Review of Milonakis and Fine
surprisingly, it does not approach absolute detachment.” (106) This statement is followed
by some reasonable comments about the Freakonomics book, pointing out that it is not
closely tied to theory, that is largely statistical in nature, and that this non-theoretical,
largely statistical approach is the approach that is often used in modern economics. After
those brief comments, their discussion evolves into a discussion of Paul Romer’s
response to a question about Schumpeter and Barro-type regressions of growth theory.
Freakonomics is no longer discussed.
I fully agree that modern applied policy economics is highly connected with
statistical work and is largely non-theoretical. In fact I see the interdisciplinary future of
economics as highly connected to advances in statistical work. In my writings, I have
emphasized that empirical work has displaced theory as a driving force in economics. I
would have loved to see the authors’ views on these issues. I did not find it.
The book concludes with three “wither” chapters—wither economics?, wither
political economy?, and wither social science?. In the last of these “wither” chapters the
authors reiterate the theme that ties the books together. They are calling for the renewal
of political economy in the classical tradition. They see the task as one of moving beyond
what is wrong with the mainstream to offering alternatives that are liable to have an
impact on the study of the economy. They write, “A new and truly interdisciplinary
political economy, then, is necessary, focusing on the economic but fully and consciously
incorporating the social and the historical form the outset.” (pg 173)
I am broadly sympathetic to the author’s goals, and found much in the books to
like. I agree with the authors that the goal of reform minded economists should be to