Essays on Neoclassical and Keynesian Models in Health Sector Thesis

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Neoclassical and Keynesian Models in Health Sector" is a wonderful example of a thesis on macro and microeconomics. In contemporary economies, there have been numerous challenges. Quite recently, there was a global economic slump whose effects were spread all over the globe. Worse still, globalization trends imply the challenges in one national economy are transferred to others or have major ripple effects on other economies. In addition to this, there still remain deeply entrenched disparities in economies, though the situations are specific to national situations. As such, the question of what economic approach to take is vital (Bortis, 1997).

The question of going the liberal path or otherwise the humanist approach is important due to the pursuant repercussions on economic performance and citizen service delivery. In basic terms, the neoclassical theory emphasizes humanist approaches whereas the Keynesian approach is emphatic on political liberalism. This paper presents a brief comparison of the neoclassical equilibrium economic approaches with those informed by the Keynesian political economy. In comparison, the nature and significance of both policy approaches will be demonstrated relative to the planning and implementation of health care services.

Fundamental differences and relative implications will be delineated. It will shed light on the questions revolving economic theory such as the role of money, distribution of value, employment, and market relations, both macro and international environments. Differences between neoclassical economic and classical-Keynesian political-economic approaches In the political economy and economic science, their relationship is much informed by economic theories that influence any approaches taken in the approach thereof. Since the 1950s there has been a paradigmatic competition between the Keynesian paradigm and its rival the neoclassical theory (Reati, 2009).

This has been manifested in literature as well as practice more so in political spheres. Whereas classical and Keynesian economists view the political economy and economic science as showing no differences with regard theory and principles as well as in political economy, neoclassical theorists perceive a great incongruence between them especially with regard to issues of equilibrium (Bortis, 2010).

References

Ameringer, C. (2008). The health care revolution : from medical monopoly to market competition. Berkerley: University of California .

Arestis, P., & Sawyer, M. (2004). The rise of the market : critical essays on the political economy of neo-liberalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Bortis, H. (1997). Institutions, behaviour and economic theory : a contribution to classical Keynesian political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bortis, H. (2010). Political economy and economic science: the work of Phyllis Dean . The Journal of Economic Analysis, 1(1), 49-77.

Champlin, D., & Knoedler, J. (2004). The institutionalist tradition in labor economics. London: M.E Sharpe.

Cingolani, M. (2009). Public investment under disequilibrium: a post Keynesian viewpoint. VIII Milan European Economic Workshop, June 11th - 12th 2009 (pp. 1-42). Milan: Milan European Economy Workshop.

Cowen, M., & Kattan, M. (2009). Encyclopedia of medical decision making Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks : California .

Green, A. (2006). An introduction to health planning for developing health systems, (3rd Ed). Oxford : Oxford Press.

Hammer, P. (2007). The architecture of health care markets: socioeconomic sociology and antirust law. Health and Law policy, , 227-264.

Hodgson, G. (2007). An institutional and evolutionary persepctive on health economic. Cambridge journal of economics, 2006 (1), 1-22.

Rao, P. (1999). Sustainable development : economics and policy. Malden: Blackwell Publishers .

Reati, A. (2009). Power Relations and Economic Paradigms, or Why Post-Keynesian Theory is not dominant. Review of Radical Political Economics, 43(3), 361-372.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us