The recent economic crisis has caused much soul-searching within the economics profession; at least that would seem to be the testimony of this volume edited by Diane Coyle. It is based on a conference she helped organize in February of 2012 sponsored by the U.K. Government Economic Service and the Bank of England. In the volume, some 25 U.S. and British practicing applied economists, academic researchers, and teachers of economics offer their reflections on how if at all the financial crisis which struck in 2007 has altered views of the nature of economics and how it should be taught. The contributions are organized into four sections. The first section focuses on what could be called learning outcomes with its title of “What do Employers of Economists Want?” The second section takes up how the crisis may have altered perceptions of economic methodology in general. The third section turns more specifically to changing views of the nature of macroeconomics and how it should be taught. The final section offers four pieces reflecting on changes underway in how economics is being taught in the United Kingdom.

A number of the contributions of this volume are no more than four pages in length, thus reading as extended blogs while the longest chapter is only 15 pages. But the lack of in-depth treatment is more than compensated by the range of topics and diversity of perspectives on offer. Indeed, one striking feature of this volume is the sharp contrast in positions taken on the question of whether the recent economic crisis implies that fundamental reforms are required in the discipline of economics. This in turn provides interesting perspectives on the more general question of whether the discipline modifies its principles in response to anomalous experiences. To philosopher Charles Saunders Peirce's term, do economists practice abduction: the development of new hypotheses and modification of previous ones in light of experience? Or as Peirce suggests will such standard features of economics education as the emphasis on rational choice models, optimization, and mathematical rigor persist primarily due to intellectual custom and tradition rather than due to the functional value of these skills? Some contributors such as Alan Kirman argue that economics is in a fundamental crisis and that the insights of network theory, neuropsychology, and behavioral economics should be incorporated to get the field on track. Others, such as Benjamin Friedman, while not calling for wholesale modification of the discipline, do argue that macroeconomic models should jettison assumptions of rational expectations while also more fully incorporating interactions between the financial sector and the rest of the economy. But on the other side, the financial economist Andrew Lo, warns of the dangers of what he calls theory envy and primarily recommends that graduate education provide more exposure to real world applications of economic theory. And Edward Glaeser argues that no changes are required in graduate education but that what is at stake are issues of subsequent career intellectual and policy specialization.

One perspective missing in the volume concerns what soul searching has occurred by economists in the aftermath of prior severe economic crises whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. It remains to be seen how ephemeral will be the issues and perspectives put forward here. However, one reason for archiving in print the responses articulated at the 2012 conference is to enable such comparison with responses to future economic crises.

The last section of the volume on U.K. pedagogical initiatives should be informative even to non-U.K. readers. Two examples stand out. Michael McMahan discusses the problem of instructor incentives for effective teaching. Jonathan Leape emphasizes the value of the required multidisciplinary social problem-based course offered at the LSE (LSE 100). Both discussions have origins extending well before and beyond the recent economic crisis and in this respect are out of synch with the rest of the volume.

For many readers of this JOURNAL, a compelling feature of this volume will be the recurring call by many of its contributors for economists to more fully integrate historical perspectives into their discipline. However, the contributions also suggest that this integration is hardly a straightforward matter. David Colander argues that effective teaching of courses in economic history and the history of economic thought requires a subtlety that most rank and file instructors will be unable to marshal. Harold James offers a concise but insightful three-part typology regarding the ways in which the study of history can improve current economic practice: 1) as a way of identifying patterns, 2) as a means of providing policy advice, and 3) as an indication of multiple and alternative possibilities, with each component entailing nontrivial implementation. Thus, while the volume offers optimism on the demand side for the future of economic history, it also suggests that ongoing effort on the supply side will be required by economic historians to effectively incorporate their work into the theory, practice, and teaching of economics.