Changes in Women's Representation in Economics: New Data from the AEA Papers and Proceedings

The shortage of women and historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in the economics profession has received considerable public attention in the past several years. The American Economic Association (AEA), the professional organization for economists, has been taking steps to address criticism that the economics discipline is unwelcoming to women and underrepresented minorities.

Heterogeneous entrepreneurship and the Sunday Times Rich List

It may appear surprising that economists devote such little attention to the heterogeneity nature of entrepreneurship, however there are several possible explanations. The concept represents a well-known tension between typical economic theory and the concept of entrepreneurship itself. When Baumol (1968) and Kirz-ner (1973) wrote their seminal works they were attempting to respond to a perceived neglect of the entrepreneur within neo classical economics. The explosion of entrepreneurship re search since then has not been comfortably reconciled with for mal mo - dels, and indeed empirical studies have a tendency to lapse into psychological profiling. It might be argued that such profiling (be it in terms of gender, race, age, experience, education, IQ, marital status, employment history, etc) does make entrepreneurs hetero - geneous, however this differs from the way in which we use the term. «Heterogeneity» does not merely mean «differentiated» but ties into a deeper methodological debate about the nature of scientific analysis. In short, heterogeneity is an aspect of the broa - der concept of subjectivism. At a basic level subjectivism implies that individuals can interpret events in different ways, and as a consequence of this we expect a diversity of action that is glossed over when people are modelled as homogenous agents. Having said this, it’s important to recognise the diversity of approaches and methodologies within the economics profession. For example, although the neoclassical system is liable to eschew premises that aren’t tractable, Austrian-school economists do tend to emphasise subjectivism and heterogeneity. But whilst this is strikingly evident in capital theory (see Lachmann 1956) it is cu-rious to note that a similar attitude towards entrepreneurs them - selves is underplayed. In short, since Austrians emphasise the functional qualities of entrepreneurship they treat entrepreneurs as homogenous blobs. This paper intends to strike a middle ground between homogeneity and psychological particularism by de-constructing the entrepreneur (Evans and Baxendale 2008).

Gary North: a critique

In this paper I take Gary North to task for several errors in his recent writings. In section II I address North (2012a). Section III is devoted to a critique of North (2012b). The purpose of section IV is to explore the propriety of criticizing a fellow Austrian-libertarian, with whom I am in agreement in probably 99% of all issues in political economy. I conclude in section V. North (2012a) is a very, very good essay on behalf of using gold as money. Entitled «Economists vs. the Gold Coin Standard,» it is an utter intellectual annihilation of the mainstream economics profession on this vitally important question. However, in the course of his essay, he makes several relatively minor mistakes. But, before I get to them, let me say that I regard them as only minor errors in an otherwise excellent, no, make that magnificent piece. This author explains in great detail why most mainstream economists think a full gold (coin) standard will lead to economic disarray. He also unearths in great detail the evils of the fed in suborning most mainstream money-macro economists.

Niels Thygesen: An Academic in the Making of European Monetary Union

Niels Thygesen (born 1934) played for nearly five decades an influential role as a policy orientated academic, especially in the process of economic and monetary integration in Europe. He is especially known as a member of the Delors Committee and as the first Chair of the European Fiscal Board. As part of a re-search program on collecting memories, this paper publishes the results of several interviews with him. His early life offers insightful observations on the develop-ment of the economics profession in the postwar years (he was close to Nobel Prize laureates as Franco Modigliani and Milton Friedman). Thygesen's involvement with the process of European monetary integration really started in 1974 with his membership of the Marjolin Committee (which provided an assessment of the failure of the 1970 Werner Report). Since then he has been involved in a multitude of committees and initiatives, like the OPTICA groups, the All Saints Day Manifes-to, the Committee for Monetary Union in Europe (an initiative of Giscard and Schmidt) and the Euro50 Group.

Carbon-reducing innovation as the essential policy frontier – towards finding the ways that work

Finding the ways that work to deliver the innovation needed should be given parity of esteem with getting the prices right as a focus of the economics profession and policy systems. Learn from experience as regards carbon pricing and carbon-reducing innovation; insights from the latter coming mainly from the US, China and Europe; demographically relatively small countries – Denmark (wind) and Australia (solar PV) – can make outsize contributions. A carbon price ceiling is too low to drive innovation; generating carbon-reducing innovation requires that it be explicitly recognized as a priority, and nurtured accordingly: identify the priority area(s) where innovation at scale will be necessary to make progress; baseline the elements of the innovation ecosystem which are already in place, and the gaps that need to be filled. Key elements include institutions and incentives that promote innovation, a research and enterprise community that make it happen, and a supportive public.

A Keynesian Revolution or Austerity? The IMF and the COVID-19 Crisis

This commentary for the “Political Economy Section COVID-19 Collection’’ discusses ideational continuity and change at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that, despite an initial advice to increase the government spending, the Fund has later reverted back to the market orthodoxy recommending fiscal discipline and balanced government budget in the longer-term. The piece argues that, although a global crisis and increased government spending by influential member states such as the United States might have prompted an ideational shift at the Fund, a lack of clear theorization of longer-term Keynesian policies in academic circles and in the economics profession, prevented a paradigmatic change at the Fund.