It Is 2012, Right? Economists Propose a New Journal: “Man and the Economy”

Marginal Revolution just posted a link to an interview with the venerable Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase where he (and a collaborator) announce that they are trying to start a new journal to reorient the field towards the study of actual economies. Here’s the excerpt:

We are now working with the University of Chicago Press to launch a new journal, Man and the Economy. We chose our title carefully to signal the mission of the new journal, which is to restore economics to a study of man as he is and of the economy as it actually exists. We hope this new journal will provide a platform to encourage scholars all over the world to study how the economy works in their countries. We believe this is the only way to make progress in economics.

Sigh. As much as I like the idea of a new economics journal focused on “the economy as it actually exists,” it’s hard to believe that a prominent academic would propose naming a journal “Man and the Economy” in 2012, let alone that they would assert that the name was chosen “carefully.”

Also, as a warning, the comments on the Marginal Revolution post go in a predictable direction of “PC” bashing.


1 Comment

  1. Graham Peterson

     /  November 23, 2012

    Coase and Fogel are two of the only people left at Chicago from the old school who propose a rationalist account of purposive action without a zany obsession with constrained maximization, and whom have genuinely dressed meat back on those reductive bones.

    Another Chicago journal, the Journal of Political Economy, contains almost no political economy (even holding constant the strange coining of “political economy” coming from sociologists, poly scis, and anthropologists as to mean “qualitative rationalist methodology with anti-market biases”). There are more important things about a journal than its name.

    And in this case, Coase’s journal is landmark. He’s made arguably *as* big of an impact outside the economics department as Gary Becker, and takes a completely different view of admissible questions and methods.

%d bloggers like this: