Good point, Rakesh. Then again, Berkeley used to have a much larger contingent of industutionalist and leftish people. When I was there in the 60s, Doug Dowd was allowed to teach. Papendreau, however, became chair & brought in the math people, who became so numerous they got an additional department of their own. He thought that the math and history approaches would complement each other. They did not.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lakshmi Rhone Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Pen-l] Neoclassical economics One thing is that the work of of a lot of Berkeley economists is fairly interesting to non-economists--Pranab Bardhan's work on India and China, Michael Reich on social structures of accumulation, Akerlof on animal spirits and identity, of course DeLong's critiques of freshwater economics, Saez's work on inequality, Brown's history of the microprocessor industry, DeVries' idea of the industrious revolution,Gourinchas' Congressional testimony on the financial crisis, Eichengreen's analysis of dollar politics. Then there are Berkeley or Berkeley trained economists working in other departments or centers--the business school, real estate research centers, information systems.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
