An interesting piece in The
Economist:
Two issues that I am a strong proponent of are highlighted
in the article:
1.
Emphasis on economic history should pervade the
entire economics curriculum (especially, courses in macroeconomics). Economics
majors should be encouraged to read books such as “The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy” by Daniel
Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, “Lord of
Finance” by Liaquat Ahamed, “A Great
Leap Forward” by Alexander J. Field, “Free
Trade Under Fire” by Douglas Irwin, and “WRONG: Nine Economic Policy Disasters and What We Can Learn from Them”
by Richard S. Grossman
2.
Economics instruction has to become more
globally oriented. Even today, most US macroeconomics textbooks place an extraordinary
level of emphasis on closed economy analysis (the historical rationale being
that, for America, the share of exports or imports to GDP was often quite
low). Exchange rates, capital flows, international
business cycle spillovers, and global trade and supply chain networks are all
issues relegated to the last few chapters of textbooks and often treated as
optional material. For just about any country in the world, open-economy macro
analysis is critical. Even the US economy has become increasingly globalized
and, as such, it is ridiculous for textbooks to continue to devote so much
attention to closed economy models.
NOTE:
A.
The vast majority of PhDs teaching economics at
leading institutions around the world obtained their graduate training in the US.
Doctoral work by top international students is still largely undertaken at US
research universities. Hence, any reform in US curriculum and instructional
approaches will affect how economics is taught around the world.
B.
Most undergrads these days are allergic to
reading books, and are prone to cantankerous outbursts if they are forced to
read anything longer than a brief paragraph. So, unless instructors are bold
enough to require students to read a variety of books and articles, the debate
on changing economics curriculum is largely a moot exercise.