me: >> to one of grad-school professors (Clair Brown), that was one of the >> big critiques of the Chicago School economics, especially labor >> economics: it is totally useless to business, except perhaps as >> ideology.
raghu: > What kind of economics education would be useful for business? Are > these critics simply proposing to convert academic economics programs > into business schools? I can't speak for Clair and don't know her work as well as I should, but if I remember correctly most of the practical applications of her work (which uses labor economics of an institutionalist sort while being knowledgeable of neoclassical economics) can inform organized labor (to the extent that it still exists) and relatively liberal public policy. If you're looking for a similar scholar, I'd point to Teresa Ghilarducci, a friend of mine and also a former student of Clair's. Teresa knows a lot about pensions, IRAs, and social security and has been defending the last of these from right-wing attacks. Because it involves concrete knowledge of actual conditions (rather than cloud-cuckoo- land theories), Clair's _type_ of work, as opposed to that of the Chicago-schoolers, could inform business management and conservative public policy for issues distinct from the "get government off our backs [i.e., those of business and the rich]" variety. That is, products of institutionalist economics could be used for pragmatic pro-business purposes without the same virulent ideology that prevails at the U. of Chicago's economics department. (Of course, in the current era, business leaders don't seem to be as pragmatic as they used to be and are pushing for mostly ideological goals (tax cuts for themselves, across-the-board deregulation). Until recently, many have been triumphalist. Many would rather make their bucks by shuffling financial paper instead of producing things or useful services. So demand for this kind of economics from the business sector is likely down.) One of the subjects that I remember Clair has studied is NUMMI (the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.) and labor relations there. This kind of thing could, in theory, inform reformist efforts to foster labor/management cooperation. The Chicago school, on the other hand, would likely simply say that old-fashioned management top-down rule is more efficient, period. Then the market will solve any relevant issues, since markets are more efficient. There is no alternative. Note: I am not defending Clair's style of economics. That's a different issue. I'm only describing it (as I know it). -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
