From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Feb 03 2005 - 10:45:04 EST
Rakesh: To return to basics -- and Alejandro's remarks about what makes a good text -- one has to remember, especially: o what course is the text to be used for? If one is teaching a class in introductory economics then a text designed for that purpose is to be preferred, ceteris paribus. Some of the other books you mentioned (e.g. Fine/Saad-Filho, Ranganayakamma, Foley) were not designed for that purpose but as secondary texts in courses on the history of economic thought or on reading Marx's _Capital_. Perhaps such a book could serve as a _secondary_ text for an introductory economics class, but they can not serve as a substitute for a primary text. o how long is the course? In many colleges introductory economics is taught as a 2 semester sequence; in many other colleges it is taught as a 1 semester course. One has to pick a text with this constraint in mind. Bowles and Edwards was "an introductory text designed for use in either one-semester microeconomics, one-semester macroeconomics, or single-semester micro- and macroeconomics combined courses". I used B&E for a 1 semester combined class and it served that purpose admirably. o how will time constraints affect coverage? _Especially_ in 1 semester combination classes one has to either eliminate entire topics from the course outline or deal with them very briefly because of the very real time constraint that one is working with. It is simply not fair to the students to assign readings as if the course were a 2 semester course when it's not. I would have personally preferred perhaps 20 more pages in B&E on mainstream theory, but one could assign a short supplementary reading for this purpose so it wasn't a huge deal, imo. There was, in fairness, though, _some_ coverage of mainstream theory (e.g. in Ch. 3 on "The Origins of Political Economy"). o who are the students? The students for whom this book was assigned were electrical apprentices who were members of Local 3, IBEW. Unlike most textbooks, B&E was pro- labor. It also had very good sections on wages, segmented labor markets, etc. that I thought were important topics for _those_ students to learn about. o what are some other characteristics that make for a good text? I mentioned some previously (an extensive glossary, highlighted sections including marginal or end of chapter summaries, questions for discussion, clear writing, easy to understand graphs, figures, and formulas, etc.). B&E was good at all of this -- overall, I would say that it was better organized as a text than Green & Sutcliffe or Wolff & Resnick. o are instructors _required_ by their departments or some other authority to cover certain materials? If that is the case, then that severely limits one's options. o what is your pedagogical perspective? E.g. some instructors emphasize learning through graphs and formulas, others emphasize writing in the classroom, others emphasize critical discussion, etc. Different texts often embody different perspectives on the learning process. I know radical professors who prefer to teach mainstream economic theory but in a critical way. Others prefer to present an alternative (heterodox) perspective. Others emphasize the diversity of thought and the need to critically examine different perspectives. I prefer the latter, but I can tell you that it is _much_ easier to critically teach mainstream economic theory than to adopt either of the last two options. It really boil down to the question: what is the best way to enhance classroom learning? Different instructors will answer that question differently and I don't want to tell others how they must teach; neither do I want them telling me how I must teach. Yet, I think there are progressive and traditional forms of pedagogy and so-called 'radical' faculty should at least _try_ the latter. Once these questions have been answered, then one can go about selecting a text. Selecting a text is by no means a simple decision -- especially if one has to choose between a number of alternatives which are all undesirable. In addition to the above, I think the cost of the text should be considered. One should also decide what is a reasonable amount of reading to assign students. Quick comments on the rest of your remarks: > This seems to define profit, not explain it. That residual could then > be explained as a reward for the supply of entrepreneurial skill, for > the absorption of risk, for waiting, etc. Or is there something left > over after that? Why? That is briefly explained in other sections. > >The single biggest shortcoming from a learning perspective with B&E > >was that it presented their perspective with barely a reference to > >mainstream theory. > Yes, I think it is impossible to teach without such engagement. It doesn't _have_ to be a major emphasis in an introductory economics course. [Among other things, B&E had excellent figures which summarized statistical data (e.g. -- hi Paul A -- on market concentration) and related those statistics to the rest of the text. I think this is an important characteristic to look for in a text.] > > Another alternative at the time -- which I > >think is also out-of-print -- was Richard D. Wolff and Stephen A. > >Resnick _Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical_ (The John > >Hopkins University Press, 1987). <snip, JL> > I think this is a very helpful book because it is inherently critical > of the mainstream alternative. So is Ranganayakamma, Saad-Filho and > Fine, and Foley. I don't think it's an accident that the texts which > are interested in the critique of mainstream theory are also the > truest to Marx. Again, R, S-F&F, & F are not designed to be the primary text for introductory courses in economics. One can not simply take a book which presents an interpretation of _Capital_ and treat it "as if" it were intended for a different purpose. > But this does not explain why risk or waiting or entpreneurial skill > did not go into producing them. I don't recall if that was answered elsewhere in G&S. but, so what? You can always talk about it in class, can't you? You can assign a short additional reading, can't you? If you are looking for the 'perfect' text to teach this subject, you won't find it. > It is simply not specific enough. How does profit arise out of > production? What is the relation between production and circulation? That is dealt with in G&S, I believe. > There is a helpful book by Obransky (sp?) Profit Theory and Capitalism. Mark Obrinsky (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983). Yes, that's a good book but I think Michael Howard's _Profits in Economic Theory_ (St. Martin's Press, 1983) is better. Neither of these books could serve as a primary text for an introductory course in economics. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 04 2005 - 00:00:01 EST