Don Moggridge discusses the importantance of the new collection and its significance in helping to understand the economic influence that Johnson had on a significant proportion of the twentieth century.

'Harry Johnson (1923-1977), was educated at Toronto, Cambridge and Harvard. He taught full-time at St. Francis Xavier in Antigonish, Nova Scotia (1943-4), Cambridge (1949-56), Manchester (1956-9), Chicago (1959-77) and LSE (1966-74).

His skills as an economist were recognised early and exploited in other ways. In June 1949 he was invited to join the advisory board of the Review of Economic Studies. He became Assistant Editor two years later, then Assistant Managing Editor, a post he held, despite the journal's long-standing convention of editors having to resign when promoted (which should have removed him when he took his chair in Manchester) until 1961. His editorial career would later include editorships of the Journal of Political Economy (1960-66, 1969-77), the Manchester School, Economica, as well as a watching brief on the Journal of International Economics. He was the best editor of his generation. With his encyclopedic knowledge of the literature and the profession, he could guide authors in fruitful directions and place their contributions in the context of contemporary developments of the discipline. Constant travel, conference-going and networking played a crucial role. He was onto trends before they appeared in print. He once remarked that if he relied solely on libraries or publications he would be at least two years behind where he actually was and thus be obsolete.

Johnson played a dominant role in two areas of economics. In the development of the Heckscher-Ohlin tradition, he made fundamental contributions to the theory of tariffs and to the formal theory of trade and economic growth. He also provided state of the art surveys. In monetary economics, both domestic and international, he was almost as seminal a figure. In a series of classic surveys of the literature, he identified and explained the links between the ideas of the major innovators in post-war monetary theory and, in his discussion of the issues that would benefit from further work, he set the agenda of the profession for a generation. He was the founding contributor to the monetary approach to the balance of payments.

This series of volumes contains all of Johnson's major contributions to both international trade and monetary economics and, in the two volumes edited with Jacob Frenkel, his attempt to launch, both theoretically and empirically, the monetary approach to the balance of payments. The series also provides examples of another of Johnson's strengths — his ability to extend economic analysis creatively to comprehend new phenomena such as opulence, economic nationalism, trade policy and the development of economics.

The volumes thus provide not only a good guide to the career of one outstanding economist, but also, given his command of the literature and its development, a guide to international economics and monetary economics as they developed in the third quarter of the twentieth century.'

For more information on this new collection from Routledge Library Editions, or to order your copy, visit: http://www.routledge.com/books/series/CWHJ/

Why not take a look at our Routledge Research on Gender in Asia series?

Women’s Day originated as a Socialist political event in Eastern Europe and Russia (the Soviet bloc) but gradually the day became more global and as a result partially lost its political overtones. For some, the day has become simply an occasion for men to express their love for women whilst in other regions the original political and human rights theme designated by the United Nations runs strong, and political and social awareness of the struggles of women worldwide are remembered.

Have a look below at the diverse selection of titles we have exploring the role of women in Russia, Eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

Join in the discussions about International Women's Day on March 8th on our Asian Studies Twitter and also our Middle East Studies Twitter.

Sustainable development is like the Holy Grail: it appeals to everyone, many believe in its powers, no one has found it. Vague objectives of meeting human needs or increasing well-being and the quality of life make sustainable development an alluring notion, for which no one can be held accountable. The question is what should and could realistically be sustained. Is it the environment? The economy? Or is it all-encompassing development?
 

Sustainability Economics provides some answers. It is organized around three categories of sustainability that are the backbone of an emerging discipline of economics. Ecological sustainability deals with the resilience and carrying capacity of natural systems; it sustains people in territories at desirable standards of living. Economic sustainability seeks to maintain the fruits of economic growth, including output, income, consumption and well-being. Sustainability of development takes the high road of meeting the social, economic, environmental and institutional needs and wants of the present and future generations.

Implementing sustainability faces the reality test of measurability. What can be measured can be rationally managed; what cannot be measured can be important, but tends to be subject to politics rather than policy. The book explores the assessment and use and usefulness of the different sustainability concepts.

Physical indicators such as the weight of pollutants and natural resources or area of land use measure ecological sustainability and sustainable development. They are difficult to add up and compare. Their use for defining and sustaining environmental quality and development remains fuzzy. Setting goals and standards helps, but reflects the values and judgements of goal setters.

Economics uses money as a common measuring rod for a huge amount of diverse production and consumption activities. In principle, prices reflect the preferences of enterprises and consumers for scare goods and services. Where markets do not exist or fail, as in the case of natural resources ‘in the public domain’ and sinks for pollutants, different valuation techniques can find their ‘social’ costs and benefits. Some valuations resort to unrealistic models of optimality or the sustainability of human well-being. The greening of the world-wide adopted national accounts and their well-known indicators of output, income and capital is more practical: it defines and measures economic sustainability as the maintenance of produced and natural capital. Other less tangible or ‘irreplaceable’ types of human, social and critical natural capital are more difficult to measure; they need to be taken into account when pursuing more comprehensive and ‘stronger’ sustainability growth and development.

Narrowly defined economic sustainability stands a better chance of success than holistic visions of sustainable development. Sustainability economics and its greened indicators and accounts generate the benchmarks for practical policies that sustain both, the environment and the economy. Much goodwill still rides, however, on sustainable development; it also reminds us that non-countables do count even if the setting of goals has to rely on subjective norms and values.

If this sounds complex and controversial – it is! But let us not forget: the sustainability of our environment and economies affects vital issues of wealth and health, not only now but also in the future. Sustainability Economics cuts through much of the fog of abstract theories and jargon in a concise non-technical introduction. Numerous illustrations sum up issues that would indeed need a thousand words to do them justice. Annotated further reading guides to these words. Pointed questions invite further review and discussion. Finally, an electronic annex, available as a free download, presents a syllabus for a course on sustainability economics that would complement the more traditional teaching of economics and the life sciences.
 

Professor Philip Haynes argues in his book Public Policy Beyond the Financial Crisis for more innovative approaches to monetary and fiscal policy to revive the UK economy. He makes the case for a whole systems approach to macroeconomic policy rather than focusing on fixed indicators like inflation or growth targets. Philip Haynes recently submitted evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on Quantitative Easing.

Why not take a look? Click here or follow the link below to read his written evidence:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtreasy/writev/qe/contents.htm

Julian Reiss is Professor of Philosophy at Durham University. He has a degree in economics and finance from the University of St Gallen and a PhD in philosophy from the London School of Economics. His main research interests are methodologies of the sciences, philosophy of economics, and science and values. This spring, Routledge will release the First Edition of his exciting introduction to a newly energized field in philosophy, Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction, to be published in the “Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy” series.

Philosophers since Aristotle have asked questions and offered opinions about economics, broadly defined. But during the 20th century economics developed into a field which was, as Julian points out in the beginning of his forthcoming work, “hostile to philosophical reflection.” Economics became a science: economists began to see in “the economy” a space made up of empirically observable facts interpretable by the assumptions, methods, and models familiar to students enrolled in Econ 101 classes. In recent years, though, certain economic realities—the financial crisis, e.g.—have challenged those assumptions, methods, and models. A writer for the Economist described the consequence of recent challenges to the science of economics: “OF ALL the economic bubbles that have been pricked [since 2008], few have burst more spectacularly than the reputation of economics itself.”

Julian’s book introduces readers to the field in which many of those challenges are now being articulated. Questions of ethics, of the nature of human rationality when faced with economic decision-making, of the verifiability of economic models—these questions and more are all now being asked anew about economic practices and decisions. This interview hopes to open those questions to all curious readers. Those seeking more comprehensive—but still widely accessible explanations—can of course turn to Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction.

– John Downes-Angus, Editorial Assistant, Routledge Philosophy

1. Could you give a brief description of the field of philosophy of economics so that it makes sense to non-philosophers, and identify some of the core issues the field takes on?

The philosophy of economics concerns all the questions every economist ought to think about but normally doesn’t because they are regarded as unimportant or unfashionable by the profession. They are about the – moral, methodological, metaphysical – foundations of economic science. Here is an example. Economics is, as is well known, based on a theory of rational choice. This theory assumes that people have stable and transitive preferences over all available alternatives. An economist qua scientist will take the theory as given and explore its consequences. An economist qua philosopher – a philosopher of economics – will challenge its fundamental assumptions. Does rationality really require the existence of stable, transitive and complete preferences? Do people as a matter of fact have such preferences, and how can we know? If not, might the assumption nevertheless be innocuous and useful for explaining economic behaviour and predicting future events?

In the book I divide the philosophical issues raised by economic science into three broad kinds. The first is concerned with the foundations of economic theory. Issues here concern the nature of rationality, whether people do and ought to act rationally as portrayed by the theory, whether there are any economic laws, what’s the nature of causal relations, of mechanisms and so on. The second is concerned with methodology. Methodologists, unsurprisingly, study the methods employed by scientists in order to address their questions. They ask how these methods work, about their presuppositions and the range of questions they can address. Important methods economists use are the measurement of economic indicators (such as inflation, unemployment and GDP), regression methods, economic experiments and randomised field experiments. The third is concerned with the ethical aspects of economics. Whether economic science can and should address ethical issues is particularly contentious among economists. Philosophers are less reserved and ask, for instance, about the nature of well-being, whether or not a given distribution of economic resources is just, whether there are any moral limits to the market and whether or not the government should make decisions for its citizens if doing so improves their well-being.

2. How did philosophy of economics develop? Are there any key figures or contributions that all readers should be aware of?

There are two ways to answer this question because the philosophy of economics is at the same time an ancient and a very recent discipline. It is ancient in that the world’s greatest economists beginning with Aristotle were also or mainly philosophers, and many of their contributions should be classified as contributions to the philosophy of economics rather than the science of economics. Understood in this broad way, Aristotle, Adam Smith, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, William Stanley Jevons, John Maynard Keynes, Amartya Sen and many others are all among the key philosophers of economics.

On the other hand, with the increasing specialisation and professionalisation of academic disciplines that occurred in the nineteenth century, economics was separated from philosophy and developed, especially after the Second World War, a mainstream paradigm that was hostile to philosophical reflection. At the same time, philosophers of science were mainly interested in natural science and thus tended to ignore economics and other social sciences. It is only in the last 30 or so years that we can once more experience a mutual interest and exchange, and witness the development of academic institutions that focus on the intersection of economics and philosophy. In that sense, then, the discipline is a novel one. There are now a number of professional philosophers of economics in this narrower sense. I was personally greatly influenced by the work of Nancy Cartwright, Mary Morgan and Daniel Hausman, but there are of course others.

3. Has the recent economic crisis harkened in an important, perhaps transformative, moment for philosophy of economics?

It has indeed. Not so much in challenging fundamental beliefs philosophers of economics hold but in bringing methodological issues to the attention of economists and thereby opening entirely new ways of doing philosophy of economics. We now hear Paul Krugman publicly complain that many economists ‘mistake beauty for truth’, Joseph Stiglitz accuse his colleagues of ‘murdering the American economy’ by using bad idealisations in their models and Daron Acemoglu proclaim that ‘The financial crisis is an embarrassment for economic theory’. Many of the issues they are raising, for instance about the unrealisticness of assumptions in economic models, have been discussed by philosophers of economics for many years. But they have tended to do so for the most part in isolation from economic practice (which has no doubt been partly due to the resistance of economists to engage in philosophical debate). With some luck future work in philosophy of economics will be done in closer collaboration with economists, motivated by practical concerns, and relevant to economists’ day-to-day work.

4. Do you think that the changes you mention in (3) will have a lasting impact on the direction of philosophy of economics?

Yes – if the criticisms of Krugman, Stiglitz, Acemoglu and others are taken seriously by economists, and philosophers of economics stop asking abstract-philosophical questions and turn towards economic practice.

5. In what ways does philosophy of economics puncture holes in common economic assumptions?

One has to distinguish between valid criticism of economic assumptions and their uptake by economists. The arguments philosophers of economics have given to the effect that economists cannot ignore engagement with ethics, that the revealed-preference theory is untenable, that new causal relations cannot be established without making strong causal background assumptions and many others are compelling. And yet, they continue to be ignored by many, if not most, professional economists. Philosophers find this situation lamentable, and understandably so. To some extent we have to blame ourselves. Not only do philosophers tend to address issues at too high a level of abstraction, they also often use specialist jargon that is difficult to understand outside the profession. We have to learn to communicate better, to focus on issues that are practically relevant, and, if possible, to work on these issues jointly with economists. Unless that happens, there might be numerous philosophical holes in theory, but they might not affect the way economics is practiced.

6. What can philosophy learn from economics?

A number of things. Let me focus on two areas here, one where economics has already had a great influence on the way philosophy is practised, and another where there is still room for improvement. The use of models, especially mathematical models, has proven extremely fruitful in economics. Models create parallel worlds within which claims can be established rigorously. Having to build a model and to derive claims within its confines demands of the modeller to be exact in certain ways, to make implicit background assumptions explicit, to use the same concepts from the beginning to the end of a derivation and so on. While certainly not unexceptionable, these are virtues in many contexts. Formal tools such as mathematical modelling, the proof of representation theorems etc. have become more popular in recent philosophy, and economics has often been an especially important source of inspiration. John Broome’s books can be regarded as paradigmatic of this kind of work. I do not think that this is the only good way to do philosophy, but it unquestionably has a lot to speak for it.

The other area concerns aims. Economics is, no doubt, in part a policy science. That is, economists confidently use their tools to make policy recommendations on a broad range of subjects. And, for better or worse, their voices are heard. Philosophers of science generally, and philosophers of economics are no exception, tend to take a more Aristotelian, contemplative stance towards science and society. But they shouldn’t. Philosophical issues of economics are of great practical importance. This is most salient in the area of ethical aspects of economics but true throughout. Methodological issues are often interwoven with ethical ones. As philosophers of economics we shouldn’t leave the political field to economists (and philosophers specialising in other areas such as ethicists) but ourselves take a stance and think harder about the applied areas of economics.

7. Does economics require prior formal education in philosophy? If so, how does this affect the discipline’s position in the academy? Along these lines, perhaps, does the philosopher of economics have a double-pedagogical role: to explain adequately the philosophical issue and explain the economic issue under discussion?

I don’t think economics necessarily requires prior education in philosophy, but some philosophy (along with other humanities such as history) should be part of the economics curriculum. There’s a deplorable tendency of economics departments to shut down courses in the history and methodology of economics, and with them departmental research groups. This would be a bad idea even if economics was a body of incontrovertible truths. But it isn’t. Foundational assumptions in economics can and ought to be challenged constantly. As social practices evolve, as societal goals and values change, and they constantly do, traditional assumptions become outdated and need to be revised. Philosophy and history are necessary to understand these developments, and they can help economists to become more reflective and better grounded scientists.

8. Does philosophy of economics address problems that would warrant interest from students and scholars outside of philosophy?

At least some of the problems philosophy of economics are of very broad interest. Think of the moral limits of the market. Should there be markets in kidneys or blood? Do tuition fees affect the way university education is conceived by students? Is paying money to skip the queue morally problematic? These are issues that affect almost anyone. Or consider paternalism. Should the government intervene so people eat more healthily? Is eating healthily really good for us? What if it is good for some but not for others? (As an aside, the book talks about foie gras in various places.) Philosophy of economics isn’t a purely academic discipline.

9. How do economists and philosophers view the field of economics differently? Has there been much recent dialogue between philosophers and economists? If so, what was the goal or the result?

When I teach philosophy to economics students I often notice an unease they have with the way philosophers regard almost any ‘truth’ as tentative, subject to future revision, local, and relative to a context at hand. I’d go on and on, say, about how great a philosopher David Hume was and how important his insights about causation, only to show, at the end of the lecture, how he got it (almost) all wrong. They find that frustrating. This way of thinking should not, however, be altogether unfamiliar to economics students because models, which as I noted above are all over the place in economics, are tentative, erroneous, local, purpose-driven constructs. This is not, however, how models seem to be taught in economics departments.

This, then, is one important difference, and there are many more. These differences often make communication across the disciplines and therefore dialogue difficult. I was recently made fun of at an economics conference for using the word ‘ontology’ and for making a point about causality by quoting Mill. The economist in question said that he didn’t understand ‘ontology’ and Mill was better on liberty than on causality. This was perhaps an extreme case, but it shows that economists and philosophers of economics have some way to go to establish fruitful dialogue.

On the other hand, there are many reasons to be optimistic. More and more philosophers of economics have dual backgrounds these days, PhD theses are jointly supervised and we see some collaboration on research projects. It is just a matter of time that economics and philosophy of economics draw more closely together.

10. How does philosophy of economics affect assumptions and research in other fields like moral philosophy and moral psychology?

I wouldn’t say that philosophy of economics affects these other fields but rather that parts of moral philosophy and moral psychology constitute branches of philosophy of economics or at least that the boundaries between the fields are very fluid. Take well-being as an example. Well-being is clearly a core concern of moral philosophy. But it is also important to welfare economics. So shall we say research on well-being is moral philosophy when done by a moral philosopher (such as James Griffin or Roger Crisp), economics when done by an economist (such as Partha Dasgupta or Angus Deaton) and philosophy of economics when done by a philosopher of economics (such as Dan Hausman or Michael McPherson)? That doesn’t make sense. A researcher interested in well-being will build on results in all three fields, and his or her work will be relevant to all three.

11. You write in the Introduction to Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction that “Philosophers of economics are philosophers whose work focuses on the theoretical, methodological and ethical foundations of economics.” Does philosophy of economics itself operate according to a standardized theoretical/methodological/ethical foundation or does that depend on the particular philosopher? Are there philosophical approaches to economics-related issues (i.e., John Searle’s work on social ontology) which are not considered philosophy of economics proper because they do not adhere to such a standardized foundation, if it does in fact exist?

Philosophy of economics in the narrow sense is a young discipline, so little if anything is standardised. Philosophers of science often distinguish the epistemic and metaphysical aspects of science, i.e., the ‘How can we know?’ and the ‘What is there?’. This division leaves out ethics, which is important to all science and to economic science in particular. Moreover, economics is based on a theory of rational action, so one has to include rationality as well. In the book I aim to be comprehensive but nevertheless to provide an overall structure and narrative. The division theory-methodology-ethics is the result. What I call foundations of economic theory includes issues concerning rational action but also traditional metaphysical issues such as laws and causality. Social ontology à la Searle could have been included here, but it is largely irrelevant to practising economists, so I left it out. What I call the methodological foundations includes the traditional epistemic issues of philosophy of science but I address them at the more concrete level of particular methods economists actually use. The same goes for the ethical foundations. Many of them have their counterparts in traditional moral philosophy, but in the book they are addressed in the concrete context of welfare economics.

12. How are the more “pop cultural” philosophy of economics texts—the work of Malcolm Gladwell, for example—received by philosophers of economics?

There is clearly an interest in this kind of literature among philosophers of economics. I remember very early in my career I attended a conference, organised by philosopher-economist Kevin Hoover, where Sylvia Nasar, author of A Beautiful Mind (a popular book about the life of John Nash) gave a keynote. My former colleague at the Erasmus Institute of Philosophy of Economics, Jack Vromen, organised a great conference on the ‘economics made fun’ genre (work such as Freakonomics, The Armchair Economist or More Sex is Safer Sex) a few years back. My own book ends with a chapter on Nudge. Nudge is, of course, also a serious policy proposal, but the book is certainly very popular and some of its ideas (or expressions – think of the image of a parent elephant ‘nudging’ its baby elephant) have become part of pop culture.

13. What do you consider to be the future of philosophy of economics? What are the most pressing questions facing the discipline today?

If we continue to do good philosophical work but in a manner that is relevant to economics, is taken up by economists because it helps to address their concerns, and that can contribute to sound economic policy making, we’ll face a bright future.

14. In your opinion, what philosopher of economics has had the greatest impact on the discipline in the last 100 years?

Without a doubt Amartya Sen.

15. And finally, a more lighthearted question: given their concern with the behavior of individuals in certain economic situations, do philosophers of economics gamble? Why or why not?

There must be some ways to exploit humans’ decision-making follies, but philosophers tend to be too well behaved to actually do it, or even consider doing it for that matter. Seems like a good idea to me though, so off I go.
  

Watch this space for more information. In the meantime, why not take a look at 'The University and the City'.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection presents human beings as self-interested and aggressive. Humans have survived in the ‘struggle for existence’ because they have had the aggressive instincts necessary to see off competition. The theme has been taken up by many social scientists. Many economists see it as an important corroboration of the concept of markets based on competitive individualism. The ‘survival of the fittest’ has been seen as applicable both to the process of natural selection and competition in markets.

Darwin, however, was never entirely happy with his explanation of natural selection in terms of individualistic aggression, at least as a full account of the process. In The Descent of Man he recognises that humans have ‘social virtues’ and a sense of ‘sympathy’, meaning something like empathy in modern usage. He sees that humans are sociable as well as individualistic, but acknowledges that he is unable to provide an account of the social dynamics of humans that will have comparable status to his theory of biological evolution.

The root of the problem is perhaps that Darwin missed the importance of the human instinct for self-preservation. Human individuals have by nature a strong sense of self-preservation. They will for the most part try to avoid conflict and injury. The very strong emotion of fear alerts humans to threats to their self-preservation. The response of every individual is to seek the support of others. So fear, or insecurity, is the trigger to group formation. The group provides security, both psychologically and in the real sense that groups are essential to effective engagement in violence. To gain the support of others, individuals compromise their own interests and sustain the interests of the group. Some individuals will be more valuable to the group than others, and the differences will be reflected in the compromises each makes for the support he requires. Group formation becomes a matter of ‘support-bargaining’. The individuals whose skills and talents are most valuable to the group will have the greatest influence in determining the interests of the group.

Once assured of group support, humans become more confident. Members reassure each other of their courage and fighting prowess. Each individual has an interest in ensuring that all the others fight valiantly and selflessly for the group interest. Involvement in a cohesive group can bring out the aggressive instinct in humans. Humans appear to be aggressive because they invariably get together in groups. As individuals, the instinct for self-preservation is more prominent.

In the Darwinian context support-bargaining is the process by which groups are formed for violent purposes, either defensive or aggressive. But in a social context it becomes the process by which societies identify and advance group interests. People hold meetings to discuss and agree on an approach to local problems. A dominant individual may persuade the others to support his recommendations. Or a show of hands may be requested to see which approach has the most support. Political parties form through support-bargaining to sustain certain interests. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that majority support entitles a group to advance of its interests. Even in the intellectual sphere, groups assemble through support-bargaining to sustain certain theories regarding the nature of human society and the changes they would like to see. The debates over economic theory can be understood as competitive assembly of support. Support-bargaining can be seen as the essential mechanism by which human societies evolve.

See Patrick Spread, 'Support-Bargaining, Economics and Society: A Social Species', published by Routledge, October 2012. Link: www.routledge.com/9780415641128

Other reference:
Books: A Theory of Support and Money Bargaining (Macmillan 1984)
Getting It Right: Economics and the Security of Support (Book Guild, 2004)
Support-Bargaining: The Mechanics of Democracy Revealed (Book Guild, 2008)
Articles: ‘Blau’s Exchange Theory, Support and the Macrostructure’, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 2, June 1984.
‘Lindblom, Wildavsky and the Role of Support’, Political Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 275-295, June 1985.
‘Situation as Determinant of Selection and Valuation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 335-56, March 2011.
‘Science and Support: The Struggle for Mastery in Economics’, Real World Economics Review, Issue No. 59, 12 March 2012, pp. 39-57.
‘The evolution of economic theory: And some implications for financial risk management’, Real World Economics Review, Issue No. 61, 26 September 2012, pp. 125-135.
 

Interested in economics? Interested in the blogosphere? Why not take a look at the top 25 economics blogs by following the link below:

http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2012/top-25-popular-economics-blogs/

"Green economy" was among the key interests of the United Nations Rio+20 conference, June 2012. But how can economics achieve "green growth"? Edward Barbier outlines the steps needed to answer this question in the Policy Forum published by Science Magazine. Read it today

Routledge Major Works WINTER BACKLIST OFFER! (from 12/12/12 – 12/3/13)

There is a fantastic range of titles on offer from subject areas such as Allied Health, Asian Studies, Business, Economics, Education, History, Linguistics, Literature, Media, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Religion and Sociology.

This eclectic mix of titles includes collections on Mao Zedong, Sufism, Marketing Research, Journalism, Radio, French Feminists, War and Human Rights.

Click here to download our list of 50 titles currently available to purchase!

To receive 20% off simply add your selection of books to your cart, place MWINTER20 into the Discount code field and then “Update Cart”!

This particular offer really shows the scope and range of Routledge Major Works-an essential reference teaching programme for your library.

eBooks from Taylor & Francis - Helping you to choose the right eBooks for your Library

As we enter 2013, we are seeing more and more institutions and libraries investing in electronic information products and resources. There is increasingly less space for physical books, and students are now accessing more information remotely.

A 2012 IFLA report rightly makes the point that 'eResources present a number of challenges not encountered with the selection and acquisition of traditional analogue materials'. For this reason, at Taylor & Francis we endeavour to offer you as much support as possible to help you integrate our eProducts into your library as easily as possible. And with our eBooks, we have made things super simple.

At first glance, the sheer scale of our eBook backlist and frontlist can be quite daunting. We have over 30,000 eBooks across the Humanities, Social Sciences, Behavioural Sciences and Law, from leading imprints, including Routledge, Focal Press and Psychology Press.

With eBooks covering everything from Language & Linguistics and Philosophy of Film to Commercial Law and Development Economics, there is a lot to choose from. For that reason, we have made our purchase options nice and flexible; subject eCollections, interdisciplinary eFocus packages, Pick n' Mix and more ...

Give our new video a watch and get a snapshot of what T&F eBooks could do for your library:

For more information on this, his latest best-selling book, click here.

Why not take a look at the following interview that e-IR's Maysam Behravesh, the Iranian Studies editor and an assistant editor of Asian Politics & Policy, has conducted with Bastiaan de Gaay Fortman to mark the release of the paperback edition of 'Political Economy of Human Rights'. The first of a series of interviews with him, this interview focuses upon the significant points and central arguments propounded in the book and strives to address key questions of broader interest and high relevance to the human rights cause/discourse in general.

Click here to read the interview in full.

Click here for more information on 'Innovation in Pricing'

Earlier this year, Andreas Hinterhuber and Stephan Liozu wrote 'Is It Time to Rethink Your Pricing Strategy?' in MIT Sloan Management Review. Now, MIT's own contributing editor, Leslie Brokaw, provides a comprehensive and engaging summary of the article, focusing on key excerpts, in 'Setting Prices Based on Customer Value'.

Why not take a look at both of these engaging articles about innovation and pricing, a precurser to the aptly named book 'Innovation in Pricing', by Andreas Hinterhuber and Stephan Liozu.

Click here for more information on Professor Haynes' newly published 'Public Policy beyond the Financial Crisis'
 

Future Themes and Priorities for Government and Public Policy Beyond the Crisis

In his recently published research title, 'Public Policy beyond the Financial Crisis', Philip Haynes concludes on the main features of public policy in the next ten years:

• A reduction in inequality - especially with a reduction in the wealth and income held by the ‘super’ rich.

• The increased importance of small organisations (both in the private and public sectors) that promote more dynamic growth and improving services.

• It will become more important for the governments to support such an economy because many small organisations will not easily have the resources to support the welfare of their workers, for example via pension contributions.

• The government will have to subsidise aspects of this economy, such as reducing tax pressures on employment like National Insurance, and promote training and the entry of young people, and the retention of the sick and older people in the labour market.

• Management systems will be built more on values rather than just financial goals.

• New finance products will become popular. These will be an alternative to the bankrupt large financial institutions. They will offer more stable and ethical investing. Examples are:

o Bonds linked to specific government and private projects that offer a fixed rate of interest over long periods and the guaranteed ability to beat inflation.
o Peer to peer internet lending
o Micro credit organisations, often community and value based


His analysis based on the methodology of complex systems theory avoids making conclusions based on a few economic indicators but instead considers a synthesis of many influences, including dominant social and economic values. Public values are starting to change because society is losing confidence in the domination of market values over other values. He argues that the increasing scandals in large corporations and the resulting corruption of major political and economic life are being shown to have a huge social and economic cost.

The current austerity policies will change. Cuts will slow to prevent austerity contributing to recession. When the economy starts to grow again increased taxation will follow and it will be more directed at preventing short term credit expansion and consumption, so that growth is encouraged in exports and long term investment. An increasing proportion of public expenditure will be met by raising taxes rather than borrowing and selective cuts.

For further information visit http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415674393/
 

The Editors of one of our new titles The Future of Helium as a Natural Resource discuss the themes of the book in a BBC Radio 4 interview and they make the case in Nature Comment for an international helium agency.

Click here for more information on the book or to order your copy today.

The Future of Helium as a Natural Resource

Future of Helium as a Natural Resource editors William J Nuttall, Richard H Clarke and Bartek A Glowacki make the case in Nature Comment for an international helium agency

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7400/full/485573a.html

Co-editor of the book Richard Clarke explores the context of the current helium shortages to Quentin Cooper on "Material World" (BBC Radio 4)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01j6t0n (Interview approx. 21 minutes in)