%0 Journal Article
%T Why is economics so fragile? Pourquoi l¡¯¨¦conomie est-elle si fragile ?  Porqu¨¦ es tan fr¨¢gil la econom¨ªa ?
%A Jos¨¦ Castro£¿Caldas
%A V¨ªtor Neves
%A Jos¨¦ Reis
%J Revue de la R¨¦gulation : Capitalisme, Institutions, Pouvoirs
%D 2011
%I Association Recherche & R¨¦gulation
%X The association between a crisis in economics and the economic crisis, spontaneously drawn by the media and the public, is a fact which calls for explanation. We begin by identifying what the public and the media perceive as ¡°economics¡±. This is not economics in its plurality but a synthesis of new-Keynesian and new classical theory which emerged in the US during the 1980s. Such a synthesis is often presented as anchored in principles which establish the appropriate mode of economic reasoning. By reviewing what these principles state and what they conceal, we argue that this understanding of ¡°Modern Economic Theory¡± leaves a number of traditions of economic thought out of economics or economic science which, although neglected and marginalized, still exist within economics departments. We then question whether the public and the media might be justified in attributing the blame for the economic crisis to the particular type of economics taken as representative of the profession and of academia. Finally we address the prospect of a (more) robust and prudent economics, which would have to be anchored in a solid understanding of institutions, institutional configurations, and their variety and dynamics. La relation entre crise de l¡¯¨¦conomie et crise ¨¦conomique, telle que les m¨¦dias et le public l¡¯ont spontan¨¦ment ¨¦tablie, appelle quelques explications. Commen ons par identifier ce que le public et les m¨¦dias comprennent par ¡°¨¦conomie¡±. Il ne s¡¯agit pas de l¡¯¨¦conomie dans ses formes multiples, mais d¡¯une synth¨¨se, d¨¦velopp¨¦e dans les ann¨¦es 1980, de ¡°n¨¦o Keyn¨¦sianisme¡± et de th¨¦orie n¨¦o-classique. Cette synth¨¨se est souvent pr¨¦sent¨¦e comme ¨¦tant ancr¨¦e dans des principes qui d¨¦finiraient la bonne m¨¦thode d¡¯analyse ¨¦conomique. En examinant ce que ces principes affirment et ce qu¡¯ils sous-tendent, on soutient l¡¯id¨¦e selon laquelle cette conception d¡¯une   th¨¦orie ¨¦conomique moderne   renvoie hors du champ de l¡¯¨¦conomie, ou de la science ¨¦conomique, bon nombre de traditions de la pens¨¦e ¨¦conomique qui, bien que n¨¦glig¨¦es et marginalis¨¦es, existent toujours au sein des facult¨¦s d¡¯¨¦conomie. Nous pouvons d¨¨s lors nous interroger sur la v¨¦rit¨¦ r¨¦pandue par le grand public et les m¨¦dias lorsqu¡¯ils attribuent la responsabilit¨¦ de la crise ¨¦conomique ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦conomie sp¨¦cifique consid¨¦r¨¦e comme repr¨¦sentative de la profession et des universitaires. Finalement, nous consid¨¦rerons la perspective d¡¯une ¨¦conomie (plus) robuste et (plus) prudente, qui gagnerait ¨¤ ¨ºtre mieux ancr¨¦e dans une bonne compr¨¦hension des institutions, des configurations institutionnelles, de leurs div
%K Economic crisis
%K crisis in economics
%K political economy
%K institutionalism
%K crisis econ¨®mica
%K crisis de la econom¨ªa
%K econom¨ªa pol¨ªtica
%K institucionalismo
%K institutionnalisme
%K crise ¨¦conomique
%K crise de l¡¯¨¦conomie
%K ¨¦conomie politique
%K B20 - General
%K A11 - Role of Economics
%K Role of Economists
%K Market for Economists
%K A22 - Undergraduate
%K B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches
%U http://regulation.revues.org/9244