Second contribution to the ENE critique: Reply to Davidson, part 1

O’Donnell, R

Second contribution to the ENE critique: Reply to Davidson, part 1

O’Donnell, R

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2016, 39 (1), pp. 17 - 43
Issue Date:: 2016-01-02

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Second contribution to the ENE critique Reply to Davidson part 1.pdf	Published Version	612.43 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	O’Donnell, R	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-01-02	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2016, 39 (1), pp. 17 - 43	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0160-3477	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/90315
dc.description.abstract	© 2016, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. On first encounter, the ergodic/nonergodic (ENE) approach has apparent plausibility. Although concerned by some of its problems for many years, it was only after more concentrated reflection on both its parts and their combinations that I became aware of its manifold deficiencies, some of which I outlined in my previous critique (O’Donnell, 2014). In this paper, facilitated by Davidson’s (2015b) rejoinder, these criticisms are deepened, broadened, and strengthened. Because the debate deals with fundamental matters in several disciplines, a considerable amount of investigation, unpacking, and logical dissection is required to clarify the argumentation beneath the compressed and seemingly smooth surface of the ENE position. For this reason, my reply is divided into two parts. This contribution primarily examines the central role of framing in ENE arguments, and clarifies the various misunderstandings and misrepresentations to which it leads. The subsequent contribution provides more detailed discussion of mathematical, stochastic, and methodological issues.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Post Keynesian Economics	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/01603477.2016.1148617	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Economics	en_US
dc.title	Second contribution to the ENE critique: Reply to Davidson, part 1	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	39	en_US
utslib.for	1401 Economic Theory	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	39	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. On first encounter, the ergodic/nonergodic (ENE) approach has apparent plausibility. Although concerned by some of its problems for many years, it was only after more concentrated reflection on both its parts and their combinations that I became aware of its manifold deficiencies, some of which I outlined in my previous critique (O’Donnell, 2014). In this paper, facilitated by Davidson’s (2015b) rejoinder, these criticisms are deepened, broadened, and strengthened. Because the debate deals with fundamental matters in several disciplines, a considerable amount of investigation, unpacking, and logical dissection is required to clarify the argumentation beneath the compressed and seemingly smooth surface of the ENE position. For this reason, my reply is divided into two parts. This contribution primarily examines the central role of framing in ENE arguments, and clarifies the various misunderstandings and misrepresentations to which it leads. The subsequent contribution provides more detailed discussion of mathematical, stochastic, and methodological issues.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/90315