246

Book Review

the countrys rise is a sustainable and positive phenomenon altogether. Moreover,

Hus study of Chinas superpower status makes available a rare glimpse into the
normative underpinnings of the countrys external affairs. It is expected that the
volume would be invaluable for the purposes of teaching and theorizing the ongoing
transformations in global life as a result of Chinas centrality. Hus book would also
be invaluable to policymakers and pundits as it provides a much needed and veritable
interpretation of the past, present, and future trajectories of Beijings external
outlook.
Emilian Kavalski
University Western Sydney (Australia)
Emilian Kavalski is a senior lecturer in Politics and International Relations in the School of Humanities and
Languages.

The Puzzle of Modern Economics: Science or Ideology? by Roger E. Backhouse. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2010. Paper: ISBN 978-0-521-53261-7, $24.99. 186
pages.
The title is apt, and this is so on multiple levels. First, Roger Backhouse, in the
acknowledgements section of the book, admits that what began as a history of
economics since World War II that would illuminate the present state of the
discipline, became something else because he could not get the pieces to fit as he had
hoped. Over a period of years, he excised many of the original chapters and replaced
them with others that were more methodological than historical. The result is that the
pieces of the puzzle that is this volume often seemed to have been forced-fit. Second,
there is the puzzle of the authors presentation. Backhouse begins by presenting a
series of present day case studies intended to illustrate what happens when economists
apply their learning to actual problems of economic policy. The Introduction and Part
I, entitled Economics in Action, deal with the credit crunch in 2008, the U.S. acid
rain program, the British 3G telecom auction, the Russian transition to capitalism,
and globalization. Part II leaves the present for the recent past, providing Historical
Perspectives. The puzzle here is why Backhouse chose this particular order. The
seemingly more natural approach would have been to state the thesis, provide the
historical and methodological background, then move to the cases. As it is, the shift is
abrupt, and the reader may feel that she is reading two unrelated books. Backhouse
does attempt to stitch the parts together in a concluding chapter entitled Economic
Science and Economic Myth which comprises Part III, headed Evaluation.
Judging by the subtitle, the puzzle to which the title refers is whether
contemporary mainstream economics is science or ideology. The answer, on this third
level and unsurprisingly, is that it is almost always a combination. The case studies in
Part I seem to argue for the proposition that the received view works well in those
situations where policy problems are narrowly defined, there are clear objectives, and

Book Review

247

the policy environment can be changed to conform with the assumptions of the
theory. In more complex policy situations, which would appear to be most of the
time, where economic science fails to consider behavior that does not answer to
rational actor, free market, perfectly competitive frameworks, theory comes up short.
Does this mean that ideology takes over? Not in Backhouses view. The reason for an
unjustified faith in free markets and rational choice models was not ideology but that
the models espoused powerful, rigorous, and apparently scientific methods. No
surprises here, either. Institutionalists long ago concluded that the rational agent, free
market paradigm could not handle the thorny problems and this because of both
ideological and methodological shortcomings. Backhouse gives such heterodox
insights little credit and credibility, comparing them to homeopathy, creation science,
and astrology, and preferring what amounts to the same conclusions belatedly reached
by those working within the received view. A final and ironic level is that Backhouse,
in steering away from an ideology-based reason for the failure of theory in policy
applications, points instead toward the possible explanation that economists have
become abstract puzzle-solvers, which is, after all, what they are taught to be. Why they
continue to be so instructed is the overarching and enduring puzzle of economics.
Roger Ashby
William Peace University
Roger Ashby is an assistant professor in the Business and Political Science departments.

The Myth of Development: Non-Viable Economies and the Crisis of Civilization, by Oswaldo
de Rivero, 2d ed. London: Zed Books, 2010. Paper: ISBN 978-1-84823-584-0, $29.94.
176 pages.
Oswaldo de Riveros second edition of The Myth of Development: Non-Viable Economies
and the Crisis of Civilization includes added material and updated statistics for his case
against development. de Rivero has held positions as a Peruvian diplomat, Perus
permanent representative to the World Trade Organization, and sat on the board of
the UN Security Council. This appears to be de Riveros second book, following New
Economic Order and International Development Law (1980).
In six chapters, de Rivero demonstrates how the idea of development remains
a mythological concept. The author builds on historical references as well as
systematically delineates development polices and outcomes. The book completes its
task.
The author roots his narrative in Thomas Hobbess Leviathan. De Rivero
expresses concern in the cult of Leviathan or the cult of the state as linked to the
idea of self-determination which he views as a source of economic non-viability. Selfdetermination, de Rivero states awoke the dragon of nationalism that promoted a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.