James K. Galbraith
- : James K. Galbraith is Chair of the Board of Economists for Peace and Security, a member organization of the Allied Social Sciences Association . He is a Senior Scholar with the Levy Economics Institute, and holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen, jr., chair in Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas at Austin.
Galbraith is the author of six books and several hundred scholarly and policy articles. He holds degrees from Harvard and Yale (Ph.D. in Economics, 1981). He studied economics as a Marshall Scholar at King's College, Cambridge, and later served on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee, before joining the faculty of the University of Texas. He held a Fulbright Distinguished Visiting Lectureship in China in the summer of 2001, and was named a Carnegie Scholar in 2003. His recent research has focused on the measurement and understanding of inequality in the world economy, while his policy writing ranges from monetary policy to the economics of warfare, with forays into politics and history.
His most recent book, Unbearable Cost: Bush, Greenspan and the Economics of Empire, was published by Palgrave-MacMillan in late 2006. Galbraith also writes a column called "Econoclast" for Mother Jones, and contributes to The American Prospect, The Nation, and the Texas Observer.
Visit the web-site of the University of Texas Inequality Project for current research and an archive of published writings. Papers on macroeconomic topics can be found on the Levy web-site; the work of EPS at theirs.
Hips, Heterodoxy, and the Abiding Economics of JKG
This week, I couldn’t join 500 fellow economists at the very hip International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics, convening now in Salt Lake City. I was at the ultra-hip Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, hosting a fine...more »
Posted on June 3, 2007 7:56 PM
Rebutted but not Refuted
I stand rebutted. Note to self: When you are taking on Brad DeLong, do not write "You will not find it in Keynes" when you mean, "You will not find it in the relevant chapters of The General Theory." Having...more »
Posted on June 1, 2007 9:42 PM
Invasion of the Name Snatchers
Brad DeLong is brilliant, period. Anyone who reads his blog, let alone his papers, knows this. Still, it is breathtaking for him to accuse David Ruccio of intellectual claim-jumping –whether rightly or wrongly is not the point and I won't...more »
Posted on May 31, 2007 10:16 PM
A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen
Professor Cowen writes with the supreme confidence of the practitioner of intellectual eugenics, passing blithe judgment over who is fit to live and who is not. As a matter of compassion, he avers, he “would like to see heterodox economics...more »
Posted on May 29, 2007 4:59 PM
"Hip Heterodoxy" and the History of Economics
Perhaps the Brazil-savvy Ruccio or his anthropologist wife will correct me, but I remember reading somewhere that the indigenous tribes of the Amazon were not primitive isolates as many believed, but the remnants of mighty nations, which once ruled over...more »
Posted on May 29, 2007 12:16 PM
Confessions of an Accused Reactionary: A Final Word on Trade
I notice that my views on trade are now being cited and occasionally criticized. This would be unremarkable except that I didn't state what they are. Herewith my confession, written on the overnight flight and emailed from Amsterdam. I agree...more »
Posted on November 11, 2005 2:35 PM
A Bit More on Humpty-Dumpty, Magic, and False Trade-Offs
Jason Furman believes I misread his post and Gene's. I don't believe I did. Gene labeled his tax proposal a "Flat Tax Incentive." The intellectual property right in this label clearly belongs to Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka. ...more »
Posted on November 9, 2005 9:06 AM
Humpty-Dumpty Redefinitions, Magical Thinking, and False Trade-offs
I am on the road and Gene Sperling's book did not reach me, so this post will be respond only to Gene and Jason's earlier posts. It may also be my only intervention as I have to leave the country...more »
Posted on November 8, 2005 5:37 AM
-
There is much in Brad's latest post to agree with, and the comments just above cover, very ably, my main points of disagreement. So I'll leave it at that, for now.
I'll be back tomorrow with one final intervention, in this excellent debate.
James Galbraith
Posted at June 2, 2007 7:21 PM in response to On Keynesian Economicses and the Economicses of Keynes
-
"So if I pick up a copy of the Cambridge Journal of Economics or the Eastern Economic Journal, I can expect to find higher-quality work than in the AER?"
You will find better *heterodox* articles than you will ever find in the AER. This is obvious, since you won't find any heterodox articles in the AER.
You will also find better heterodox articles, than an AER reviewer is ever likely to see, if all they ever see of heterodoxy is what they find in their in-box. Why? Because what the EEJ and CJE publish, they have already refereed. And in my experience, they do a good job.
The comment quoted gets to the heart of the problem. There are many excellent, specialized journals. The ROIW is certainly one of them.
These journals are excellent because they are specialized. Specialization gives them the capacity to evaluate cutting-edge work. If you have an idea that pushes the envelope, challenging mainstream conceits or introducing new technique, you have to go to those journals in order to get a fair review.
You can publish, yes. But what happens? The work is not *cited.* Why? Because the journals are not "highly rated." They can be written off, as "pretty narrow." And they are.
Thus when scholars review the literature in the field, for instance in the Journal of Economic Literature, work that challenges mainstream ideas can be, and is often, ignored. And so, the mainstream goes on comfortably as before.
The ongoing debate over inequality is a good example of this. The mainstream notion of "skill-biased technological change" has been thoroughly debunked, from several perspectives, in specialized journals. But when the JEL takes up the topic, there it is again! Back from the dead, slightly revised, and mainstream as ever.
Where do you go for heterodox work? Try the ICAPE web-site at http://www.icape.org for a list of organizations and journals promoting pluralism in economics. About 500 members of ICAPE are convening in Salt Lake City right now, by the way. I'd be there, but I'm at a fascinating conference of EPS (Economists for Peace and Security, http://www.epsusa.org) at the Levy Economics Institute (http://www.levy.org) right now.
What's the broader solution? Better scholarly habits. More open minds. An end to the ranking system in the journals, so that specialized work can be reviewed on its actual merits. Thank you for asking.
James Galbraith
Posted at June 1, 2007 4:20 AM in response to A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen
-
As I wrote above,the work I referred to was accepted, in excellent journals, and after careful refereeing. So anyone who wishes to do so, can check it for themselves.
My point is about the hierarchy of journals, as seen by the economics profession. There is one. It is extremely important to the status ranking of economists. That's something of very little importance to me, but it is very important to anyone coming along.
And the refereeing process, as I've encountered it at those journals which count most in this respect, is inferior. It is inferior, in particular, to the refereeing process at the journals I mention by name. Which are not, for the most part, heterodox journals as such. They are simply good journals that (for the most part) won't count as much if you are in the business of trying to earn a promotion in the field.
The points I made are about process, and I made them carefully. A good referee report will make an accurate criticism. If it makes an inaccurate criticism, you ought to be able to appeal to the editor.
From my own experience as a referee, I am sure that most papers submitted to the "top" journals are bad. That a few heterodox manuscripts tend also to be bad therefore proves nothing. Obviously.
James Galbraith
Posted at May 30, 2007 9:37 AM in response to A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen
-
"Either they dispute that the mainstream has shifted, or they argue that it has fatally watered down heterodox approaches by absorbing them."
Professor Coyle faults the heterodox for what? For heterodoxy.
QED.
James Galbraith
Posted at May 30, 2007 9:08 AM in response to Heterodoxy and diversity
-
"There is no evidence that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam."
Actually, on this point, there is a lot of evidence, summarized here:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html
and here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/22/vietnam/index_np.html
James Galbraith
Posted at May 29, 2007 6:44 PM in response to RIP JFK: 90 Today
-
Re: the first comment.
Max was right: it's a mug's game.
James Galbraith
Posted at May 29, 2007 6:15 PM in response to A (Strong) Response to Tyler Cowen
-
it's definitely a risk. JG
Posted at November 11, 2005 8:53 PM in response to Confessions of an Accused Reactionary: A Final Word on Trade
-
For the record, my work was paid for by the United Nations Development Program at the standard UN rate. JG
Posted at November 11, 2005 8:24 PM in response to Confessions of an Accused Reactionary: A Final Word on Trade
