Io non ho idea di chi sia Brian Arthur... quindi consiglierei "reject
charter" (per quel che ci riguarda, il messaggio non ha a che fare con la
fisica).
Cordialmente,
Mauro Venier.
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, it.scienza.fisica wrote:
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:59:39 +0100
> From: it.scienza.fisica <it-scienza-fisica_at_news.nic.it>
> To: Piero Sandroni <prsnd_at_tin.it>
> Cc: Mauro Venier <venier_at_uni-muenster.de>
> Subject: Chi � Brian Arthur
>
> Scusate se ritorno sull' argomento ma cosa devo farne di
> questo post ?? Vi avevo gia' posto questa domanda ma poi
> non ottenendo risposta ho optato per un reject crosspost.
>
> Ora e' ritornato e per giunta non e' in crosspost !!!
>
> Non so proprio che fare, e di Brian Arthur non mi frega niente.
>
> Conto sui vostri suggerimenti
>
> Aniello Saggese
>
>
> Command: 991128.0212.3221 approve
> #
>
> From: ernesto.alto_at_iol.it (ernesto)
> Newsgroups: it.scienza.fisica
> Subject: Chi � Brian Arthur
> Message-ID: <383efa30.269842853_at_news.iol.it>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
> Old-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.52.75.178
> X-Complaints-To: abuse_at_iol.it
> X-Trace: typhoon.libero.it 943751539 212.52.75.178 (Sun, 28 Nov 1999 02:12:19 MET)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 02:12:19 MET
> Organization: [Infostrada]
>
> Per chi vuol saperne di pi�: si � parlato sul NG it.scienza e su
> quello di soc.culture.italian di Brian Arthur, anche con accenti poco
> lusinghieri. Ecco chi �:
>
> WILLIAM BRIAN ARTHUR
> Santa Fe Institute o 1399 Hyde Park Rd o Santa Fe, NM 87501
> Tel. (505) 984-8800 ext 281 o Fax (505) 982-0565
> Professional Experience
> 1998-present Coopers & Lybrand Fellow
> 1994-present Santa Fe Institute
> Citibank Professor, Santa Fe Institute
> 1983-1996: Stanford University
> Dean and Virginia Morrison Professor of Economics and Population
> Studies
> At age 37, youngest endowed-chair professor at Stanford. Co-founded
> and chaired Stanford's Morrison Institute of Population Studies. Over
> the last seventeen years, pioneered increasing-returns (or
> positive-feedback) economics.
> 1988-present Santa Fe Institute
> Member, Science Board, and Steering Committee, 1987-1997,
> Member, Board of Trustees, from 1994; External Professor, 1998-1994.
> Directed SFI's first Research Program (in Economics) 1988-1989, and in
> 1995.
> 1977-1982: Research Scholar, System and Decision Sciences Group.
> International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg,
> Austria.
> At this US-Soviet research institute conducted research on
> optimization theory and on population economics. With two Soviet
> probability theorists in 1981 generalized the Borel Strong Law of
> Large Numbers
> 1974-1977: Associate, The Population Council, New York
> Research on population and economic development in South Asia and the
> Middle East
>
> Education
> Ph.D. Operations Research, University of California, Berkeley, 1973
> Doctoral Minor: Finance
> M.A. Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1973
> M.A. Mathematics, University of Michigan, 1969
> M.A. Operational Research, University of Lancaster, England, 1967
> B. Sc. with 1st class Honours. Electrical Engineering, Queen's
> University, N. Ireland, 1966
>
> Consulting Experience
> Dept of Justice vs. Microsoft case (with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich &
> Rosatti) 1994-95
> Citibank: Citicorp Investment Bank, Hong Kong 1990-1991
> BASF, Deutsche Bank, and Volkswagen (with McKinsey & Co.) 1969-1970
> Consultant to several other financial institutions and consulting
> firms
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Il famosissimo Kenneth Arrow, Nobel dell'economia, gli scrisse questa
> prefazione:
>
> Foreword by Kenneth J. Arrow to Arthur's book,
> Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, 1994, U.Mich
> Press, Ann Arbor
>
> The concept of increasing returns has had a long but uneasy presence
> in economic analysis. The opening chapters of Adam Smith's Wealth of
> Nations put great emphasis on increasing returns to explain both
> specialization and economic growth. Yet the object of study moves
> quickly to a competitive system and a cost-of-production theory of
> value, which cannot be made rigorous except by assuming constant
> returns. The English school (David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill) followed
> the competitive assumptions and quietly dropped Smith's boldly-stated
> proposition that, "the division of labor is limited by the extent of
> the market," division of labor having been shown to lead to increased
> productivity.
>
> Other analysts in different traditions, especially the French
> mathematician and economist, A. A. Cournot (1838), saw clearly enough
> the incompatibility of increasing returns and perfect competition and
> developed theories of monopoly and oligopoly to explain the economic
> system implied by increasing returns. But this tradition acts like an
> underground river, springing to the surface only every few decades.
> Alfred Marshall expanded broadly, if vaguely, on the implications of
> increasing returns, including those for economic growth, irreversible
> supply curves, and the like, as well as the novel and far-reaching
> concept of externalities, where some, at least, of the increasing
> returns are captured, not by the producer but by others.
>
> The implications of increasing returns for imperfect competition were
> developed, though far from completely, by Edward Chamberlin and Joan
> Robinson in the 1930s. There was sporadic emphasis on the role
> of increasing returns in economic growth by Allyn Young (1928) (but
> only in very general terms) and then by Nicholas Kaldor in the 1950s.
> Many developmental theorists, particularly in the 1950s, advocated
> radical planning policies based on vague notions of increasing
> returns.
>
> It is in this context that Brian Arthur's precise and fully-modeled
> papers caused us all to understand clearly and specifically what kinds
> of models have what kinds of implications. One outstanding
> characteristic of Arthur's viewpoint is its emphatically dynamic
> nature. Learning by using or doing plays an essential role, as opposed
> to static examples of returns to scale (e.g., those based on
> volume-area relations). The object of study is a history.
>
> Another distinctive feature of most of the work is its stochastic
> character. This permits emphasis on the importance of random
> deviations for long-term tendencies. In particular, nonlinear Polya
> processes, studied by Arthur and his probabilistic colleagues,
> have very interesting properties. Among them are several essential
> implications of Arthur's viewpoint, in particular the multiplicity of
> possible long-run states, depending on initial conditions and on
> random fluctuations over time, and the specialization (in terms of
> process or geographical location) in an outcome achieved.
>
> Increasing returns have more than one source. Arthur (in collaboration
> with David Lane) shows how the transmission of information based on
> experience may serve also as a reinforcement for early leading
> positions and so act in a manner parallel to more standard forms of
> increasing returns. A similar phenomenon occurs even in individual
> learning, where again successes reinforce some courses of action and
> inhibit others, thereby causing the first to be sampled more
> intensively, and so forth. There are in all of these models opposing
> tendencies, some toward achieving an optimum, some toward locking in
> on inefficient forms of behavior.
>
> It is clear that Arthur's papers, collected in this volume, are an
> important part of the modern movement toward using positive feedback
> mechanisms to explain economic growth. Arthur's views are indeed more
> nuanced; they show how the same mechanisms can lead to inefficiency
> under suitable initial conditions or random fluctuations, and so they
> provide a necessary corrective to some overly optimistic current
> tendencies in thought.
>
> Arthur's papers, while modeled according to the highest analytical
> standards, sometimes look different from standard economic analysis,
> and that is a compliment.
>
> Expectations are frequently myopic, based on limited information.
> Prices, though always present, are not always given the exaggerated
> importance of much current economic orthodoxy, though it must be added
> there is an excellent analysis of their strategic use in positive
> feedback situations. I must emphasize the importance of these variant
> approaches, particularly in areas where conventional tools simply
> fail.
>
> It is a benefit to economists to have these papers from widely
> scattered sources brought together conveniently. The volume will be an
> important stimulus to new research in these areas.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> E questa � la lettera, citata a sproposito su questo NG, poich� ha il
> significato contrario a quello datogli. Non � Arrow a dissociarsi da
> Arthur, ma � Krugman ad ammettere di aver calcato la mano nela sua
> cristica:
>
> Letter from Kenneth J. Arrow, January 17, 1998
> To Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine:
> Paul Krugman's attack on Brian Arthur in the January 14 issue of your
> journal requires a correction of its misrepresentations of fact.
>
> ARTHUR is a reputable and significant scholar whose work is indeed
> having influence in the field of industrial organization and in
> particular public policy towards anti-trust policy in high-tech
> industries.
>
> KRUGMAN admits that he wrote the article because he was "JUST PISSED
> OFF," not a very good state for a judicious statement of facts, as his
> column shows.
>
> His theme is stated in his first paragraph: "Cassidy's article [in the
> New Yorker of Jan 12] tells the story of how Stanford Professor Brian
> Arthur came up with the idea of increasing returns." Cassidy however
> said nothing of the sort. The concept of increasing returns is indeed
> very old, and Cassidy at no point attributed that idea to Arthur.
> Indeed, the phrase, "increasing returns," appears just once in
> Cassidy's article and then merely to say that Arthur had used the term
> while others refer to network externalities. Further, Arthur has never
> made any such preposterous claim at any other time. On the contrary,
> his papers have fully cited the history of the field and made
> references to the previous papers, including those of Paul Krugman
> (see Arthur's papers collected in the volume, Increasing Returns and
> Path Dependence in the Economy, University of Michigan Press, 1994,
> and especially his Preface and my Foreword for longer comments on
> Arthur's work in historic perspective). Hence, Krugman's whole attack
> is directed at a statement made neither by Arthur nor by Cassidy.
> Krugman has not read Cassidy's piece with any care nor has he bothered
> to review what Arthur has in fact said.
> What Cassidy in fact did in his article was to trace a line of
> influence between one of Arthur's early articles and the current
> claims of the Department of Justice against Microsoft. It appears that
> Cassidy based his article on several interviews, not just one.
> The point that Arthur has emphasized and which is influential in the
> current debates about anti-trust policy is the DYNAMIC IMPLICATION OF
> INCREASING RETURNS. It is the concept of path-dependence, that small
> events, whether random or the result of corporate strategic choice,
> may have large consequences because of increasing returns of various
> kinds. Initial small advantages become magnified, for example, by
> creating a large installed base and direct the future, possibly in an
> inefficient direction. Techniques of production may be locked in at an
> early stage. Similar considerations apply to regional development and
> learning.
> Sincerely yours,
> Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel Laureate, and Joan Kenney Professor of
> Economics Emeritus, Stanford University
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Concludendo: il Nobel Kenneth Arrow aveva perfettamente capito
> l'importanza delle idee di Brian Arthur (anche se gli sviluppi sono
> forse stati meno esaltanti dello sperato), nella sua prefazione aveva
> citato TUTTI gli studi precedenti gi� compiuti sui rendimenti
> crescenti e quindi cade l'accusa che Brian volesse accreditarseli (del
> resto cosa comica nella comunit� degli studiosi) ma ne illustra la
> novit� e la peculiarit�.
> Krugman poi ammette di aver "pisciato fuori" con le sue critiche
> eccessive al lavoro di Arthur e Kenneth Arrow, ancora l'anno scorso
> difende Brian, ora coinvolto nel caso Microsoft.
>
> Io, che economista non sono anche se laureato in economia, trovai
> eccitanti le dinamiche e le idee di Brian Arthur che mi sembravano
> scuotere un poco il castello statico e irreale di certa economia e
> sono lieto che la stessa sensazione abbia avuto il Papa dell'economia,
> il Nobel Kenneth Arrow.
>
> Saluti a tutti
>
> Ernesto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
***************************************************************
* MAURO VENIER *
* Institut f�r Kernphysik - Westf�lische Wilhelms Universit�t *
* Wilhelm Klemm Stra�e 9, 48149 M�nster, Germany *
* Tel.: +49.251.8334969(B�ro)/8334980(Labor)/8334962(Fax) *
* E-mail: venier_at_uni-muenster.de *
***************************************************************
Solo due cose sono infinite: l'universo e la stupidit�,
e sul primo non sono sicuro.
(Albert Einstein)
Received on Mon Nov 29 1999 - 00:00:00 CET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Thu Nov 21 2024 - 05:10:41 CET