Even if there is an agreed-upon, fixed social objective function and policymakers know the timing and magnitude of the effects of their actions, discretionary policy, namely, the selection of that decision which is best, given the current situation and a correct evaluation of the end-of-period position, does not result in the social objective function being maximized. The reason for this apparent paradox is that economic planning is not a game against nature but, rather, a game against rational economic agents. We conclude that there is no way control theory can be made applicable to economic planning when expectations are rational.
Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.One of the oldest and most prestigious journals in economics, the Journal of Political Economy (JPE) presents significant and essential scholarship in economic theory and practice. The journal publishes highly selective and widely cited analytical, interpretive, and empirical studies in a number of areas, including monetary theory, fiscal policy, labor economics, development, microeconomic and macroeconomic theory, international trade and finance, industrial organization, and social economics.
Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
Journal of Political Economy
© 1977 The University of Chicago Press