I drifted into such thoughts on a visit to Cambridge this week to hear a friend, Geoff Tily give a seminar on Keynes – to a very small group – at Robinson College. There I met a University of Cambridge Economics lecturer who told me that the University does not teach Keynesian economics. The reason for this is that students are not examined on Keynesian economics.
Bit of a surprise to be honest. But not that much of a surprise to find that it\’s complete bollocks.
You have to do macro to do economics at Cambridge (well, duh!).
Part I provides an introduction to the subject: a common core of knowledge which can subsequently be extended. There are five compulsory papers:
- Quantitative Methods
- Politics (political and sociological aspects of economics)
- British Economic History
Through these papers you cover topics such as supply and demand, the role of prices and markets, employment, inflation, the operation of financial institutions and monetary policy. The Quantitative Methods paper provides an introduction to the use of mathematical and statistical techniques in economics.
There ain\’t nowhere on the planet that\’s going to teach that without reference to Keynes.
Here\’s the reading list:
Dasgupta, P. Economics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press
Microeconomics and Macroeconomics
Begg, D K H, S Fischer and R Dornbusch, Economics (latest edition), McGraw-Hill
Greenaway, D and G K Shaw, Macroeconomics: Theory and Practice in the UK (latest edition), Blackwell
Heilbroner, R, The Worldly Philosophers (latest edition), Penguin
*Mankiw, N G, and M.P. Taylor, Macroeconomics (European edition), Freeman
?? Anyone seriously want to try and suggest that Dasgupta, Dornbusch or Mankiw don\’t include Keynesian economics in their textbooks? Anyone even bothered to look? First review on Amazon.com talks about deriving the IS LM which sounds pretty Keynesian to me.
Sheesh, why do people believe such stupid things when it only takes 10 minutes to check?