DOCSLIB.ORG

Designing a Heterodox Undergraduate Program of Macroeconomics Abstract

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Designing a Heterodox Undergraduate Program of Macroeconomics Abstract Designing a Heterodox Undergraduate Program of Macroeconomics James Juniper, Bill Mitchell, Andrew Nadolny & Martin Watts* Centre of Full Employment and Equity The University of Newcastle NSW, Australia * Contact author: [email protected] Because mathematics has swamped the curricula in leading universities and graduate schools, student economists are neither encouraged nor equipped to analyze real world economies and institutions (Hodgson, 2014:1). Abstract Teaching mainstream economics is usually based on four undesirable principles tunnel vision, perceived irrelevance, suspension of disbelief and pseudo-science (Stilwell, 2005: 107). Tunnel vision arises from a pedagogy often underpinned by a single theoretical perspective which is highly contestable when tested with empirical evidence. Perceived irrelevance is due to a lack of congruence between students’ expectations and the limited insights about real world events gained from mainstream programs. Students must suspend disbelief when arcane theoretical structures are developed which provide minimal insight about economic phenomena, but must be learnt and repeated. Fourth, mainstream economics parades as a science, but economic research and knowledge accumulation is value-laden and economists need to understand the social, political and cultural elements that inform their discipline area (Stilwell, 2005). A course which focuses on one theoretical and policy framework limits the capacity of students to develop skills which are crucial in terms of their own career trajectories, but also in terms of broader social and economic outcomes. In particular, the capacity to engage in critical thinking is limited by such a course. The advent of the Global Financial Crisis and the persistence of its adverse real outcomes is a case in point. The economics curriculum in many universities has failed to reflect the ongoing debate about macroeconomic theory and policy in the mainstream media and blogs, and increasingly in academic journals. Students in some developed economies have expressed major misgivings about the undergraduate teaching of economics in general and macroeconomics in particular. Students should be provided with a deep understanding of this important phase of economic history which provides an ideal platform for the careful examination of competing theoretical and policy frameworks through the adoption of a pluralist pedagogy. Teaching Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and neo-liberalism provide a sharp contrast of perspectives. MMT is grounded in institutional practices and combines the principles of chartalism and functional finance. While conceptually challenging, MMT is clearly articulated in the extant literature and can be readily applied to key policy questions. On the other hand, neo-liberalism defers to the primacy of markets, and views the control of inflation as the major policy goal which is achieved by the active use of monetary policy, which is complemented by the pursuit of so-called sound finance. This paper will first detail the pedagogy which informs the design of a three year sequence of macroeconomics courses at the undergraduate level at the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. We argue that students should be exposed to a pluralist perspective from the outset but caution must be exercised in course design, because most of the first year students will have no prior knowledge of economics and will not study Economics beyond the compulsory first year course, because they major in one or more of the Business disciplines. The restructure of the macroeconomics sequence of the Economics major commenced in 2012. Draft: not to be quoted without permission Introduction Teaching mainstream economics is usually based on four undesirable principles namely tunnel vision, perceived irrelevance, suspension of disbelief and pseudo-science (Stilwell, 2005: 107). Tunnel vision arises because the pedagogy is underpinned by a single theoretical perspective based on the primacy of the free market and the rational behaviour of agents. These features of mainstream (neo-liberal) economics are highly contested, however, because they lack internal consistency and have limited accord with knowledge developed in other disciplines, such as psychology and sociology. Also mainstream economics have minimal capacity to adequately explain economic phenomena, and generate predictions at odds with known empirical facts. Perceived irrelevance arises because of a lack of congruence between students’ expectations and the insights about real world events gained from mainstream programs. Students must suspend disbelief when arcane theoretical structures are developed. They provide minimal insight about economic phenomena, but must be learnt and repeated. Finally, mainstream economics parades as a science, but economic research and knowledge accumulation is value-laden and economists need to understand the social, political and cultural elements that inform their discipline area (Stilwell, 2005). A course which focuses on one theoretical and policy framework limits the capacity of students to develop skills which are crucial in terms of their own career trajectories, but also in terms of broader social and economic outcomes. In particular, the capacity to engage in critical thinking is limited by such a course. The advent of the Global Financial Crisis and the persistence of its adverse real macroeconomic outcomes is a case in point. The dominant neo-liberal view, as articulated by Williamson (1990), OECD Jobs Study (1994) and subsequent OECD and IMF publications (e.g. IMF, 2010; OECD, 2011), is now under sustained challenge,1 with the evident failure of loose conventional (and unconventional) monetary policy and fiscal austerity to promote growth, particularly in the Eurozone countries (Sharpe and Watts, 2012). There has been a resurgence of the ideas of Keynes, Marx and Minsky and the realisation that understanding macroeconomics requires complex thinking not gross simplifications. Students of economics should be provided with a deep understanding of this important phase of economic history, yet the macroeconomics curriculum in many universities has not been adjusted to reflect that many of the shibboleths of neo-liberalism are under major challenge, through ongoing debates about macroeconomic theory and policy in the mainstream media and blogs, as well as, increasingly, academic journals. Many students in developed economies, including the UK, Europe and the USA, have expressed major misgivings about the manner in which macroeconomics (and economics in general) is taught and the inflexibility of the curriculum, despite the profound impact of the GFC on macroeconomic outcomes in most developed economies. These include the Post-Autistic Economics Movement (PAEM) in Paris2, Post- Crash Society at Manchester University (http://www.post-crasheconomics.com), the Cambridge Society for Economic Pluralism and organisations at UCL, LSE and Sheffield University.3 This student dissatisfaction has yet to materialise into a coherent outline of an appropriate macroeconomics syllabus. 1 This is not to deny that the OECD, in particular, made modest concessions to its critics, prior to the GFC (see, for example, OECD, 2006), but these concessions have not been reflected in later OECD publications (Watt, 2006), which remain steadfastly neo-liberal. 2 The PAEM precedes the Global Financial Crisis and began in June 2000, when economics students circulated a petition calling for the reform of their economics curriculum. 3 In November 2011, about seventy Harvard students walked out of Economics 10, in support for the “Occupy” movement’s principal criticism that conservative economic policies had contributed to increased income inequality in the USA. The students argued that there was bias inherent in the introductory economics course taught by Professor N. Gregory Mankiw. Concerns have also been expressed about assessment processes, with both the absence of continuous assessment and an undesirable reliance on multiple-choice tests. Further the graduate attributes which universities such as Manchester are trying to engender in their graduates would appear to be inconsistent with the orthodox perspective of their courses (Post-Crash Economics Society Report, 2014). This paper outlines the development, since Semester 1 2012, of a three year sequence of macroeconomics courses which is offered as part of an optional major sequence in Economics within the Bachelor of Commerce at the University of Newcastle (New South Wales, Australia) with the first year macroeconomics course (along with first year Microeconomics) currently being compulsory for all students in both the Commerce and Business programs.4 The majority of students in the Newcastle Business School will not study Economics beyond the compulsory first year courses, because they choose to major in one or more of the other disciplines in the degree programs, such as Accounting or Marketing. Accordingly, the content of a core macroeconomics course must be largely self-contained, with a judicious mix of theory and policy but remain relevant and accessible to terminating students. An international perspective is adopted throughout the course sequence which highlights major differences in prevailing institutional practices of important macroeconomic institutions, such as Central Banks. We argue that, for a meaningful learning experience and one which promotes the acquisition of the University of Newcastle graduate attributes (which apply to all
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Orthodox and Heterodox Economics in Recent Economic Methodology
    Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Volume 8, Issue 1, Spring 2015, pp. 61-81. http://ejpe.org/pdf/8-1-art-4.pdf Orthodox and heterodox economics in recent economic methodology D. WADE HANDS University of Puget Sound Abstract: This paper discusses the development of the field of economic methodology during the last few decades emphasizing the early influence of the “shelf” of Popperian philosophy and the division between neoclassical and heterodoX economics. It argues that the field of methodology has recently adopted a more naturalistic approach focusing primarily on the “new pluralist” subfields of experimental economics, behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and related subjects. Keywords: orthodoX, heterodoX, neoclassical, economic theory, economic methodology JEL Classification: A12, B41, B49, B50 Myself when young did have ambition to contribute to the growth of social science. At the end, I am more interested in having less nonsense posing as knowledge (Frank Knight, 1956). At the time I was finishing graduate school, there was no real “field” of economic methodology. There were of course methodological writings by influential economists (e.g., Robbins 1932, 1952; Friedman 1953; Samuelson 1964, 1965), but these works were seldom of the same intellectual quality as the research that had made these economists famous as economists. There were also brief discussions of economics in influential books on the philosophy of science (e.g., Hempel 1965, AUTHOR’S NOTE: This paper began as a lecture delivered at the XVII Meeting on Epistemology of the Economic Sciences, School of Economic Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina, October 6-7, 2011. It was subsequently published in Perspectives on epistemology of economics: essays on methodology of economics (Lazzarini and Weisman 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Keynesianism: Mainstream Economics Or Heterodox Economics?
    STUDIA EKONOMICZNE 1 ECONOMIC STUDIES NR 1 (LXXXIV) 2015 Izabela Bludnik* KEYNESIANISM: MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS OR HETERODOX ECONOMICS? INTRODUCTION The broad area of ​​research commonly referred to as “Keynesianism” was estab- lished by the book entitled The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money published in 1936 by John Maynard Keynes (Keynes, 1936; Polish ed. 2003). It was hailed as revolutionary as it undermined the vision of the functioning of the world and the conduct of economic policy, which at the time had been estab- lished for over 100 years, and thus permanently changed the face of modern economics. But Keynesianism never created a homogeneous set of views. Con- ventionally, the term is synonymous with supporting state interventions as ensur- ing a higher degree of resource utilization. However, this statement is too general for it to be meaningful. Moreover, it ignores the existence of a serious divide within the Keynesianism resulting from the adoption of two completely different perspectives concerning the world functioning. The purpose of this paper is to compare those two Keynesian perspectives in the context of the separate areas of mainstream and heterodox economics. Given the role traditionally assigned to each of these alternative approaches, one group of ideas known as Keynesian is widely regarded as a major field for the discussion of economic problems, whilst the second one – even referred to using the same term – is consistently ignored in the academic literature. In accordance with the assumed objectives, the first part of the article briefly characterizes the concept of neoclassical economics and mainstream economics. Part two is devoted to the “old” neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s and 1960s, New Keynesianism and the * Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Katedra Makroekonomii i Badań nad Rozwojem ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating the Output Gap
    ECONOMIC AND MONETARY DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS Appendix 2 Calculating the output gap The output gap is an important concept in the preparation of inflation forecasts and assessments of the economic outlook. However, the output gap is difficult to measure and subject to great uncertainty in practice. The techniques used by the Central Bank of Iceland and elsewhere to calculate the output gap, which have previously been described in Monetary Bulletin (2000/4 pp. 14-15), will be recapitulated here taking particular account of investments in the aluminium and power sectors, since these have a substantial impact on both the level of production and output potential in the economy, not only during the construction phase but also when the investments 1 have been completed. 2005•1 MONETARY BULLETIN Definition of the output gap The output gap is defined as the difference between actual and potential GDP as a per cent of potential GDP, i.e.: (1) P where GAPt is the output gap, Yt is GDP in real terms and Y t is the potential output of the economy, all during the year t. Potential output is defined as the level of GDP that is consistent with full utilisation of all factors of production under conditions of stable inflation. Thus potential output is determined on the supply side of the economy, i.e. by capital stock, labour use and available technology. Potential output in the long term is determined by how effici- ently the available factors of production can be utilised for a given level of productivity. In the short run, however, aggregate demand can drive the level of production beyond long-term potential output.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Output and Recessions: Are We Fooling Ourselves? Martin, Robert, Teyanna Munyan, and Beth Anne Wilson
    K.7 Potential Output and Recessions: Are We Fooling Ourselves? Martin, Robert, Teyanna Munyan, and Beth Anne Wilson Please cite paper as: Martin, Robert, Teyanna Munyan, and Beth Anne Wilson (2015). Potential Output and Recessions: Are We Fooling Ourselves? International Finance Discussion Papers 1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/IFDP.2015.1145 International Finance Discussion Papers Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Number 1145 September 2015 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System International Finance Discussion Papers Number 1145 September 2015 Potential Output and Recessions: Are We Fooling Ourselves? Robert Martin Teyanna Munyan Beth Anne Wilson NOTE: International Finance Discussion Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. References to International Finance Discussion Papers (other than an acknowledgment that the writer has had access to unpublished material) should be cleared with the author or authors. Recent IFDPs are available on the Web at www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/. This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at www.ssrn.com. Potential Output and Recessions: Are We Fooling Ourselves? Robert Martin Teyanna Munyan Beth Anne Wilson* Abstract: This paper studies the impact of recessions on the longer-run level of output using data on 23 advanced economies over the past 40 years. We find that severe recessions have a sustained and sizable negative impact on the level of output. This sustained decline in output raises questions about the underlying properties of output and how we model trend output or potential around recessions. We find little support for the view that output rises faster than trend immediately following recessions to close the output gap.
    [Show full text]
  • Here with Permission
    Heterodox Economics Newsletter WHO'S AFRAID OF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES? CHALLENGING ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE IN AN AGE OF GROWING INEQUALITY, by Paul Davidson, Palgrave-MacMillan: 2017, pp. 162; ISBN 978-3- 319-64502-2. Reviewed by James K. Galbraith1 Originally appearing in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, this review is reprinted here with permission. Paul Davidson, in his ninth decade, has produced a crisp and clear exegesis of essential Keynesian ideas and the critical failures of so-called mainstream economic thought. The most critical flaw lies in the treatment of time. Rooted in ancient ideas of equilibrium, harmony and social balance, mainstream economics treats the future as an extrapolation of the past, predictable except for random errors, which are called “risk.” This as Davidson insists is incurably incorrect; there is uncertainty and at any time financial markets are prone to collapse in a failed flight to safety, which drains liquidity and deprives both financial and physical assets of their market value. From this it follows that in the social sphere any model that projects the future from the past will fail from time to time. The models work so long as things do not change! As for change, for turning points, they nevertheless occur. And that those who believe most in the model will prepare the least and be hurt the worst. And yet, for the economy to function, “belief” in the model – at the least, conditional belief sufficient to motivate consumption and investment – appears essential. Without it, the private economy cannot prosper. Living in a house of cards is better than having no house at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 2 Professor Christina Romer Spring 2018 Professor David Romer
    Economics 2 Professor Christina Romer Spring 2018 Professor David Romer LECTURE 15 MEASUREMENT AND BEHAVIOR OF REAL GDP March 8, 2018 I. MACROECONOMICS VERSUS MICROECONOMICS II. REAL GDP A. Definition B. Nominal GDP and real GDP C. A little about measuring GDP D. Facts 1. Strong upward trend 2. Huge differences across countries 3. Short-run fluctuations III. INFLATION A. Measurement B. Facts C. Why do we care about inflation? D. Adjusting for price changes E. Quality changes and new goods in calculating inflation IV. OVERVIEW OF MACRO FRAMEWORK AND LONG-RUN GROWTH A. Long-run trend and short-run fluctuations in real GDP B. Potential Output (Y*) C. The three key determinants of potential output D. The long-run consequences of small differences in growth rates Economics 2 Christina Romer Spring 2018 David Romer LECTURE 15 Measurement and Behavior of Real GDP March 8, 2018 Announcements • Research reading for Tuesday, March 13 (by William Nordhaus): • Read only the assigned pages. • Read for approach and findings; think about relevance for the measurement of inflation and growth in standards of living. I. MACROECONOMICS VERSUS MICROECONOMICS Macroeconomics • Definition: • The study of the aggregate economy. • Concerned with: • Total output. • Aggregate price level and inflation. • The unemployment rate. • The overall level of interest rates; the exchange rate; overall exports and imports. II. REAL GDP Real Gross Domestic Product (Real GDP) • The market value of the final goods and services newly produced in a country during some period of time, adjusted for price changes. • Note: In general, “real” means adjusted for price changes. Nominal GDP • Nominal GDP: The market value of the final goods and services newly produced in a country during some period of time, not adjusted for price changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating and Projecting Potential Output Using CBO's Forecasting
    Working Paper Series Congressional Budget Office Washington, D.C. Estimating and Projecting Potential Output Using CBO’s Forecasting Growth Model Robert Shackleton Congressional Budget Office [email protected] Working Paper 2018-03 February 2018 To enhance the transparency of the work of the Congressional Budget Office and to encourage external review of that work, CBO’s working paper series includes papers that provide technical descriptions of official CBO analyses as well as papers that represent original, independent research by CBO analysts. The information in this paper is being circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment as developmental work for analysis for the Congress. Papers in this series are available at http://go.usa.gov/ULE. For helpful comments and suggestions, the author thanks Bob Arnold, Wendy Edelberg, Jeffrey Kling, Kim Kowalewski, Mark Lasky, Joshua Montes, Nathan Musick, Michael Simpson, Julie Topoleski, and Jeff Werling (all of CBO), as well as Douglas Meade of the University of Maryland, College Park, Emi Nakamura of Columbia University, and Daniel Sichel of Wellesley College. The author thanks Loretta Lettner for editing. www.cbo.gov/publication/53558 Abstract As part of its responsibility for producing baseline projections of the economy and the federal budget, the Congressional Budget Office regularly produces estimates and projections of potential output, a measure of the economy’s fundamental ability to supply goods and services. The projection of potential output serves as a key input to CBO’s macroeconomic forecasts and budget projections, helping the agency maintain consistency between its projections of labor supply and capital accumulation and its projections of taxes on income from labor and capital, of federal expenditures, and of the accumulation of public debt.
    [Show full text]
  • Productivity and Potential Output Before, During, and After the Great Recession
    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO WORKING PAPER SERIES Productivity and Potential Output Before, During, and After the Great Recession John G. Fernald Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco June 2014 Working Paper 2014-15 http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/wp2014-15.pdf The views in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Productivity and Potential Output Before, During, and After the Great Recession John G. Fernald* Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco June 5, 2014 Abstract U.S. labor and total-factor productivity growth slowed prior to the Great Recession. The timing rules out explanations that focus on disruptions during or since the recession, and industry and state data rule out “bubble economy” stories related to housing or finance. The slowdown is located in industries that produce information technology (IT) or that use IT intensively, consistent with a return to normal productivity growth after nearly a decade of exceptional IT-fueled gains. A calibrated growth model suggests trend productivity growth has returned close to its 1973-1995 pace. Slower underlying productivity growth implies less economic slack than recently estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. As of 2013, about ¾ of the shortfall of actual output from (overly optimistic) pre-recession trends reflects a reduction in the level of potential. JEL Codes: E23, E32, O41, O47 Keywords: Potential output, productivity, information technology, business cycles, multi-sector growth models * Contact: Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 101 Market St, San Francisco, CA 94105, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The “Kansas City” Approach to Modern Money Theory
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Wray, Larry Randall Working Paper The "Kansas City" approach to modern money theory Working Paper, No. 961 Provided in Cooperation with: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Suggested Citation: Wray, Larry Randall (2020) : The "Kansas City" approach to modern money theory, Working Paper, No. 961, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale-on- Hudson, NY This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/238651 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Working Paper No. 961 The “Kansas City” Approach to Modern Money Theory by L. Randall Wray Levy Economics Institute of Bard College July 2020 The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MAGIC MONEY TREE: the Case Against Modern Monetary Theory
    THE MAGIC MONEY TREE: The case against Modern Monetary Theory Antony P. Mueller The Adam Smith Institute has an open access policy. Copyright remains with the copyright holder, but users may download, save and distribute this work in any format provided: (1) that the Adam Smith Institute is cited; (2) that the web address adamsmith.org is published together with a prominent copy of this notice; (3) the text is used in full without amendment [extracts may be used for criticism or review]; (4) the work is not re–sold; (5) the link for any online use is sent to info@ adamsmith.org. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any views held by the publisher or copyright owner. They are published as a contribution to public debate. © Adam Smith Research Trust 2019 CONTENTS About the author 4 Executive summary 5 Introduction 7 1 What is Modern Monetary Theory? 10 2 Mosler Economics 16 3 Theoretical foundations 21 4 The Neo-Marxist Roots of MMT 26 5 Main points of critique 34 Conclusion 45 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Professor Antony P. Mueller studied economics, political science, and philosophy along with foreign relations in Germany with study stays in the United States (Center for the Study of Public Choice in Blacksburg, Va.), in England, and in Spain and obtained his doctorate in economics from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU). He was a Fulbright Scholar in the United States and a visiting professor in Latin America - including two stays at the Universidad Francisco Marroquin (UFM) in Guatemala.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism Tae-Hee Jo, Lynne Chester, Carlo D'ippoliti
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism Tae-Hee Jo, Lynne Chester, Carlo D'Ippoliti The social surplus approach Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315707587.ch3 Nuno Ornelas Martins Published online on: 28 Jul 2017 How to cite :- Nuno Ornelas Martins. 28 Jul 2017, The social surplus approach from: The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics, Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315707587.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The social surplus approach Historical origins and present state Nuno Ornelas Martins Introduction For classical political economists, the social surplus is the part of production that is not necessary for the reproduction of the existing social system.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Value': an Exercise for Embedding Heterodox Economics Into Sociology
    The value in ‘value’: An exercise for embedding heterodox economics into sociology and social policy education Nathan Coombs (University of Edinburgh) Ashley Frawley (Swansea University) Abstract With continuing resistance by economics departments to pluralising their curricula, heterodox economists have suggested an alliance with other social sciences. This article suggests the labour theory value (LTV) as an appropriate concept for embedding heterodox ideas into sociology and social policy teaching. While often seen as a relic of nineteenth century political economy, teaching LTV is beneficial as (1) it is one of few economic theories addressing causes of economic inequality and (2) the contrast with neoclassical subjective value theory (STV) facilitates discussion about relationships between different ideas of ‘value’ and conflicting political ideas about social justice. We present a series of exercises designed to introduce students to differences between STV and LTV. After running and modifying exercises over three years, we find the intervention broadly successful in encouraging students to engage with economic ideas and draw connections between personal experience, society, economics and politics. Keywords Value theory, heterodox economics, economic sociology, social policy, inequality, pedagogy 1. Introduction: bringing heterodox economics to sociology and social policy 1.1. The impasse in economics teaching In the wake the 2007-9 financial crisis there were high hopes for reform within the economics profession. Student groups demanded broader and more applied curricula, government reports were issued on the state of the profession, and there were even fleeting glimpses of introspection within the discipline’s mainstream (Inman, 2013). Yet, commentators have observed that these efforts have left surprisingly little impression (Coyle, 2012; Morgan, 2015).
    [Show full text]