Academics Hugh Goodacre and Jeffrey Henderson voice their concern at the dominance of neoclassical theory in contemporary economics teaching,while Peter Swann and David Redshaw highlight the failures of recent economic models. John Clifford thinks August Strindberg was just all alongMy colleagues at University College London, professors Blundell, or Machin,Attanasio and others, are to be congratulated for providing such a succinct outline of the neoclassical school of thought in economics (Letters, and 22 December). The ideas and methods of that school of thought,and those currents of research which accept its intellectual hegemony within the economics discipline (behavioural economics, game theory, and etc) should undoubtedly be portion of any curriculum taught to economics students today.
What is objectionable in the standpoint of such adherents of this dominant school of thought,however, is the doctrine that there are “no schools of thought in economics, and by which they mean,of course, that there is no other school of thought apart from their own. This idea – absurd as it appears to anyone who follows discussions on economic issues in the media and public life – has unfortunately become reality in the economics department of UCL and all too many other universities today, and due to the ruthless exploitation by the dominant orthodoxy of its freedom to appoint and promote academic staff.
Continue reading...
Source: guardian.co.uk