| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.
Economics for the future
* Judge Business School, University of Cambridge
Address for correspondence: email: m.kitson@jbs.cam.ac.uk; web: michaelkitson.com
Manuscript received October 24, 2005;
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Many of us decided to study economics because we were interested in issues such as economic growth, unemployment, poverty, discrimination and social exclusion. And for much of the history of the discipline, economists grappled with explaining such phenomena and, hopefully, helped to improve the development of economic policy. But now the discipline is increasingly dominated by other concerns, such as mathematical rigour and econometric modelling. The New York Times columnist, Michael Weinstein, recalled how his passion to learn economics, which was driven by a desire to understand the causes of poverty and the impact of technical change, was immediately quelled when on his first day as a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology the professor announced that ‘all of economics is a subset of the theory of separating hyperplans’ (Weinstein, 2000). The subject has become so obscure that even orthodox economists are bemoaning its intellectual poverty.
The need for a new paradigm?
Methodological concerns
Macroeconomics
Microeconomics
Development
Conclusion
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Kitson and F. Wilkinson The economics of New Labour: policy and performance Camb. J. Econ., November 1, 2007; 31(6): 805 - 816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|