For what its worth here are a couple of suggestions relating to
Blair's question.
I too find that students are confused by critiquing the text. It
raises the very reasonable question as to why it is assigned in the
first place. Solution: assign the text as representative of one
paradigm in economics- the classical/monetarist/new
classical/neoclassical paradigm. If this is done the more
reactionary the text the better. I find a more liberal attempt to
integrate all perspectives into one hegemonic 'science' of
macroeconomics to be even more conservatively tendentious and what's
more confusing and inconsistent. Assign another text or xeroxed
readings as representing other macroeconomic perspectives.
I also think it is useful to adopt an historical approach to macro
debates and different perspectives can be located as historical
incidents in an ongoing discourse. I've taught intermediate under
the following headings.
The Classical Establishment
(Say's Law, etc.)
The Keynesian Revolution
(the Keynes of the General Theory)
The Keynesian Strategic Retreat
(ISLM etc.)
Monetarism and the New Classical Counter-Revolution
The Keynesians Strike Back
(Post-Keynesianism with New Keynesianism representing a kind of
bastard Post-Keynesianism)
The Marxian Third Force
In this context bits from Galbraith and Darity, Sherman and Evans
(out of Print), Miller and Pulsinelli (out of print), Brown (out of
print) and Gordon are useful.
Terry McDonough
