Faculty members at the Department of Economics have spearheaded efforts to transform the way economics is taught. Samuel Bowles, Professor Emeritus, has been at the forefront of these efforts, together with other UMass Economics faculty members, graduate students, and colleagues from other institutions – including Columbia University, University College London, Oxford University, and others. Recently, this exciting initiative was the subject of an article in New Yorker magazine – “Is It Time for a New Economics Curriculum?” Read the article.
According to a survey on free trade from the University of Chicago, economists overwhelmingly agree that the net effects of free trade are good. A recent article by several IMF economists affirms that, “perhaps more than on any other issue, there is agreement among economists that international trade should be free.” Free trade is said to enhance efficiency in all participating countries, which can lead to higher productivity and higher rates of economic growth. These higher growth rates can, in turn, raise living standards and therefore represent a desirable policy target—particularly for developing countries.
For once, most of the debtors are not in Africa, but in the North. I am not talking money, but about climate debt, as natural disasters are multiplying and the fight against climate change has become an existential issue. Since industrialized countries have used the available atmospheric space to develop and get rich by exploiting fossil fuels, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) — that is coming to end in Glasgow right now — must be an opportunity to recognize this climate debt to Africa, and to developing countries in general, and to honor it. 
Feminist economists have long argued that the purpose of an economy is to support the survival and flourishing of life, in all its forms. This may seem obvious but it turns on its head the prevailing view, which implicitly assumes the opposite causation: the economy runs according to its own laws, which must be respected by mere human actors. In this market-fundamentalist perspective, it is a potential angry god which can deliver prosperity or devastation and must be placated through all sorts of measures—including sacrifices made in its name. 
The Biden-Harris administration’s proposed investment in care infrastructure would benefit caregivers, those who receive care—and the country’s bottom line. Investing in the U.S. care infrastructure as outlined in the Biden-Harris administration’s “Build Back Better” proposals will have tremendous economic benefits—but not just in the ways you might think. The case for investing in the care workforce is usually framed around the important benefits to family caregivers (who are predominantly women) and those who receive care (children, older adults and people with health issues that require long-term care). The macroeconomic benefit isn’t often discussed. 
Laura Doyle, Professor of English and Mwangi wa Githinji, associate professor of economics was awarded a $500,000 grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to create a Mellon Fellows Program and a Graduate Certificate Program in Decolonial Global Studies (DGS). A long-developing vision of both the certificate will highlight both the collective histories hidden—or stricken—from view by colonialist narratives and the perspectives and values that can address struggles in the world today. 
Economics has many flaws, yet few are as broadly oppressive as its illusions about gender. Jayati Ghosh, Umass Professor of Economics created a 3 minute video animation that takes a look at the gender obstacles. 
A recent analysis of President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” economic package conducted by UMass Amherst economists Lenore Palladino and Chirag Lala has been cited by the White House in promotion of the proposal. Palladino and Lala, who analyzed the plan for the Political Economy Research Institute on behalf of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Center for American Progress (CAP), found that the $400 billion investment in home- and community-based services (HCBS) in the President’s plan would create more than 777,000 good-paying home care jobs across the country over the next decade, which would help address the industry’s severe job shortage. The June report also found that the proposal would ultimately result in approximately 1 million new jobs, including both directly created home care jobs and indirect job creation as those workers spend their new wages in the economy. 
