If Not Poverty, What is Economcs For?
“Poverty and economics, by Daniel Little: How important should the subject of poverty be within the discipline of economics? Some economists appear to think it is a very small issue compared to the magnificent mathematics of general equilibrium theory. Others believe that economics should fundamentally be about the sources of human well-being and misery, and that understanding poverty is absolutely fundamental for economics. How should we try to sort this out?”
I read an extract of Daniel Little’s argument on Mark Thoma’s (Department of Economics , University of Oregon) Blog Economist View HERE
The paragraph quoted above sets the tone for what follows and strikes a chord with what I posted yesterday on neoclassical economics. Now while what economics can offer for the debate on poverty is a worthwhile and appropriate subject for economists to offer views; it does not follow that necessarily they have the answer.
Little shows that some neoclassical economists deny that poverty is an appropriate subject for economists, which is controversial in itself. Follow the link and make your own mind up about its appropriateness.