![]() I question whether any student will gain any valid macroeconomics knowledge by pursuing the curriculum that is set out by the CORE group.Ĭassidy also noted something that I think is telling: The book is replete with the standard neo-liberal monetary myths and is just dressed up to appear to be a progressive development. It said that the release of the CORE on-line “introductory economics curriculum” was “good news for incoming students of economics”. The New Yorker carried a glowing review of the CORE book (September 11, 2017) – A New Way to Learn Economics. ![]() The press has been fawning over the project. The principal authors (Samuel Bowles and Wendy Carlin) recently published a promotional Op-ed article (September 7, 2017) – A new paradigm for the introductory course in economics – where they claim that the proposed CORE curriculum represents a paradigms shift in the way economics is taught and “provides a very different vision of the economy.” The Times article (September 12, 2017) – The financial crisis demands a new type of economics – writes that:ĬORE promises to be the biggest shake-up since Paul Samuelson’s Economics became the standard bearer for introductory texts in 1948 … The Project, entitled CORE Econ, has just released an on-line version of their proposed curriculum which they claim addresses the limitations of the extant mainstream approach and responds to “what are our students asking, what are they curious about?” ( Source). iNET was a George Soros-funded initiative aimed at stimulating changes in the economic debate following the GFC, which left no reasonable person in doubt that the mainstream macroeconomic theory and practice was defunct (putting it mildly).Īt the conference, one of the sessions focused on a new project designed to revise the introductory economics curriculum to incorporate new insights (allegedly) that were missing in the standard first-year programs at universities all around the world. When one compares it to other post-GFC developments in the pedagogy of macroeconomics, some of which have received the headlines in the past week, I think the curriculum embodied in our text is progressive, consistent, and doesn’t fall into the typical neoliberal default regarding governments and the monetary system.Ī few years ago, I was invited to speak at a iNET (Institute for New Economic Thinking) in Toronto, Canada. We now have what we believe is a very strong two-year sequence in macroeconomics, firmly founded on MMT principles, with a good balance between discursive narrative, historical context, empirical challenge, and formal (mathematical) reasoning. We were confronted with the situation that we want our textbook to be used as widely as possible in the first and second years of a typical undergraduate program, but also didn’t want to fall into the trap of compromising what we considered to be a unified body of theory based upon Modern Monetary Theory (MMMT) for what other colleagues (particularly, mainstream academics) would claim to be necessary material to prepare a student for the labour market. In part, my contribution will be to discuss the general pedagogical concerns that we (Randy Wray, Martin Watts and myself) had as we wrote the textbook over what turned out to be several years. The panel will present during the First International MMT Conference, to be held in Kansas City. ![]() ![]() ![]() Next Friday (September 22, 2017), I will be presenting at a panel on developments associated with the proposed MMT University and our new MMT Macroeconomics textbook, which will be published by Macmillan in April 2018. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |