Interesting. P-Kroog's address to the American Association of Geographers.
Excerpt:
Many economic geographers proper were furious at the rise of the new geographical economics. That was predictable: near the end of that 1990 monograph I foretold the reaction, and also explained why I was doing what I was doing:
“The geographers themselves probably won’t like this: the economics profession’s simultaneous love for rigor and contempt for realism will surely prove infuriating. I do not come here, however, to fight against the sociology of my profession, but to exploit it: by demonstrating that models of economic geography can be cute and fun, I hope to attract other people into tilling this nearly virgin soil.”
Actually, the reaction was even worse than I expected. As it happens, starting in the 1980s many geographers were moving even further from mainstream economics -- there was a widespread rejection not just of the assumptions of rational behavior and equilibrium, but of the whole notion of mathematical modeling and even the use of quantitative methods
(Nod to Neanderbill)
3 comments:
Krugman keeps living down to my expectations. I can't fathom why people are still paying attention to this man.
Post Modernism has taken over many a geography department. My guess is it's the old "math (and econometrics) is hard" canard. What to do? Follow the English department into the post-modern mosh pit.
I'm confused by Tom's response. You can't understand why people in some field (new economic geography) pay attention to the person who basically founded their field? I think there would need to be pretty exceptional circumstances for that not to be true.
Post a Comment