Melden Sie sich bei getAbstract an, um die Zusammenfassung zu erhalten.

Economics After Neoliberalism

Melden Sie sich bei getAbstract an, um die Zusammenfassung zu erhalten.

Economics After Neoliberalism

Contemporary economics is finally breaking free from its market fetishism, offering plenty of tools we can use to make society more inclusive.

Boston Review,

5 Minuten Lesezeit
5 Take-aways
Audio & Text

Was ist drin?

Modern economics needs a fresh way of thinking to address inequality and improve prosperity.

automatisch generiertes Audio
  • 0.5×
  • 0.75×
  • 1×
  • 1.25×
  • 1.5×
  • 1.75×
1×
automatisch generiertes Audio

Editorial Rating

8

Qualities

  • Overview
  • Hot Topic
  • Insider's Take

Recommendation

Economists Suresh Naidu, Dani Rodrik and Gabriel Zucman survey the policy recommendations of members of the Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP) group, a coalition of academics seeking a fresh vision for the dismal science. Their study finds that, by rejecting long-held beliefs and focusing on equality, economists can offer more suitable policy recommendations. This thought-provoking report concludes that to achieve “inclusive prosperity,” economics must embrace ideas that correct the power imbalances present in markets and society.

Summary

Wealth inequality in the United States is reaching crisis levels, but economics can help solve the problem. The discipline should contribute to ensuring “inclusive prosperity,” which encompasses nonmonetary aspects of well-being, such as health and civil rights. The goal of the Economics for Inclusive Prosperity (EfIP) group is to create alternatives to existing economic policies that rely solely on market mechanisms. Although economists tend to favor market-based solutions, policy prescriptions have in the past been inadequate, because they relied too much on strict&#...

About the Authors

Suresh Naidu, Dani Rodrik and Gabriel Zucman are professors at Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively.

Comment on this summary