuals, households, and organisations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends. Agents are assumed to act rationally, have multiple desirable ends in sight, limited resources to obtain these ends, a set of stable preferences, a definite overall guiding objective, and the capability of making a choice. There exists an economic problem, subject to study by economic science, when a decision (choice) is made by one or more players to attain the best possible outcome.[56]

Keynesian economics

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو Keynesian economics
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes, a key economics theorist

Keynesian economics derives from John Maynard Keynes, in particular his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), which ushered in contemporary macroeconomics as a distinct field.[57] The book focused on determinants of national income in the short run when prices are relatively inflexible. Keynes attempted to explain in broad theoretical detail why high labour-market unemployment might not be self-correcting due to low "effective demand" and why even price flexibility and monetary policy might be unavailing. The term "revolutionary" has been applied to the book in its impact on economic analysis.[58]

During the following decades, many economists followed Keynes' ideas and expanded on his works. John Hicks and Alvin Hansen developed the IS–LM model which was a simple formalisation of some of Keynes' insights on the economy's short-run equilibrium. Franco Modigliani and James Tobin developed important theories of private consumption and investment, respectively, two major components of aggregate demand. Lawrence Klein built the first large-scale macroeconometric model, applying the Keynesian thinking systematically to the US economy.[59]

Post-WWII economics

[سنواريو]

Immediately after World War II, Keynesian was the dominant economic view of the United States establishment and its allies, Marxian economics was the dominant economic view of the Soviet Union nomenklatura and its allies.

Monetarism

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو Monetarism

Monetarism appeared in the 1950s and 1960s, its intellectual leader being Milton Friedman. Monetarists contended that monetary policy and other monetary shocks, as represented by the growth in the money stock, was an important cause of economic fluctuations, and consequently that monetary policy was more important than fiscal policy for purposes of stabilisation.[60][61] Friedman was also skeptical about the ability of central banks to conduct a sensible active monetary policy in practice, advocating instead using simple rules such as a steady rate of money growth.[62]

Monetarism rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s, when several major central banks followed a monetarist-inspired policy, but was later abandoned again because the results turned out to be unsatisfactory.[63][64]

New classical economics

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو New classical macroeconomics

A more fundamental challenge to the prevailing Keynesian paradigm came in the 1970s from new classical economists like Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent and Edward Prescott. They introduced the notion of rational expectations in economics, which had profound implications for many economic discussions, among which were the so-called Lucas critique and the presentation of real business cycle models.[65]

New Keynesians

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو New Keynesian economics

During the 1980s, a group of researchers appeared being called New Keynesian economists, including among others George Akerlof, Janet Yellen, Gregory Mankiw and Olivier Blanchard. They adopted the principle of rational expectations and other monetarist or new classical ideas such as building upon models employing micro foundations and optimizing behaviour, but simultaneously emphasised the importance of various market failures for the functioning of the economy, as had Keynes.[66] Not least, they proposed various reasons that potentially explained the empirically observed features of price and wage rigidity, usually made to be endogenous features of the models, rather than simply assumed as in older Keynesian-style ones.

New neoclassical synthesis

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو New neoclassical synthesis

After decades of often heated discussions between Keynesians, monetarists, new classical and new Keynesian economists, a synthesis emerged by the 2000s, often given the name the new neoclassical synthesis. It integrated the rational expectations and optimizing framework of the new classical theory with a new Keynesian role for nominal rigidities and other market imperfections like imperfect information in goods, labour and credit markets. The monetarist importance of monetary policy in stabilizing[67] the economy and in particular controlling inflation was recognised as well as the traditional Keynesian insistence that fiscal policy could also play an influential role in affecting aggregate demand. Methodologically, the synthesis led to a new class of applied models, known as dynamic stochastic general equilibrium or DSGE models, descending from real business cycles models, but extended with several new Keynesian and other features. These models proved very useful and influential in the design of modern monetary policy and are now standard workhorses in most central banks.[68]

After the financial crisis

[سنواريو]

After the 2007–2008 financial crisis, macroeconomic research has put greater emphasis on understanding and integrating the financial system into models of the general economy and shedding light on the ways in which problems in the financial sector can turn into major macroeconomic recessions. In this and other research branches, inspiration from behavioural economics has started playing a more important role in mainstream economic theory.[69] Also, heterogeneity among the economic agents, e.g. differences in income, plays an increasing role in recent economic research.[70]

Other schools and approaches

[سنواريو]
اصل مضمون جي لاءِ ڏسو Schools of economic thought

Other schools or trends of thought referring to a particular style of economics practised at and disseminated from well-defined groups of academicians that have become known worldwide, include the Freiburg School, the School of Lausanne, the Stockholm school and the Chicago school of economics. During the 1970s and 1980s mainstream economics was sometimes separated into the Saltwater approach of those universities along the Eastern and Western coasts of the US, and the Freshwater, or Chicago school approach.[71]

Within macroeconomics there is, in general order of their historical appearance in the literature; classical economics, neoclassical economics, Keynesian economics, the neoclassical synthesis, monetarism, new classical economics, New Keynesian economics[72] and the new neoclassical synthesis.[73]

Beside the mainstream development of economic thought, various alternative or heterodox economic theories have evolved over time, positioning themselves in contrast to mainstream theory.[74] These include:[74]

Additionally, alternative developments include Marxian economics, constitutional economics, institutional economics, evolutionary economics, dependency theory, structuralist economics, world systems theory, econophysics, econodynamics, feminist economics and biophysical economics.[80]

Feminist economics emphasises the role that gender plays in economies, challenging analyses that render gender invisible or support gender-oppressive economic systems.[81] The goal is to create economic research and policy analysis that is inclusive and gender-aware to encourage gender equality and improve the well-being of marginalised groups.

طريقا

[سنواريو]

مائڪرو اقتصاديات

[سنواريو]

ميڪرو اقتصاديات

[سنواريو]

اقتصاديات جون ٻيون شاخون

[سنواريو]

لاڳاپيل مضمون

[سنواريو]

پيشو

[سنواريو]

پڻ ڏسو

[سنواريو]

مطالعي جا وسيلا

[سنواريو]

خارجي لنڪس

[سنواريو]

عام معلومات

[سنواريو]

تنظيمون ۽ ادارا

[سنواريو]


حوالا

[سنواريو]
  1. ↑ Backhouse, Roger (2002). The Penguin history of economics. Penguin Adult. pp. 117. ISBN 0-14-026042-0. OCLC 59475581. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/59475581. 
  2. ↑ The terms derive ultimately from οἶκος (oikos "house") and νόμος (nomos, "custom" or "law"). Harper, Douglas. "Economy". Online Etymology Dictionary. وقت 12 May 2013 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 27 October 2007.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  3. ↑ Free, Rhona C., ed (2010). 21st Century Economics: A Reference Handbook. 1. Sage Publications. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-4129-6142-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=hRFadIRMaMsC&pg=PA8. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Marshall, Alfred; Marshall, Mary Paley (1888). The Economics of Industry. Macmillan. p. 2. https://archive.org/details/economicsindust00marsgoog. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Jevons, William Stanley (1879). The Theory of Political Economy (2nd ed.). Macmillan and Co. p. XIV. https://archive.org/details/theorypolitical00jevogoog. 
  6. ↑ Backhouse, Roger E.; Medema, Steven. "Economics, definition of". ۾ Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. صفحا. 720–722. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.0442. وقت 5 October 2017 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 23 December 2011.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Backhouse, Roger E.; Medema, Steven (Winter 2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics". Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (1): 221–233. doi:10.1257/jep.23.1.221. 
  8. ↑ Smith, Adam (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  and Book IV, as quoted in Groenwegen, Peter. "Political Economy". ۾ Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. صفحا. 476–480. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.1300. وقت 5 October 2017 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 4 October 2017.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  9. ↑ Say, Jean Baptiste (1803). A Treatise on Political Economy. Grigg and Elliot. 
  10. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  11. ↑ Mill, John Stuart (2007). "On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It". Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. Cosimo. ISBN 978-1-60206-978-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=4TxQqkP40fYC&pg=PA99. Retrieved 4 October 2017. 
  12. ↑ Marshall, Alfred (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan and Company. pp. 1–2. https://archive.org/details/principlesecono00marsgoog. 
  13. ↑ Robbins, Lionel (2007). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-61016-039-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=nySoIkOgWQ4C&pg=PA15. 
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Robbins (2007), p. 16.
  15. ↑ Robbins (2007), pp. 4–7.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  17. ↑ Blaug, Mark. "Economics". Encyclopædia Britannica. وقت 25 June 2022 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 4 October 2017.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  18. ↑ Becker, Gary S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-226-04112-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=iwEOFKSKbMgC&pg=PA5. 
  19. ↑ Seung-Yoon Lee. "Ha-Joon Chang: Economics Is A Political Argument". huffpost.com. Huffington Post. وقت 19 October 2021 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  20. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  21. ↑ Backhouse, Roger (2002). The Penguin history of economics. Penguin Adult. ISBN 0-14-026042-0. OCLC 59475581. https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/59475581. Retrieved 3 June 2022. 
  22. ↑ Cameron, Gregory. (2008). Oikos and Economy: The Greek Legacy in Economic Thought.
  23. ↑ "Oikos Meaning in Bible – New Testament Greek Lexicon – New American Standard". biblestudytools.com. وقت 19 November 2021 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 2021-11-19.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  24. ↑ Jameson, Michael H. "houses, Greek". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Classics. ISBN 978-0-19-938113-5. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.013.3169. وقت 19 November 2021 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 2021-11-19.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  25. ↑ Lowry, S. Todd (1998) (de ۾). Xenophons Oikonomikos, Über einen Klassiker der Haushaltsökonomie. Düsseldorf: Verlag Wirtschaft und Finanzen. pp. 77. ISBN 3878811276. 
  26. ↑ Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis. Routledge. pp. 97, 101, 112. ISBN 978-0-415-10888-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=pl4DABZfGREC&pg=PA97. 
  27. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  28. ↑ Bertholet, Auguste (2021). "Constant, Sismondi et la Pologne". Annales Benjamin Constant 46: 78–81. https://www.slatkine.com/fr/editions-slatkine/75250-book-05077807-3600120175625.html. Retrieved 20 January 2022. 
  29. ↑ Bertholet, Auguste; Kapossy, Béla (2023) (fr ۾). La Physiocratie et la Suisse. Geneva: Slatkine. ISBN 9782051029391. https://www.slatkine.com/fr/slatkine-reprints-erudition/75939-book-07102939-9782051029391.html. 
  30. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  31. ↑ Hunt, E. K. (2002). History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective. M.E. Sharpe. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-7656-0606-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=duYaugxYHdIC&pg=PA36. 
  32. ↑ Skousen, Mark (2001). The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers. M.E. Sharpe. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-7656-0479-8. https://archive.org/details/makingo_sko_2001_00_5649. 
  33. ↑ Blaug (2017), p. 343.
  34. ↑ Deardorff, Alan V. "Division of labor". Deardorffs' Glossary of International Economics. University of Michigan. وقت 16 March 2020 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 1 March 2012.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  35. ↑ Stigler, George J. (June 1951). "The Division of Labor Is Limited by the Extent of the Market". Journal of Political Economy 59 (3): 185–193. doi:10.1086/257075. https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/stigler.pdf. Retrieved 26 August 2017. 
  36. ↑ Stigler, George J. (December 1976). "The Successes and Failures of Professor Smith". Journal of Political Economy 84 (6): 1199–1213. doi:10.1086/260508.  Also published as The Successes and Failures of Professor Smith (PDF). Selected Papers, No. 50 (Report) (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago). وقت 25 August 2016 تي اصل (PDF) کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 16 August 2010.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  37. ↑ Samuelson & Nordhaus (2010), p. 30, ch. 2, "Markets and Government in a Modern Economy", The Invisible Hand.
  38. ↑ Smith 1776, Bk. II: ch. 1, 2, and 5.
  39. ↑ Smith (1776), Bk. IV: Of Systems of political Œconomy, ch. II, "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home", IV.2.3 para. 3–5 and 8–9.
  40. ↑ Smith (1776), Bk. IV: Of Systems of political Œconomy, ch. II, "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of such Goods as can be Produced at Home", para. 9.
  41. ↑ Malthus, Thomas (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. J. Johnson Publisher. 
  42. ↑ Simon, Julian Lincoln (1981). The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press. ; and Simon, Julian Lincoln (1996). The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00381-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=wVyDwYqq5fMC&pg=PP1. 
  43. ↑ Ricardo, David (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. John Murray. 
  44. ↑ Findlay, Ronald. "Comparative advantage". ۾ Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. صفحا. 28–33. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.0274. وقت 11 October 2017 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 16 August 2010.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  45. ↑ Mill, John Stuart (1848). Principles of Political Economy. John W. Parker Publisher. 
  46. ↑ Smith (1776), Bk. 1, Ch. 5, 6.
  47. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  48. ↑ Fuller, Thomas (17 September 2009). "Communism and Capitalism Are Mixing in Laos". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/asia/18laos.html. 
  49. ↑ Backhouse, Roger E.; Medema, Steven G. Defining Economics: the Long Road to Acceptance of the Robbins Definition (PDF). Lionel Robbins's essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 75th anniversary conference proceedings. صفحا. 209–230. وقت 4 March 2016 تي اصل (PDF) کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 30 July 2014.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد) also published in Backhouse, Roger E; Medema, Steve G (October 2009). "Defining Economics: The Long Road to Acceptance of the Robbins Definition". Economica 76 (Supplement 1): 805–820. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00789.x. 
  50. ↑ Backhouse & Medema (2007), p. 223: "There remained division over whether economics was defined by a method or a subject matter but both sides in that debate could increasingly accept some version of the Robbins definition."
  51. ↑ Clark, Barry (1998). Political Economy: A Comparative Approach (2nd ed.). Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-95869-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=3wpiDzS45PsC&pg=PP1. 
  52. ↑ Campus, Antonietta. "Marginalist economics". ۾ Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. صفحا. 1–6. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.3031. وقت 27 October 2017 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 27 October 2017.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 Hicks, J.R. (April 1937). "Mr. Keynes and the "Classics": A Suggested Interpretation". Econometrica 5 (2): 147–159. doi:10.2307/1907242. 
  54. ↑ Black, R.D. Collison. "Utility". ۾ Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. صفحا. 577–581. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.1781. وقت 28 October 2017 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 27 October 2017.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  55. ↑ حوالي جي چڪ: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Blanchard2008
  56. ↑ Tesfatsion, Leigh (Winter 2002). "Agent-Based Computational Economics: Growing Economies from the Bottom Up". Artificial Life 8 (1): 55–82. doi:10.1162/106454602753694765. PMID 12020421. https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/acealife.pdf. Retrieved 24 June 2020. 
  57. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  58. ↑ سانچو:Unbulleted list citebundle
  59. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), p. 510.
  60. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), p. 511.
  61. ↑ Bernanke, Ben. "Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke". The Federal Reserve Board. وقت 24 March 2020 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 22 February 2009.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  62. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), p. 512.
  63. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), p. 483-484.
  64. ↑ "Federal Reserve Board - Historical Approaches to Monetary Policy". Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. حاصل ڪيل 29 October 2023. 
  65. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), pp. 512–516.
  66. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), pp. 516–517.
  67. ↑ Woodford, Michael (2009). "Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis". American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 1 (1): 267–279. doi:10.1257/mac.1.1.267. ISSN 1945-7707. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25760267. 
  68. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), pp. 517–518.
  69. ↑ Blanchard et al. (2017), pp. 518–519.
  70. ↑ Guvenen, Fatih. "Macroeconomics with Heterogeneity: A Practical Guide" (PDF). www.nber.org. National Bureau of Economic Research. حاصل ڪيل 29 October 2023. 
  71. ↑ Gordon, Robert J., Productivity Growth, Inflation, and Unemployment, Cambridge University Press, صفحا. 226–227, ISBN 978-0-521-53142-9 
  72. ↑ Gali, Jordi (2015). Monetary Policy, Inflation and the Business Cycle: An Introduction to the New Keynesian Framework and Its Applications (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-0-691-16478-6. https://books.google.com/books?id=5GuYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA5. 
  73. ↑ Woodford, Michael. "Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis" (PDF). The New Consensus. وقت 21 December 2008 تي اصل (PDF) کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 31 August 2021.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  74. ↑ 74.0 74.1 Lee, Frederic S. (2008). "Heterodox Economics". The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: 1–7. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2487-1. ISBN 978-1-349-95121-5. 
  75. ↑ "WHAT IS AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS?". وقت 23 October 2020 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل February 13, 2022.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  76. ↑ "The Austrian Theory of Efficiency and the Role of Government". وقت 14 February 2022 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 14 February 2022.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  77. ↑ Harcourt, G.C. "Post-Keynesian economics". ۾ Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan UK. صفحا. 47–50. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.3307. وقت 12 April 2020 تي اصل کان آرڪائيو ٿيل. حاصل ڪيل 13 February 2020.  Unknown parameter |url-status= ignored (مدد)
  78. ↑ Xepapadeas, Anastasios (2008). "Ecological Economics". The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics: 1–8. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2141-1. ISBN 978-1-349-95121-5. 
  79. ↑ Berlin, D. I. W. "DIW Berlin: A Matter of Opinion : How Ecological and Neoclassical Environmental Economists Think about Sustainability and Economics". www.diw.de (ٻولي ۾ German). حاصل ڪيل 29 October 2023. 
  80. ↑ Greenwolde, Nathanial (23 October 2009). "New School of Thought Brings Energy to 'the Dismal Science'". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/23/23greenwire-new-school-of-thought-brings-energy-to-the-dis-63367.html. 
  81. ↑ Julie A. Nelson (2016-01-01). "Feminist Economics". The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. pp. 1–6. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2210-1. ISBN 978-1-349-95121-5. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2210-1. Retrieved 2023-12-07. 


حوالي جي چڪ: "lower-alpha" نالي جي حوالن جي لاءِ ٽيگ <ref> آهن، پر لاڳاپيل ٽيگ <references group="lower-alpha"/> نہ مليو

"https://sd.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=اقتصاديات&oldid=298268" تان ورتل