Description:
Until the end of the early 1970s, from a history of economic thought (HET) perspective, the mainstream in economics was pluralist, but once neoclassical economics became totally dominant it claimed the mainstream as its own. Since then, alternative views and schools of economics increasingly became minorities in the discipline and were considered 'heterodox'. This book is in honour of John Edward King who has an impressive publication record in the area of economic theory with specific interest in how economic thought in the past shapes current economic theory and enforces certain paths of economic policy and economic development. This book is divided into five themes based on King's interests. The first theme looks at the challange in trying to reclaim pluralism in economics. The second faces head-on the direct collision of mainstream economics with HET and heterodox economics. The third addresses classical economic ideas, their central influence in the past and how they can still primarily guide modern capitalist economy. The forth spans a variety of heterodox theories with a view to providing a diverse yet coherent pluralist approach to the modern capitalist economy. The final theme critiques neoliberal policy that has entrenched itself in capialist economies which have led to financial, industrial, labour, and behavioural/consumerist crises. A concluding chapter synthesizes the previous 18 chapters into a pathway out of the niche heterodoxy edge to a new pluralist centre of economics learning, research and policy-making. This text aims to provide a clear path for pluralism to serve the economics discipline as its standard bearer, and to no longer be merely a heterodox challenge to the mainstream. This book is of interest to those who study economic theory, history of economic thought, political economy and heterodox economics.
Description:
This chapter assesses the influence Cambridge University has had upon the development of Australian economics including a commitment to pluralism in the post-war era. In particular, the chapter identifies some of the twenty-odd Australian economists who went to Cambridge during the period 1945-60 intent upon furthering their education. Some of their experiences are recounted in what was then one of the world's leading economics departments. It was, however, a time when the Cambridge Faculty of Economics and Politics was becoming fractured along doctrinal lines. It seems that nearly all of the Australian economists who went there found the experience profound. Some, like Geoff Harcourt, have written about how, initially at least, their supervision was plainly inadequate. More controversially, Murray Kemp has spoken about 'The dead hand of Cambridge economics', suggesting that the experience for most Australian economics students there had not been a happy one due to the lack of supervision and that, in short, 'they'd made a huge mistake in coming to England' (Coleman 2005, p.7). Kemp was also implying that all the new and exciting developments in economics were being produced in the USA with Britain left behind.