IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pid/journl/v39y2000i3p191-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s Wrong with Contemporary Economics?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul P. Streeten

    (World Development, and Department of Economics, Boston University, USA.)

Abstract

It is argued that in educating economists we should sacrifice some of the more technical aspects of economics (which can be learned later), in favour of the compulsory inclusion of (a) philosophy, (b) political science and (c) economic history. Three reasons for interdisciplinary studies are given. In the discussion of the place of mathematics in economics fuzziness enters when the symbols a, b, c are identified with individuals, firms, or farms. The identification of the precise symbol with the often ambiguous and fuzzy reality, invites lack of precision and blurs the concepts. If the social sciences, including economics, are regarded as a “soft” technology compared with the “hard” technology of the natural sciences, development studies have been regarded as the soft underbelly of “economic science”. In development economics the important question is: what are the springs of development? We must confess that we cannot answer this question, that we do not know what causes successful development.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul P. Streeten, 2000. "What’s Wrong with Contemporary Economics?," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 39(3), pages 191-211.
    • Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:39:y:2000:i:3:p:191-211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/2000/Volume3/191-211.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:39:y:2000:i:3:p:191-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Khurram Iqbal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pideipk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.