Economics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

Product Information

Colonialism/imperialism is directly mentioned once: Why didn’t the poor world take advantage of their resource endowments to enrich themselves in the same way?

Colonization is a possible answer. Historians have shown that, from the 16th century, European powers have extracted natural resources from the colonies – including cheap (read, slave) labour – but have mostly invested the proceeds domestically. Of course, one should ask why it is that the Europeans managed to colonize the tropics; why colonization didn’t take place the other way round. As noted earlier, Jared Diamond has offered an answer. That said, many of the most prominent of those ex-colonies have been politically independent for decades now. During that time real income per head in the rich world has increased over and over again. With the exception of a few striking examples in South and South East Asia, though, most of the ex-colonies have either remained poor or become poorer still. Why? [Emphasis added]...This then goes on to analyze the productivity of institutions (smells like Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty).

My only criticism is that some parts of the book may be too technical for the broad audience intended by the publishers and could avail from the inclusion of more supporting diagrams. The section on game theory is particularly guilty of this. Ah yes, all the poor need to do is “do business” and this magically produces wealth which magically distributes to the poor to uplift their standard of living. Because Western Europe just did business for 300 years (1500-1800) before their domestic (yes, let's not even consider the colonies/slaves) masses recovered enough from the capitalist Enclosures to actually improve their standard of living (which it turns out was mostly from collective action to build social Commons, esp. public health/sanitation): Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World Up-to-date and progressive, this short book is written by an internationally recognized authority in the field. At the outset, Dasgupta makes two broad worth noting. First, he ties in economics with politics and, especially with ethics. Unlike some scientists who might try to minimize ethical, philosophical questions, Dasgupta is quite clear that ethical commitments are a driving force behind economics and politics. The second point involves Dasgupta's approach to economic questions. He rejects a historical, "narrative" approach because of the difficulty of supporting one proposed "narrative" over another. Dasgupta's approach is heavily analytical and quantitative, relying on mathematical modeling, statistics, and game theory. He tries to identify and weigh the factors involved in economic growth.

Economic Writing on the Pressing Problems of the Day: The Roles of Moral Intuition and Methodological Confusion," As for calling this an 'economics' book, I really think that is open to interpretation. It was abundantly clear to me that the author had an agenda when writing this book and was not shy about it. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with her viewpoints, but books that are supposed to be references to technical subjects like economics shouldn't have the facts clouded with opinion and rhetoric.

Here Partha Dasgupta, an internationally recognized authority in economics, presents readers with a solid introduction to its basic concepts, including efficiency, equity, sustainability, dynamic equilibrium, property rights, markets, and public goods. Throughout, he highlights the relevance of economics to everyday life, providing a very human exploration of a technical subject. Dasgupta covers enduring issues such as population growth, the environment, and poverty. For example, he explores how the world's looming population problems affect us at the local, national, and international level. Middle-class behaviour can also be the trigger for change”: Ah, yes, “middle-class”, the only class vocalized by liberals to justify inequality (i.e. there is still social mobility if you earn it, thus capitalism remains a meritocracy). Nothing about power (esp. political bargaining power). I probably would not have been as disappointed with this book as I was had the title not included such misleading words as "Introduction" and "Economics".