並列摘要
This article discusses the change in the nature of economic studies. Is economics a science which permits reasonably reliable business forecasts, or is it an art which depends upon the skill and intuition of the economist? If it is a science, what kind of science is it? If we agree that economics should be a comprehensive social science with the sum of human behavior involved in economic activities as its scope of study, what scientific methods may fit it most effectively? These are vitally important questions, since economic planning rests to a large extent upon the ability of economists to predict future developments.
並列關鍵字
無資料延伸閱讀
- 侯家駒、侯維忠（2008）。經濟史演進的軌跡。亞太經濟管理評論，12(1)，1-24。https://doi.org/10.30087/APEMR.200809.0001
- 施建生（1995）。經濟學的改進。經濟前瞻，(37)，114-119。https://doi.org/10.30071/EOB.199501.0026
- 何乏筆（2008）。導論：邁向另一種主體的政治經濟學。中國文哲研究通訊，18(4)，1-9。https://doi.org/10.30103/NICLP.200812.0001
- 林沁雄（2002）。Economics and the Theory of Dependent Arising。東海管理評論，4(1)，167-199。https://doi.org/10.29724/TMR.200207.0007
- Balaceanu, C., Apostol, D., & Zaharia, V. (2016). Structural Changes of the Current Economic Behaviour. Academic Journal of Economic Studies, 2(2), 11-19. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20150925001-201606-201610060001-201610060001-11-19