Against rigid rules: Keynes's economic theory

This paper provides textual evidence of Keynes's position on monetary policy and shaping international monetary relations. One result of my contribution is that the famous dichotomy rules versus discretion is of no relevance to his economic theory, because he used the term rules not in the meaning of a formal brilliantly designed notion.He definitely made a distinction between non-rigidly-fixed-rules and discretion. I give an explanation why his economic theory is not compatible with principles of constructivism, empiricism and ontological realism by referring to a key term of his economic writings, i.e., discretionary decision. --History of economic thought since 1925,Methodology,Central Banking,Inernational monetary arrangements and instititions

Against Rigid Rules - Keynes's Economic Theory

This paper provides textual evidence of Keynes�s position on monetary policy and shaping international monetary relations. One result of my contribution is that the famous dichotomy 'rules versus discretion' is of no relevance to his economic theory, because he used the term 'rules' not in the meaning of a formal brilliantly designed notion. He definitely made a distinction between non-rigidly-fixed-rules and discretion. I give an explanation why his economic theory is not compatible with principles of constructivism, empiricism and ontological realism by referring to a key term of his economic writings, i.e., discretionary decision.Key words: History of Economic Thought since 1925, Methodology, Central Banking, International Monetary Arrangements and Institutions

Anregungen für die deutschsprachige Diskussion

This paper provides textual evidence of Keynes’s writing and composing on issues which are linked to philosophy, moral science and economics. As a philosopher Keynes was concerned with contemporary discussion on knowledge, probability, judgment and methods of reasoning. He participated in the Bloomsbury Group. He developed a distinct view on ethics, egoism, individual and conventional judgment, animal spirits and responsibility. He denied that expectations can be reduced to mathematical calculation. He developed ways to theorize about uncertainty, confidence and the future. The project Keynes as a philosopher is of great importance in English-and French-speaking discourses. Unfortunately it has not been received and recognized in German discourses

Metaphern, Begriffe und Bedeutungen – das Beispiel internationale monetäre Institutionen

Das Ziel des Forschungsvorhabens besteht zum einen darin, die Bedeutungskonstitution zu untersuchen. Zum anderen soll gezeigt werden, dass nationale und internationale monetäre Institutionen in ihren Kommunikationsformen nicht einem linear-kausalen Kommunikationsmodell folgen. Der neue methodische Ansatz versteht sich komplementär zu den formal analytischen Begriffskonstruktionen. Ökonomie als Erfahrungswissenschaft bedarf eines vielfältigen Methodenrepertoires. Die Unabdingbarkeit der Methodenvielfalt resultiert aus dem Mandat der Preisstabilität der Zentralbanken, das sie im Kontext von Unsicherheit über die Steuerung der Erwartungen der Finanzmarktakteure zu erfüllen versuchen. Die Erwartungssteuerung gelingt nicht als lineare Projektion gegebener Erwartungen oder Bedeutungen. Sie gelingt über die Sprachvermitteltheit, die Verwendung von Metaphern und Begriffen in ökonomischen Interaktionen. Bedeutungen sind nicht ex ante gegeben. Der innovative Ansatz soll anhand der Entwicklung der Amerikanischen und Europäischen Zentralbank sowie der Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich weiterentwickelt und überprüft werden. Das Projekt verbindet den Forschungsstand zu monetären Institutionen mit der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie

The COMESA Common Investment Area: Substantive Standards and Procedural Problems in Dispute Settlement

The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is an organisation of 20 African states established in 1994, replacing the previous Preferential Trade Area between the members. Since its inception COMESA has taken an active role in the economic integration of its members. In 2000 the COMESA Free Trade Area was established. On 22 and 23 of May 2007 the twelfth Summit of COMESA Authority of Heads of State and Government, held in Nairobi, Kenya, adopted the Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area (CCIA Agreement). According to COMESA, “the CCIA Agreement is a precious investment tool whereby the COMESA Secretariat contemplates to create a stable region and good investment environment, promote cross border investments and protect investment, and thus enhance COMESAs attractiveness and competitiveness within COMESA Region, as a destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and in which domestic investments are encouraged.” Among the key pillars of the Agreement is the, “settlement of investment disputes through negotiations and arbitration mechanism.” It is the purpose of this paper to examine the new CCIA Agreement and the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that this treaty has put in place. It will do so not only through an examination of procedural structures, but also by considering the interaction between these and the substantive claims that can be brought by an investor under the Agreement. The paper will do so in three stages. First, so as to set the scene, the wider contemporary debate on the problems of investor-state dispute settlement, and their proposed solutions, will be examined so as to explain the background against which the dispute settlement provisions of the CCIA Agreement were finalised. It is clear from the face of these provisions that they seek to offer a new approach to investor-state dispute settlement which takes into account the types of problems that will be outlined below. Indeed it is fair to say that the CCIA Agreement is a significant new model for these purposes, in that it proposes an approach that is sensitive to the realities of developing states and of the particular conditions that influence approaches to international commercial arbitration in Africa. Given that the majority of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) are based on developed country or developed regional models, this requires that serious attention is paid to the CCIA Agreement in the wider investment law community. It offers an alternative formulation and points to how future generations of IIAs might be drawn up so as to provide, in the words of the Agreement, “investors with certain rights in the conduct of their business within an overall balance of rights and obligations between investors and Member States.” The second part of the paper will offer a detailed analysis of the investor-state dispute settlement procedures in the CCIA Agreement. The third part will then consider the types of claims that an investor can make under the Agreement. There are numerous innovations in the substantive provisions of the Agreement that will have a significant effect on the subject matter of possible claims and thus on their admissibility before a tribunal whose jurisdiction is based on the Agreement