Download here

An exciting day as the newest issue of the New School Economic Review is now available. The focus of the issue is on Crisis and Distribution, drawing on a conference hosted at the New School in Spring 2010, with conference contributions, talks and submitted papers. It’s a really exciting issue, which has been pushed through by this issue’s chief editor Miriam Rehm. We hope you enjoy it!

Download the whole issue here, or the paper you are interested in below:

Introduction

What does Financial Crisis do?
- Miriam Rehm

Papers

On the heterodox view of the crisis
- Korkut Alp Ertürk

America’s Exhausted Paradigm: Macroeconomic Causes of the Financial Crisis and Recession
- Thomas Palley

Crisis and Distribution
- Richard Wolff

Power Biased Technical Change, Endogenous Mismatch and Institutional Change
- Peter Skott

Conference Contributions

Crisis and Distribution: A Brief Historical Note
- Jane D’Arista

Crisis and Distribution
- Anwar Shaikh

The Distributional Effects of the Stimulus
- Ajit Zacharias

Developing Countries and the Crisis
- Sanjay Reddy

The IMF and the Global Financial Crisis
- Ilene Grabel

The Distributional Impact of the Crisis
- Jomo Kwame Sundaram

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

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

Download the issue here

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

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

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