I recently published the post Diversity and Excellence: Not A Zero Sum Game along with colleagues for the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s (INET) blog series “Diversity and Pluralism in Economics: Problems and Solutions”.
Along with Rune Skarstein, Anders Skonhoft, Olav Fagerlid, Lars Mjøset, Ida Sognnæs, Ebba Boye, Knut Alfsen, Per Espen Stoknes, Anders Ekeland, and Solveig Glomsrød, I argue for an effective and fair fee on fossil fuel production in the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen. Read the full essay here (in Norwegian).
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.
In June 2018, the Interdisciplinary Global Development Centre was launched (my new employer). During the launch, I held a presentation of my project “Heterodox Development Economics” and gave some remarks. See the promo video from the event below.
My research and blog was profiled on The New School Research Matters platform.
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)
In the wake of the release of a critical book on Neoclassical Economics in Norway, a heated debate on the state of the field of Economics has unfolded in Norwegian media. Norwegian Economics Professors argue that they are not Neoclassical (although they use Neoclassical methods such as general equilibrium analysis), that it’s impossible to do Economics outside of an equilibrium framework, and that alternative theories are so small that they are not worth teaching. My Norwegian colleague at The New School, Ebba Boye, and I entered the debate last week, by pointing out that Economics has not always been synonymous to Neoclassical Economics, that there are non-Neoclassical theories that have strong explanatory power, and that it is possible – and desirable! – to learn a variety of Economic theories in one degree program. Here’s our Op-ed in the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen: Økonomisk innsikt utenfor mainstream.