Last year’s 25th anniversary of the 364 economists’ letter of protest about the 1981 budget was the occasion for the IEA to produce a volume of essays on how this episode is now seen, namely:
Booth, P. (ed.) (2006) Were 364 economists all wrong?: a discussion of the impact and legacy of the 1981 budget. London: […]
Written by Roger on January 17th, 2007 with
no comments.
Read more articles on Thatcherism: Genesis & Performance (SF, TB II).
Last year’s 25th anniversary of the 364 economists’ letter of protest about the 1981 budget was the occasion for the IEA to produce a volume of essays on how this episode is now seen, namely:
Booth, P. (ed.) (2006) Were 364 economists all wrong?: a discussion of the impact and legacy of the 1981 budget. London: IEA.
The IEA’s quarterly journal has now followed this up by publishing an interesting debate between Tim Congdon (Lombard Street Research) and Stephen Nickell (LSE and MPC member, 2000-6). In sequence:
Congdon, T.G. (2006) ‘The 364 economists and the 1981 budget: an examination of the empirical evidence’, Economic Affairs, 26 (4), pp. 34-8.
Nickell, S.J. (2006) ‘After the 1981 budget: a reply to Tim Congdon’, Economic Affairs, 26 (4), pp. 39-42.
Congdon, T.G. (2006) ‘A rejoinder to Stephen Nickell’, Economic Affairs, 26 (4), pp. 43-5.
Written by Roger on January 17th, 2007 with
no comments.
Read more articles on Thatcherism: Genesis & Performance (SF, TB II).
There are still no comments on this article.
If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:
You have to be identified to write a comment.