New School Economic Review

What a Nobel day to be back

Courtesy of Banx at the FT

Back at the keyboard after a hectic late summer which included getting a final sign-off on the thesis, so that is all done, dusted and deposited in the university library. And what a day to be back. In a few hours they will announce who is going to win the Prize for Economics in memory of Alfred Nobel, and if Fama gets it this year I think it will be good fun. He was odds on favourite two years ago, but since the crash and recession all odds are off.

Harvard even had an on-line pool, but had to shut it down due to legal reasons. Oh well, we’ll know in a few hours. Either way, we’re back to our blogging ways now that term has properly started and there can be no more conference distractions.

Unfortunately, we have been advised by Harvard University to immediately shut down the Nobel pool due to legal reasons, and we have decided to comply with this request. We will fully reimburse the money of all participants, and we apologize for any inconvenience this creates for you. All participants will be contacted by email. (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~pollmann/nobel/)

Doing Great Research

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

Creating a Heterodox economics program?

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

Search for Good Science – a personal memoir

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