Rating: 
Summary: A Post Keynesian View of Economics
Review: Keen's(K) book is based on a number of errors of ommission and commission.All of these errors were passed down to Keen from one of the founders of the Post Keynesian school(see pp.300-301,pp.305-307),Paul Davidson.The first error made by K is to accept the unsupported claims of GLS Shackle and Paul Davidson concerning Keynes's definition of the term "uncertainty"(see pp.189,200-207 of Keen).Uncertainty,for Keynes but not for Shackle or Davidson, is a function of the weight of the evidence.Letting u stand for uncertainty and w stand for the weight of the evidence,we have u=f(w).u and w are inversely related and defined on the unit interval[0,1].Keynes had already defined w to be between 0 and 1;that is, 0<=w<=1,in his A Treatise on Probability(TP) in 1921 on p.315.Keynes is the first scholar in history to define a clearcut index to measure and/or grade(L J Cohen's term) the completeness and/or the reliability of the evidence upon which probability estimates would be based.For Keynes,the most usual case would be the case of partial evidence.Such a case could be represented by a w of.5 or,for Keynes,the interval[.4,.6].A decision maker would thus face different degrees of u,such as mild uncertainty,moderate uncertainty,acute uncertainty,great uncertainty or complete or total uncertainty in the limit as w approaches 0.Unfortunately,K follows the Shackle and Davidson definition of uncertainty,which is that there is only the case of total or complete uncertainty.The second error made by K is to repeat the Frank Ramsey error ,who claimed ,in two book reviews published in 1922 and 1926, that Keynes's use of the terms "nonnumerical" and "nonmeasurable" meant that a decision maker could not use any numbers,in general,to estimate a probability.Of course,all that would be left for a decision maker to use would be weak ordinal rankings.Of course,Keynes,in chapters 15 and 17 of the TP ,made it crystal clear that nonnumerical and nonmeasurable meant "not by a single numeral or measure but by two numerals".Keynes is the first scholar in history to provide a technically advanced method for the calculation of interval(set) estimates.Of course,if any of the relevant interval estimates overlap,they will not be comparable and/or rankable using the symbols for greater than,less than or equal to.This obvious conclusion went over Frank Ramsey's head,as well as the heads of Shackle,Davidson and all Post Keynesians.K's third error follows directly from errors 1 and 2.K claims(see pages 200-203) that Keynes later rejected his own marginal efficiency of capital approach to investment because he supposedly realized that it was not possible to estimate future returns numerically.The reader of this review will notice that this error is the logical conclusion that one would expect ,conditional on errors 1 and 2 having been committed first.There are many other problems with this book.One can conclude that K needs to get his own theoretical house in order before he attacks neoclassical economic theory.K could make a good start by taking the time to consider the possibility of using intervals to estimate future expected values in Keynes's MEC theory.This ,however ,is not very likely as it would put him on a collision course with Davidson and the entire PK School of thought.
Rating: 
Summary: Good textbook companion
Review: Academic economists will 'harumph' at this book on the grounds that it seeks merely to destroy undergraduate textbook economics, rather than hard-headed analytically sound economics. Such harumphing is double-edged. On the one hand it means that it is not compulsory reading for (all) academic economists (although it must be said that the sections dealing with methodological issues and heterodox theories would be informative to academic economists of all stripes). On the other hand it means that, by the harumphers' own logic, it IS compulsory reading for (at least) undergraduate economists because it does exactly what they condemn it for: lifting the scales from the undergraduate economist's eyes. As an instructional text, it works best when read along side an undergrad macro/microeconomic textbook because not only does it reinforce the student's understanding of the basic theory, it extends it by means of critical analysis. If nothing else, it should wake a mildly interested student from his or her slumber and then promptly boot them down the road of Critical Engagement. (As I have discovered through first hand experience, it tends to turn students into annoying, and rewarding, interrogators of Received Wisdom.)
Rating:
Summary: Debunking "debunking economics"
Review: Actually, I would suggest to write a new book called "debunking debunking economics" (sorry, but I am too lazy to undertake this task).
The author incurs in loads of logical errors and lacks understanding of economics at a thorough level (at least that is what appears to me after reading his claims and sorry if I am being too hard on him).
For instance, the author states that under perfect competition supply curve should shift to the left if for some reason, a firm decides to produce less than where price equals marginal cost. Well that is a violation of a basic assumption of the model which is that firms and consumers are atoms in the market and they are price acceptants (cannot influence prices). If the authors dislikes the assumption, he could propose a better model but instead, he tries to convince us that the whole theory is "wrong"!
Perhaps, criticizing assumptions for some models is fine but what real economists do in such scenario is write a paper that relaxes the troubling assumptions and sees what happens to the model. Most of scholars do that and get to publish their research in prestigious academic journals and expand our knowledge of this science. Now, what the author does is simply write a book claiming that the whole theory is wrong...What is wrong with this guy? would be the appropriate question.
Rating: 
Summary: At least worth looking at
Review: As a professional economist of heterodox views, I have been wondering whether this book is worth buying, especially given that the table of contents seem to indicate a work that is heavily ideologically biased, regardless of the value of the scientific arguments being made against mainstream neoclassicalism. Luckily, I discovered a review in a professional journal, which while pointing out some flaws and mistakes in the book indicate that it is worth reading. (...) I now plan on a purchase.
Rating:
Summary: sloppy book on an important subject
Review: I think that Keen's topic is an important one, and I'm glad that his book is stimulating interest in critiques of economic methodology. However, the book is quite sloppy in its arguments.
A typical example of his problems can be found on page 247. He mentions that if stock market variations could be accurately described as a normally-distributed random variable, then stock markets dips would rareley occur, yet they do in practice. Very true. He then makes the asinine statement: "The fact that extreme movements occurred roughly 10,000 more than for a random process is fairly strong evidence that the process is not random at all." WHAT!?! His evidence shows that ONE PARTICULAR random distribution (the gaussian distribution) is a poor model for the stock market. It says nothing about whether other random distributions could be more correct.
Similar problems abound. Basically, Keen's favorite argument is "some evidence implies that this common, textbook shape for a curve is inaccurate, therefore no curve can describe this phenomenon." I give the book a fair (3-star) rating, because it asks important questions, but I'm tempted to lower it to 2 starts, because Keen never follows with interesting answers.
Rating: 
Summary: the myth of TINA dismantled
Review: Keen has accomplished from the inside what many critics have attempted, and that is to decisively reveal the fatal flaws of neoclassical economics. Yes, it's a paper tiger, a giant with feet of clay, a Potempkin Village, or my favorite metaphor -- the thundering Wizard of Oz, which is really a little man behind a curtain. With Keen's book in hand, any professor ought to be able to effectively challenge the ruling TINA orthodoxy that "there is no alternative" to The Market. The supposedly iron laws of supply and demand are not iron after all, there is no One Perfect Equilibrium, so it's back to the political economy that prevailed prior to the "marginal revolution" -- politics matters, institutions matter, and the Masters of the World are nothing but Naked Emperors. Keen offers a section on alternatives, and he favors post-keynesian theory, but is fair to other approaches. As Keen warns, this is not easy reading, and I can't imagine assigning it to undergraduates. Hopefully some economics professors will (I'm a sociologist). But it should be required reading for every professor and graduate student in the social sciences.
Rating:
Summary: the myth of TINA dismantled
Review: Keen has accomplished from the inside what many critics have attempted, and that is to decisively reveal the fatal flaws of neoclassical economics. Yes, it's a paper tiger, a giant with feet of clay, a Potempkin Village, or my favorite metaphor -- the thundering Wizard of Oz, which is really a little man behind a curtain. With Keen's book in hand, any professor ought to be able to effectively challenge the ruling TINA orthodoxy that "there is no alternative" to The Market. The supposedly iron laws of supply and demand are not iron after all, there is no One Perfect Equilibrium, so it's back to the political economy that prevailed prior to the "marginal revolution" -- politics matters, institutions matter, and the Masters of the World are nothing but Naked Emperors. Keen offers a section on alternatives, and he favors post-keynesian theory, but is fair to other approaches. As Keen warns, this is not easy reading, and I can't imagine assigning it to undergraduates. Hopefully some economics professors will (I'm a sociologist). But it should be required reading for every professor and graduate student in the social sciences.
Rating:
Summary: Read Keen and Ignore Brady's "Review"
Review: Since neoclassical economics is basically microeconomics, only a fraction of Keen's book is on macroeconomics. Furthermore, Keen agrees with reviewer Brady that Keynes views, like those on uncertainty, are parodied by the likes of Paul Davidson. Moreover, Keen believes as does Brady that modern complexity theory supports Keynes's views and he has long ago despaired in getting this understanding into Davidson. So almost no connection exists between Keen's book and Brady's review.
Rating:
Summary: Econ 101
Review: This book provides a far more clear explanation of the ideas of standard economic theory (neo-classical economics) than do the standard texts (compare with Samuelson, Mankiw, or Barro, e.g.). The book explains utility maximization, indifference curves, and the assumptions underlying the standard economic model that is used by the IMF, the World Bank and all major western governments. Keen uses simple language that even the lay person can follow. The text should be standard reading for every student of elementary economics, but even an experienced economist like Alan Greenspan might benefit from the clarity of thought displayed therein. Macroeconomic theory is covered from the right perspective, from the result of Sonnenshein et all which shows the basis in microeconomic theory for the standard macroeconomic model. Kirman is mentioned but his seminal connection of liquidity demand with uncertainty is not discussed. The work of Radner should have been included, but then Samuelson and Varian do not discuss Radner's contribution either.Chapter 7 presents the correct perspective on general equilibrium theory, with good advice for students of econ 101.Chapter 8 on Keynes is outstanding, presenting the clearest (and even correct!) textbook discussion of Keynes that I am aware of. Marx's contribution to the basis of capitalism, the recognition of the central role played by the profit motive, is also made apparent in the Keynsian context. The profit motive is ignored completely in Samuelson and the other standard texts, which discuss merely pure barter economies and leave out financial markets altogether. Hicks' interpretation of Keynes' ideas is also correctly presented. All in all, students of economics would be well advised to make Keen's book their main econ text.
Rating:
Summary: At Last !!!
Review: This is a tremendous book which is written in such a way to be of use to both the novice and the 'expert' in any field/sub-specialism of economics. Most undergrad economics training is still steeped in the neoclassical tradition. This book presents the neoclassical paradigm in a most lucid fashion (moreso than many conventional and popular texts) and simultaneously refutes even the most basic tenets on which the paradigm is built. Prof Keen also tackles some rival theories. Progressing through this book I kept feeling drawn to some of the structuralist models, but alas, these are not specifically covered to any significant degree. This book is already on my 10 favourite of all time (see my list). My recommendation for the person to whom neoclassical economics and/or challenges to it are new is to start with this great work and then go on to some of the structuralist and IP literature (suggest: Prebisch; Lewis; Beckford; Lall to start). Specifically for the "non-economist" in the developing world - this helps explain why people have had to pay such a high price as a result of neo-liberal policy imposed on LDC's. It will also help resolve the issue of how within the profession we can brutally criticise our models yet at the same time reject the commonly heard lay-person's judgement of economics as a 'failure'. Reading this we should remember that it is no more a failure than engineering or medicine: these sciences are also supported by evolving masses of paradgims,theories, observations etc.
|
