May 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad

« Inelasticity, Illegality and Public Policy | Main | Around the Blog »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I've offered my observations on the Lean or Just-In-Time management revolution at the links below (or look for the articles "Kaizen, learning, and coordination" and "Is Lean Production Hayekian?"

I certainly think there is room for exploration in the Lean and other management material for economic analysis, and for investigation of why some systems work better than others in economics. The firm tends to be treated as a given, a black box, but all firms are not equal. This is surprising, given that not a few economists have noted that management or organization is as important an input as the others (raw materials, capital, land, etc.). My attention in this regard has been drawn by Oliver Williamson and NIE, but I haven't read much of it.

You might be interested in this upcoming event:

What is the conference you are going to tomorrow?

Economics is a system-level science, and management is an actor-level subject. It maybe a tad unfair to compare. I am more interested in the following, in the time since economics has evolved, is there anything that economics can learn from business practices? What about the priorities of a firm? Yes, I do know Austrian school is much more management-oriented (its focus on entrepreneurship)than the rest of economics.

Does the book address the fact that while the lower workers may have better knowledge, the senior executive may have superior intelligence and/or charisma/contacts? This trade-off becomes more important in organizations where the boss actually gets to the top through merit, and is also limited by the amount of experimenting one person can do, but it is still important to note.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books