|
Review Summary: Principles of Microeconomics |
Date: 2008-11-10 |
|
| |
Details: Very good experience - product in great condition, shipped on time and arrived early despite my concerns.
I would order from with seller again. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Microeconomics by Mankiw |
Date: 2008-10-07 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Well described product. This book is very easy to follow along with the lectures, and is a great resource for introducing the basic principles of microeconomics. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Principles of Microeconomics |
Date: 2008-10-07 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Great text so far however the problems vary between 4th editions based on weather or not it was made for the US or Canada! |
| |
|
Review Summary: Good Condition |
Date: 2008-09-23 |
|
| |
|
Details: The book was in really good shape with minor markings inside...very good buy and very pleased. Thanks! |
| |
|
Review Summary: extremely narrow |
Date: 2008-06-16 |
|
| |
Details: Joseph Schumpeter once encouraged his readers to make up their mind whether they wanted simple or useful answers, because both could not be had at the same time. Mankiw opts for the former option. A student who knows little about economics and who will be exposed to the discipline for the first time by using this textbook will get a very narrow view of economics. He or she will have no idea that there are strong disagreements about economic phenomena and even different schools of thought. This can be expected: Mankiw is a neoclassical economist, that school is dominant for one reason or another, so few would expect him to go out of his way to point out that there are different intellectual traditions in economics. However, Mankiw does not even bother much to point out disagreements within the mainstream either. For him, economics is a quasi-scientific discipline that clearly explains how things are; thus, economists disagree solely because of values.
That is a gross mischaracterization: neoclassical economists disagree a lot on theoretical issues, too. Mankiw's own colleague at Harvard - Dani Rodrik - described these disagreements mainly springing from the division between "first-best economists" and "second-best economists". The former group (Becker, Cowen, Mankiw) almost always finds a solution in the supply-demand framework and competitive markets. The latter group (Stiglitz, Rodrik, Akerlof) search for more nuanced and contextual explanations. Mankiw's only reference to "second-best" issues like imperfect information and behavioral economics is relegated to a couple paltry pages in the end of the book where it can be safely forgotten. The minimum wage is a case in point: Mankiw uses the simple supply-demand framework to "prove" that minimum wage causes unemployment. In fact, this view has lost popularity even among neoclassical economists. Recently over 600 American economists (including several Nobel laureates such as one of the fathers of modern neoclassical economics Kenneth Arrow!) signed the petition to increase the minimum wage in the US. Some of the most important research disproving Mankiw's claim has been done by people as mainstream as David Card (Berkeley) and Alan Krueger (Princeton).
Trade is another example. When arguing for "free" trade, Mankiw goes through possible counterarguments. The "infant industry" argument (supported by the "father" of economics Adam Smith himself) is dismissed after one paragraph. If these infant industries are of any promise, Mankiw proclaims, the private sector will take them up. Never mind uncertainty (not risk, but uncertainty). Never mind the fact that the US used protective barriers designed by Hamilton to allow its industries mature, never mind the fact that Japan and Korea developed using the same method. Never mind the fact that a very recent Commission on Growth and Development (which includes someone as mainstream as the Nobel laureate Bob Solow) concluded that "Government intervention in the economy, and a degree of protectionism, will be needed in the early stages of development".
My final example is the agency assumption. To act with a degree of self-interest is one thing, but to be a selfish and calculating sociopath is another. The mainstream is more and more open to alternative ideas about agency. Kenneth Arrow himself once said that if human beings were to act as utility-maximizers all the time, society and all of its social ties would be pretty much destroyed. The mainstream borrows more and more from behavioral economics, behavioral game theory, etc. Samuel Bowles, for one, does a good job of effectively combing the ideas of the mainstream with alternative ideas about agency. Of course, Mankiw does not care. I could go on, but I think this is enough.
Adbusters Magazine called "one of the most effective and talented propagandists of our times". That might be an exaggeration, but beware and hope that your instructor will add at least some nuance to Mankiw's exposition of economics. I was quite fortunate since my instructor, while thoroughly neoclassical, at least made sure to spell out the assumptions and point out which ones were more arbitrary than others (e.g. constant marginal utility of money in welfare economics) and when exactly economists are being sneaky (e.g. gains from free trade, even if all assumptions hold, are only a potential Pareto improvement). Some others may not be so lucky. |
| |
|
out of 9 Reviews
