What S Wrong With Economics

A passionate and informed critique of mainstream economics from one of the leading economic thinkers of our time This insightful book looks at how mainstream economics’ quest for scientific certainty has led to a narrowing of vision and a convergence on an orthodoxy that is unhealthy for the field, not to mention the societies which base policy decisions on the advice of flawed economic models. Noted economic thinker Robert Skidelsky explains the circumstances that have brought about this constriction and proposes an approach to economics which includes philosophy, history, sociology, and politics. Skidelsky’s clearly written and compelling critique takes aim at the way that economics is taught in today’s universities, where a focus on modelling leaves students ill-equipped to grapple with what is important and true about human life. He argues for a return to the ideal set out by John Maynard Keynes that the economist must be a “mathematician, historian, statesman, [and] philosopher” in equal measure.

During a time of accelerating momentum for radical change in the study of economics, 'A Guide to What's Wrong with Economics' comprehensively re-examines the shortcomings of neoclassical economics and considers a number of alternative formulations.

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.

In April 2007, a report produced by the International Monetary Fund concluded that the world economy was in great shape only for the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression to hit just months later. How could economists have got it so wrong? When engineers try to understand complex systems, they are forced to make simplifying assumptions. Sadly if these are flawed, no amount of mathematical wizardry will repair the damage. This book examines the possibility that the problem with economics stems from flawed assumptions. It appears that mainstream economics set off on the wrong foot.This book uncovers many such flaws and shows how the resulting bad economic theories have devastating consequences.Dr Michael Reiss shows how, with more realistic assumptions, economics, and our economic system, can be rescued.

A leading economist's exploration of what our economic arrangements might look like if we applied basic principles without ideological blinders. There is nothing wrong with economics, Dean Baker contends, but economists routinely ignore their own principles when it comes to economic policy. What would policy look like if we took basic principles of mainstream economics seriously and applied them consistently? In the debate over regulation, for example, Baker—one of the few economists who predicted the meltdown of fall 2008—points out that ideological blinders have obscured the fact there is no “free market” to protect. Modern markets are highly regulated, although intrusive regulations such as copyright and patents are rarely viewed as regulatory devices. If we admit the extent to which the economy is and will be regulated, we have many more options in designing policy and deciding who benefits from it. On health care reform, Baker complains that economists ignore another basic idea: marginal cost pricing. Unlike all other industries, medical services are priced extraordinarily high, far above the cost of production, yet that discrepancy is rarely addressed in the debate about health care reform. What if we applied marginal cost pricing—making doctors' wages competitive and charging less for prescription drugs and tests such as MRIs? Taking Economics Seriously offers an alternative Econ 101. It introduces economic principles and thinks through what we might gain if we free ourselves from ideological blinders and get back to basics in the most troubled parts of our economy.

The discipline of economics has been increasingly criticized for its inability to illuminate the workings of the real world and to provide reliable policy guidance for the major economic and social challenges of our time. A central problem in contemporary economics, and a problem from which many of its other failings flow, is its lack of plurality. By a lack of plurality it is meant that contemporary economics lacks diversity in its methods, theories, epistemology and methodology. It is also meant that economics has become far less interdisciplinary. From Economics to Political Economy offers an explanation as to why economics has become so determinedly non-pluralistic, and also gives considerable attention to exploring and evaluating promising strategies for reform. These strategies include developing a pluralist economics under the label of ‘political economy’ within other social science departments (such as departments of politics). Along the way the reader will learn about the worldwide student movement seeking greater pluralism in economics, encounter some dramatic case studies in intellectual suppression, gain a fuller sense of the nature of contemporary economics and explore the relationship between economics and other social sciences. This book is of interest to any social scientist, particularly those with interests in economics and politics.

ÔI read with great interest the current state of Islamic economics and finance as examined by Muhammad Akram Khan, who has given a fresh outlook for the readers to find out its limitations and to search for its solutions. Khan has read widely in the subject matter, and presented his views with reference to literature and thoughtful and logical arguments. While many may not agree with his arguments or will have a better explanation, I find his arguments at least worthy of examination to strengthen the arguments of those who might oppose him. Although Khan is critical of the subject matter, he is very sympathetic to the greater objectives of Islamic economics and provides his own prescriptions to achieve those objectives.Õ Ð M. Kabir Hassan, University of New Orleans, US ÔThis is a very thought provoking book coming at a crucial stage in the development of Islamic economics and finance. Although the reader may not agree with some of the conclusions reached, it is clearly a scholarly and extensively researched piece of work; it should be read by all serious students of the subject area. Amongst other things, it throws light on the reasons why the practical implementation of Islamic economics and finance, particularly in relation to the financial system and financial institutions, has not always conformed to the true theoretical foundations laid down by Islamic scholars.Õ Ð John Presley, Loughborough University, UK and recipient of Islamic Development Bank Prize in Islamic Finance, 2001Ð2002 ÔÒIslamic economic system is a type of capitalism with a spiritual dimensionÓ is a major conclusion of this book. I applaud this insight of Muhammad Akram Khan. The same can be perhaps said of Islamic finance, which, in its hurry to build viable and efficient financial institutions, has ignored the very same need to start with profits-and-risk-sharing principle and no-riba principles to build pricing models to anchor the new sub-discpline. The good news is that, in the course of time to come, AkramÕs advocacy may be realised since such serious works have already begun.Õ Ð Mohamed Ariff, University Putra Malaysia and Bond University, Australia ÔAlthough there are many books on Islamic economics, this critical, but sympathetic, account by Muhammad Akram Khan is worthy of attention. The author has clearly read widely on the subject and appreciates the limitations of much that he has read. Islamic economics is a work in progress and by focusing on its shortcomings, Khan challenges the assumptions of many working in the field. His discussion of methodology is insightful, and even the prohibition of riba, for many the defining characteristic of Islamic finance, is examined from a fresh perspective. While many will not agree with the analysis and the conclusions, even critics should be able to appreciate the strengths of the arguments made. In summary this is a worthwhile, and in many respects an innovative, survey of the state of Islamic economics and finance. It deserves to be widely read.Õ Ð Rodney Wilson, Durham University, UK What is Wrong with Islamic Economics? takes an objective look at the state of the art in Islamic economics and finance. It analyses reasons for perceived stagnation and also suggests a way forward. As well as probing various myths, the book presents several innovative ideas and a methodology for developing the subject on new foundations. It also highlights weaknesses in the conventional position on prohibition of interest, which has led Islamic banks devise a series of legal tricks. The author notes how the original aim of devising a new brand of banking has become less prominent whilst Islamic banks now position themselves more closely to conventional banks. The book also offers insights into how certain traditional thinking has seemingly ignored the egalitarian spirit of the law of zakah and created a scenario where zakah is not able to help the billions of poor people around the globe. This detailed book will appeal to students, professors, researchers, Islamic banks and finance houses, consulting companies, accounting firms, and regulatory bodies. Professional economists, libraries in research and training organizations, as well as anyone with a general interest in the topic will find much to interest them.