A paradigmatic change is needed for understanding the real market

Weiying Zhang

China Economic Review, 2021, vol. 66, issue C

Abstract: Economics in China has been neoclassicalized in the past few decades. In this article, I argue that neoclassical economics is not a good theory of the market. It misleads both economists and government in understanding the economic issues. China is particularly vulnerable to its defects. In contrast, the Austrian School of economics is a better theory of the market since it studies the real market, not an imaginary market. The most important difference between the two economics paradigms is their understandings of the entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is missed in neoclassical economics. In the Austrian School economics and Schumpeterian economics, entrepreneurship is the soul of the market. The paradigm shift of economics is urgently needed but it will be a slow process. Chinese economists should play a role in this transformation.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X21000201
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:chieco:v:66:y:2021:i:c:s1043951x21000201

DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2021.101602

Access Statistics for this article

China Economic Review is currently edited by B.M. Fleisher, K. X. D. Huang, M.E. Lovely, Y. Wen, X. Zhang and X. Zhu

More articles in China Economic Review from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().