Sobran las palabras y los comentarios. Copio y pego parte de la editorial publicada por el
Financial Times el pasado 12 de noviembre (editorial completa
aquí)
...
The
recital of laws and ritual genuflection towards mathematical models may
lend the subject a certain intellectual respectability, but much of
this is spurious. Mathematics should, of course, not be neglected, but
the emphasis on abstract theory should be downgraded in favour of a more
balanced intellectual diet. This should include the relatively
neglected discipline of economic history.
...
The market for economic theorists may not have gone the way of the
subprime collateralised debt obligation but it is not what it was. There
is a recognition that disciplines such as psychology, history and
finance need to be more firmly embedded in economics teaching. The route
to publication in top journals should involve empirical research, not
just the firing up of an Excel spreadsheet.
The Economist sigue en la misma línea... (texto completo
aquí)
It is not just students who are dissatisfied with economics.
Professional economists can spot easy wins too.
Many think economic
history should be more widely taught, citing the fact that Ben
Bernanke’s Federal Reserve, influenced by his knowledge of the Great
Depression and of Japan’s slump in the 1990s, outperformed rich-world
peers. It is not merely American financial history that matters, either.
Stanley Fischer, governor of Israel’s central bank between 2005 and
2013, says he found economic history (including Walter Bagehot’s famous
rule—to provide generous amounts of cash to troubled banks, but to
charge them for it) useful in combating the 2008 crisis. This material
had long fallen off the syllabus in most universities before the crash.