Géniuszok párharca. Milton Friedman és J. M. Keynes vitája Tim Congdon és Robert Skidelsky előadásában = War of the geniuses. The debate between Milton Friedman and J. M. Keynes as presented by Tim Congdon and Robert Skidelsky

Tavaly ünnepelte a közgazdász-társadalom Milton Friedman Nobel-díjas közgazdász születésének századik évfordulóját. A jubileumi megemlékezésnek különös aktualitást ad, hogy a 2008 óta tartó pénzügyi világválság hátterében ismét fellobbant a 20. századi közgazdaságtan két meghatározó irányzata - a Friedman nevével fémjelzett monetarizmus és a Keynes és követői által követett keynesizmus - közötti vita. E szerteágazó vitasorozat egyik "gyöngyszeme" két nemzetközileg ismert és elismert közgazdász, Tim Congdon és Robert (Lord) Skidelsky, összecsapása a Standpoint hasábjain 2009-ben. A szerző megmutatja, hogy a vita valójában nem a pénz fontosságáról vagy a mennyiségi pénzelmélet igazságáról folyt, hanem egyrészt egy sokkal elvontabb fogalomról: a bizonytalanság közgazdasági szerepéről, másrészt gyakorlati, gazdaságpolitikai kérdésekről: a monetáris és a fiskális politika lehetséges hatékonyságáról. A máig is tartó vitában "az inga többször kilengett", hol a keynesiánusok, hol a monetaristák javára, de még semmi nem dőlt el. ____ Last year economists marked the centenary of the birth of genius among them, Milton Friedman. The commemoration was especially topical because the world financial crisis that erupted in 2008 has brought sharply into focus again the old division in 20th-century economics between monetarism and Keynesianism. One highlight in this series of disputes was the 2009 clash between two internationally known and appreciated economists Tim Congdon and Robert (Lord) Skidelsky in the columns of Standpoint. The central element in the discussion is the role of money: what kind of economic policy to pursue, monetary or fiscal, to pull troubled economies out of crisis. The question closely resembles a decisive dilemma for Keynes in the 1930s. Though Keynes turned against some basic propositions of neoclassical economics, he never challenged the importance of money to the functioning of the economy, or the validity of the quantity theory of money. The author argues here that the issue is not about the formal category of money or demand for it, but about the far deeper economic concept of the role of uncertainty in economics. Another aspect concerns the relative efficiency of various kinds of economic policy, i. e. the strengths and weaknesses of monetary and fiscal policies.

What makes ISAF s/tick: An investigation of the politics of coalition burden-sharing

This paper is interested in conceptualising the often raised issue of over- and under-contributing in coalition operations; that of how and why members of complex coalitions2 may be punching above and below their weight, respectively. To this end, the first section presents a parsimonious baseline assumption regarding what variables may fundamentally inform coalition burden-sharing, to subsequently discuss how much each of these are found to play a role in the Afghanistan context. The second section elaborates on this by assessing the perception and the interpretation of threats by coalition member countries, related to Afghanistan, as this pertains to prioritising other variables within the scheme outlined in the previous section. The third and fourth sections then proceed to examine and further enrich the existing literature on coalition burden-sharing, and provide further insights regarding the operations of the International Security Assistance Force–Afghanistan, and regarding ISAF member-country decisionmaking; the objective here is to generate further refined assumptions, that can permit a preliminary assessment of the phenomenon of uneven burden-sharing in ISAF, complementing the initial baseline expectations.