Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences
https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JSAS
<p><sup>JSAS (2149-0406) is an international, double-blind peer-reviewed, quarterly, open-access journal published by the journals. JSAS is published as four issues per year, March, June, September and December and all publication policies and processes are conducted according to the international standards.The journal focuses on the following topics: anthropology, sociology, politics, culture, economics, management, international relation, accounting, business management and public administration. It provides an academic platform for professionals and researchers to contribute innovative work in the field. The journal carries original and full-length articles that reflect the latest research and developments in both theoretical and practical aspects of society and human behaviors. The journal is published in online version. The online version is free access and download. <strong>Continuous Publication Model:</strong> Econsciences Journals is published under the continuous publication model. </sup></p>EconSciences Libraryen-USJournal of Social and Administrative Sciences2149-0406<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" rel="license"><img style="border-width: 0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/88x31.png" alt="Creative Commons License" /></a><br />This article licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" rel="license"> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license (4.0)</a>Economic thought in Eighteenth Century America prior to independence
https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JSAS/article/view/2643
<p>This paper examines the state of economic thought in the United States during the time period 1700 to 1775, an era that marks the end of the colonial age for the new nation. This essay starts with an over view of economic conditions during the final phase of colonialism in America. This is followed by a discussion of American economic thinking, divided into three distinct yet overlapping perspectives: (1) mainstream economic thought, which represents the dominant point of view about economics in America prior to the end of colonial status; (2) other voices, or economic perspectives focused on particular economic issues of the time and not the general state of economic thought; and (3) a crosscurrent or contrary view to mainstream economics, a way of viewing economics and economic thinking that takes exception to the popular economic paradigm of the time.</p> <p><strong>Keywords.</strong> Slavery, Compulsion, Libertarianism.</p> <p><strong>JEL.</strong> K29.</p>James S. CICARELLI
Copyright (c) 2025
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
2025-11-012025-11-011234763Nominal Exchange Rate Dynamics for the Taka
https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JSAS/article/view/2644
<p>Error correction modeling is used to model the nominal exchange rate for the Bangladeshi taka. Based on existing trade volumes and trade practices, the bilateral exchange rate of the taka with the dollar is analyzed. Annual frequency data are utilized for the study. The sample data cover the four decade period from 1976 to 2015. Results indicate that a balance of payments modeling approach performs more reliably than a monetary balances approach.</p> <p><strong>Keywords.</strong> Regional economics, Business cycles, Economic indicators.</p> <p><strong>JEL.</strong> F31, O53.</p>Thomas M. FULLERTONDipanwita BARAIAdam G. WALKE
Copyright (c) 2025
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
2025-11-012025-11-011236486An employer of last resort scheme which resembles a free labour market
https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JSAS/article/view/2645
<p>The idea that government should act as employer of last resort (ELR) is an old one. That idea is often referred to nowadays as “job guarantee”. Many ELR schemes to date have been confined to the public sector. There is no good reason for that limitation: i.e. the private sector should use ELR labour as well. A second common characteristic of ELR schemes has been that (like the WPA in the US in the 1930s) they involve specially set up projects or schemes as distinct from subsidising temporary employees into work with EXISTING employers. The “existing employer” option is preferable. Once those two common defects in ELR are removed, the result is a system where the unemployed are subsidised into temporary and relatively unproductive jobs with existing employers till better jobs appear. And that in turn is what the unemployed tend to do in a totally free market: a scenario where there are no minimum wage laws and unemployment benefit, and where the unemployed tend to get temporary low paid jobs in both public and private sectors pending the appearance of better jobs. In contrast to a free market, under ELR, take home pay is maintained at socially acceptable levels. Assuming that free markets maximise GDP, it follows that the sort of ELR system advocated here will also maximize GDP. That free market style ELR system actually resembles the ELR system that the UK has at the time of writing, namely the Work Programme. The latter “free market” / Work Programme system is not free of faults, but as long as ELR employees do not displace regular employees to too great an extent, that “free market” ELR system is better than traditional ELR.</p> <p><strong>Keywords.</strong> Employer of last resort, Job guarantee, Work project admistration.</p> <p><strong>JEL.</strong> J60, J63, J64, J68.</p>Ralph S. MUSGRAVE
Copyright (c) 2025
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
2025-11-012025-11-011238797Political Leadership and Agricultural Transformation: A New Research Agenda. By Emelie Rohne Till, Martin Andersson, & Isabelle Tsakok, Springer 2025
https://journals.econsciences.com/index.php/JSAS/article/view/2646
<p>This book addresses a major research gap in development economics: the pivotal, yet largely ignored, role of political leadership in successful agricultural transformation. While the importance of a thriving agricultural sector for escaping hunger and poverty is widely acknowledged, successful transitions are rare in the developing world. The authors argue that a crucial element is the interaction between effective political leadership and the socio-political system. To rigorously test this proposition, the authors hypothesize that political leadership is necessary, though not sufficient, for successful agricultural transformation in latecomer countries. Adopting Karl Popper's methodology of falsification, the study tests the hypothesis by seeking to refute it, using a comparative economic history approach across four case studies: the successful transformation in Taiwan, China (1950–1980), the failed transformations in the Philippines and Malawi, and the mixed record of Ethiopia. The study develops an analytical framework based on four dimensions of effective leadership: vision, commitment, timeframe, and inclusiveness. The analysis finds that the one success case (Taiwan) exhibited all four dimensions, while the failures and the stalled mixed case lacked them. As none of the case studies refute the core hypothesis, the authors accept, for now, that political leadership is necessary. The book concludes by successfully initiating a new research agenda that integrates the political economy of leaders into the analysis of agricultural development..</p> <p><strong>Keywords.</strong> Political Leadership; Agricultural Transformation; Popperian Methodology; Economic Development; Comparative Economic History.</p> <p><strong>JEL.</strong> B41; N50; O13; O20; P16.</p>Meimei Hua LIU
Copyright (c) 2025
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
2025-11-012025-11-0112398101