Habitar a Terra: como pensar a urgência ecológica em Portugal?
10 outubro | 18h00 | Edifício Américo Amorim
‘Crash and learn: should we change the way we teach economics?’ is the title of the FT article which describes the growing student rebellion in Great Britain against the way economics has been taught in recent decades. Students criticize the unrealistic assumptions of neoclassical economics and its use and abuse of mathematics. They ask for a more pluralistic approach to economics. In a recent working paper, Paul Romer criticized what he calls Post Real Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models used by neoclassical macroeconomists – New Keynesian and New Classical – as they attribute fluctuations in aggregate variables to imaginary causal forces. Times are changing in economics as a result of the 2008 crisis, and for the better. Economists are revisiting theories such as the financial instability hypothesis of Hyman Minsky. Some basic assumptions of neoclassical macroeconomics are being challenged (see the interview given by Olivier Blanchard to the IMF Survey in 2015).
We can look at what is happening in the profession – the lively discussion, the changing views on how the economy works, the recovery of old theories, etc. – as something similar to what happened in the Italian Renaissance (Il Quattrocento), when artists revisited the classics (Greek and Roman) to criticize the contemporary art of their time and introduce innovations. In the present discussion on economics, a few economists are revisiting the classics (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill et al) to criticize contemporary neoclassical economics and