Failure of the Market, State and Economics from the Perspective of the Financial Crisis
Comparative Economic Research, ISSN: 2082-6737, Vol: 13, Issue: 4, Page: 81-97
2010
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
The debate between the advocates of market and interventionist solutions, primarily based on pitting the market against regulation, has escalated as a result of the financial crisis. The objective of the paper is not only to analyze the advantages and drawbacks of alternative regulatory mechanisms in the light of the global economic downturn, but also to evaluate the modern economy from this perspective. The paper focuses on three hypotheses. 1. It is illegitimate to pit the market against regulation. 2. The crisis resulted from the violation of the principles of classical liberalism, which was precipitated both by inadequate policies and by modern economic methodology. 3. Critical analysis of the methodology and logic of the development of 20th century economic thought reveals the existence of a systemic failure of the dominant doctrines in mainstream economics. © 2010, Versita. All rights reserved.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85025288279&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10103-009-0047-y; https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/CER/article/view/6589; http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cer.2010.13.issue-4/v10103-009-0047-y/v10103-009-0047-y.xml; https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cer.2010.13.issue-4/v10103-009-0047-y/v10103-009-0047-y.xml
Uniwersytet Lodzki (University of Lodz)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know