以下はエラリアンの4/27付け論説「Why Innovation Tends to Bypass Mainstream Economics」からの引用*1

Mainstream economics hasn’t done well in recent years, failing to predict major shifts that have caused significant damage to society. This breakdown sheds light on a more general question: Why have certain fields and activities been unable to benefit sufficiently from innovation?
The damage goes well beyond lost output, diminished consumer welfare, widespread economic insecurity and a worsening of the inequality of income, wealth and opportunity. The shortfalls fueled the politics of anger, along with a heightened mistrust of the establishment, institutions and expert opinion.
This, in turn, has diminished the credibility of economics. Meanwhile, many students have complained to me that the mainstream economics they are taught is divorced from real-world relevance. It is only a matter of time before the funding for economic research risks becoming a casualty.
Yet this huge failure has not been the result of ignorance about the limitations of the discipline, nor is it the consequence of a lack of new, disruptive ideas.
Ironically, economics has not lacked for intellectual advances that can address many of these deficiencies. There has been exciting progress in behavioral economics and finance, as well as in the understanding of the role of market technicals, sudden stops, tipping points, game theory and political influences.
Still, too many of the exciting and promising breakthroughs have failed to sufficiently penetrate the mainstream establishment of economics. As a result, the tools available to the majority of economists — and those they teach their students and use to inform policy — remain partial and, in some cases, misleading.
Many of these problems can be traced back to a basic economic distinction: the difference between invention and innovation.
Invention is defined as the discovery of a new exciting idea, product or approach. Innovation means applying that idea through changes in operating models and mindsets.
Too many areas today contain the invention but not the innovation. This harmful decoupling is driven by a combination of biases, blind spots and inertia (knowing you need to do something different but ending up doing more of the same). In too many cases, the flaw has less to do with the need to come up with a brilliant idea, and more a matter of embracing it and adapting accordingly. That requires being curious, open-minded, willing to listen and open to experimentation; creating safe zones for candid discussions; and learning from failure.

一方、以下は、Howard Reedが英国のProspect Magazine誌に書いた経済学批判記事にノアピニオン氏が反論した4/25付け論説「Econ Critics Are Stuck in the Past」からの引用*2

As usual, the basic attacks have an element of truth. Macroeconomics definitely tended to ignore the financial sector before the crisis, and downplayed the possibility of a long recession. Unrealistic assumptions are common­ in many models, especially in macroeconomics....
The idea seems to be that economists mainly engage in a deductive enterprise, dispensing high theory from Olympian mounts of authority. This may have been an accurate stereotype at one point, but these days it bears little resemblance to reality: most economists are out combing through mountains of data, straining to glean facts about how the world really works. ...Sometimes they use theory to help them understand these phenomena, but usually the core work is empirical analysis of hard data.
In other words, the standard British-magazine critique of the economics profession isn’t just tiresome, and it isn’t just wrong in the particulars -- its entire vision of what economics needs to become is distorted by a warped picture of what the profession is today. It is attacking a caricature that ceased to be accurate many years ago, if it ever was. And by attacking this outdated caricature, these critiques are doing a disservice not just to laypeople, but to more serious critics who understand the real challenges that the profession does face.

*1:InvestmentNews社がNYで開いた「Innovation Summit」で「Icons and Innovators」賞を受賞した時の講演を基にした記事との由。

*2:ノアピニオン氏は、昨年7月に氏が反論したガーディアン紙記事など英国の新聞に掲載された一連の経済学批判記事の延長線にReedの記事を位置付けている。ちなみに同じProspect Magazineで既にDiane Coyleも反論を書いており、ロジャー・ファーマーはCoyleに軍配を上げている