Earlier this month, I published a letter in the Financial Times with Carolina Alves, Besiana Balla and Devika Dutt (July 17th, 2018). The letter was a reaction the lack of diversity in Martin Wolf’s summer reading list in the FT. His reading list consisted of only authors based in either the UK or the US, 12 out of 13 of the authors were men, and most of them were writing within the so-called mainstream of the profession. We were therefore compelled to put together our own list in order to show that heterodox, female and/or non-Western scholars also do publish high quality work – although it tends to go unnoticed due to the biases in our field. So, we put together this Alternative Economics Summer Reading List (published on Developing Economics).
It was Martin’s response (see here for the full exchange) to my comment under his list that finally inspired us to write a letter to the FT. In our letter, we urge Martin to be explicit about his biases when publishing such reading lists, as many FT readers might be misled into thinking that his lists represent the breadth of the field.
The letter went on to become the most read FT Letter of the week.
I recently reviewed Anwar Shaikh’s Capitalism – Competition, Conflict, Crises (2016) for the Norwegian journal Agora (see/buy the issue here). The review has also been published online on Manifest Analyse.
Following my book review of Anwar Shaikh’s Capitalism – Competition, Conflict, Crises, I ended up in a debate with a Norwegian philosopher (and Marxist) about Shaikh’s labor theory of value. The debate took place in the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen.
Here is the exchange:
Anwar Shaikh versus seriøs teori (Jørgen Sandemose, May 30th 2016)
Seriøs teori (Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven, June 1st 2016)
Om en uholdbar «verditeori» (Jørgen Sandemose, June 8th, 2016)
På tide å lese boka? (Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven, June 14th 2016)
Den siste replikken (Jørgen Sandemose, June 15th, 2016)
Continue reading “Debate with Norwegian Marxist”
Last week New School Professor Anwar Shaikh was in Norway to launch his new book Capitalism – Competition, Conflict, Crises. For the occasion, I was asked by the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen to write an essay about his book. You can read the full text here.
Collin Constantine (SOAS) and I have recently published a book review of Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s (2001) famous ‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty.’ Our paper finds significant flaws in the methodology employed by Acemoglu et al., for example with the proxies used for wealth in 1500, with the oversimplified historical framework it relies on, and with their idea of ‘institutions’. We argue that attributing successful development to private property rights obscures the complexity of development processes through history and that Acemoglu et al.’s understanding of ‘good institutions’ fails to capture the type of institutions that existed in the now advanced countries when they were developing.
Read the complete review in the 7th edition of The New School Economic Review (open access).