The latest issue of the New School Economic Review is ready and in this issue we have taken the journal to a new level with an upgraded web-presence including an ‘open’ blog – where you can also contribute (see ‘Blog with us’ at the top of the page).
The journal will continue as usual, and the blog is a complement, from where we may also take on opinion pieces and other bits as the year goes. We continue our rolling submission format so take papers at any stage during the year, but these should be in either in spring or fall to make the summer / winter issues.
We hope you enjoy the issue.
-The Editors
Posted 1 year, 7 months ago at 09:36. Add a comment
Why do so few scientists make significant contributions, and why are so many forgotten in the long run? This is the question distinguished mathematician, computer scientist and theorist Richard Hamming addresses in this inspirational talk, aimed at helping us all do great work by sharing his own insights, enthusiasm and experience.
He gives advice from his life long career as a scientist and researcher, with experience from private industry – the famous Bell Labs in the U.S. – and academia. This paper is a great read for any researcher.
Download full paper here
Hamming, Richard. 2008. “You and your research.” New School Economic Review 3(1): 5-26
Posted 1 year, 7 months ago at 09:16. Add a comment
The second volume of the New School Economic Review volume 2 issue 1 has been published. The issue revolves around the topic of Development, and is the result of a years labor on original scripts by authors and editors, layouts, type-setting, and the myriad other efforts which are part of establishing and publishing a refereed journal. We hope you enjoy it.
Download the issue here
Posted 1 year, 7 months ago at 08:59. Add a comment
We have re-published the first issue of the New School Economic Review, with a brand new cover and index, but otherwise completely the same as the original.
Download the full Issue
Posted 1 year, 7 months ago at 20:32. Add a comment
The last few years have witnessed a welcome questioning of the way economics is taught at the undergraduate and graduate level. The publication of the French student manifest against economics as an “autistic science” in 2000 triggered subsequent calls for more realism in economic models, rejection of the use of math as an end in itself, and respect for a plurality of approaches to economic science.
The move against neoclassical ideas and methods in the teaching of economics has coincided, however, with increasing problems for heterodox economics departments in many parts of the world. The clearest example of the difficulty they have had surviving is the institutional reform that the University of Notre Dame undertook last year. Claiming that the economics department did not meet minimum standards of quality, administrators at Notre Dame divided the department into two separate departments, the Economics and Econometrics program and the Economic and Social Policy program. They also
announced that most new hires will be for the Department of Economics and Econometrics, which will also be the sole organizer of the Ph.D. program in the future.
In the next few pages I try to sketch some preliminary answers to these questions, using the current situation of heterodox departments in general and the New School Economics Department in particular as the starting point. I make three central arguments. First, building a heterodox graduate program in economics is particularly difficult because of the existence of a unique set of constraints. Second, getting beyond these constraints requires imagination and the willingness to build a coherent, focused program oriented toward political economy. Third, being heterodox requires a commitment to “positive
social transformation”; finding the areas where young heterodox economists can contribute to such transformation is essential for improving our chances for long-term survival.
Download the whole paper
Ancochea, Diego Sanchez. 2004. “Building a Successful Heterodox Graduate Program in Economics: An Impossible Task?” New School Economic Review 1(1): 9-14
Posted 1 year, 7 months ago at 19:11. Add a comment
I have been arguing for some years that all of the economics with which I am acquainted, whether orthodox or heterodox, is bad science. Rather than to look for an independent definition of bad science, a more constructive approach is positively to define good science and then to define bad science as its complement.
All good science is inspiration constrained by evidence and observation. If this statement is itself good science, then it too must be inspired and it must be constrained by evidence and observation.
Download the paper
Moss, Scott. 2004. “Search for Good Science: A personal memoir”. New School Economic Review 1(1): 3-8
Posted 1 year, 7 months ago at 18:57. Add a comment
