10,808 research outputs found
Post Walrasian Macro Policy and the Economics of Muddling Through
No full textThis paper expands on my earlier discussion of Post Walrasian macroeconomics policy. (Colander and van Ess 1996) First, it defines what I mean by Post Walrasian macroeconomics. Second, it discusses some of the theoretical differences between Post Walrasian and Walrasian macro theorizing as they relate to policy. Finally, it discusses how an acceptance of Post Walrasian economics might change the focus of macro policy discussions.
Where economics went wrong: Chicago's abandonment of classical liberalism/ David Colander and Craig Freedman.
No full textIncludes bibliographical references (pages 241-254) and index.How modern economics abandoned classical liberalism and lost its way. Milton Friedman once predicted that advances in scientific economics would resolve debates about whether raising the minimum wage is good policy. Decades later, Friedman's prediction has not come true. In Where Economics Went Wrong, David Colander and Craig Freedman argue that it never will. Why? Because economic policy, when done correctly, is an art and a craft. It is not, and cannot be, a science. The authors explain why classical liberal economists understood this essential difference, why modern economists abandoned it, and why now is the time for the profession to return to its classical liberal roots. Carefully distinguishing policy from science and theory, classical liberal economists emphasized values and context, treating economic policy analysis as a moral science where a dialogue of sensibilities and judgments allowed for the same scientific basis to arrive at a variety of policy recommendations. Using the University of Chicago-one of the last bastions of classical liberal economics-as a case study, Colander and Freedman examine how both the MIT and Chicago variants of modern economics eschewed classical liberalism in their attempt to make economic policy analysis a science. By examining the way in which the discipline managed to lose its bearings, the authors delve into such issues as the development of welfare economics in relation to economic science, alternative voices within the Chicago School, and exactly how Friedman got it wrong. Contending that the division between science and prescription needs to be restored, Where Economics Went Wrong makes the case for a more nuanced and self-aware policy analysis by economists.Sweet science : engineering a new approach to economic policy -- A classical garden of liberal economics : policy versus abstraction -- Planting the seeds of a Chicago tradition -- Ashes and diamonds : the rise of the Chicago School -- What has Chicago wrought? Painting policy by the numbers -- Economic policy becomes a science : the rise of welfare economics, and the Chicago alternative -- Roads not taken : the Stillborn Virginia School of Economics -- The classical liberal "argumentation for the sake of heaven" alternative -- The art and craft of economics : the classical liberal attitude.1 online resource (xii, 267 pages
What Was “It” that Robbins Was Defining?
No full textThis paper argues that Robbins’ famous definition of economics was of “economic science” which he saw as only a narrow branch of the field of economics. Moreover, it was descriptive, not prescriptive, and was simply a statement that that was what economists were then doing in the science of economics. His prescriptive message was that policy belonged in the “political economy” branch of economics, and that the science of economics should avoid value judgments, but that political economy should include value judgments. That prescriptive message has been lost.
How Do Median Graduate Economic Programs Differ from Top-ranked Programs?
No full textThis paper reports the results of a survey of median economics graduate programs and compares it with the results of a survey of top economics graduate programs done by Colander. Overall it finds that while there are some differences in the programs, there are large areas of similarity. Some of the particular finding are that there are more US respondents in median programs than in top programs, median students have more interest in econometrics, history of thought and economic literature than do students at top programs, although after the fifth year, their interest in any field drops significantly. It also finds that students at top schools are much more likely to be involved in writing scholarly papers, and that students at top schools give far less emphasis to excellence in mathematics as a path to the fast track than do students at median schools.
- …
