Archive

SOAS Anti-Corruption Evidence and the Institute for New Economic Thinking are convening a two-day conference for UK-based early career researchers working on governance, corruption, and related political economy issues in the Global South.

As America marks 250 years of independence, Adam Smith is again being pressed into service as a founding myth. A deeper reading of The Wealth of Nations reveals a far richer thinker than today’s easy invocations of markets and liberty suggest.

As America marks 250 years of independence, Adam Smith is again being pressed into service as a founding myth. A deeper reading of The Wealth of Nations reveals a far richer thinker than today’s easy invocations of markets and liberty suggest.

Europe’s new fiscal rules still bind policy to fragile estimates of potential output. For Italy, targeting lower unemployment could sustain stronger growth, improve deficit outcomes, and expose the self-defeating logic of austerity when debt is measured against a stagnating economy.

The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), New York, and the INET Young Scholars Initiative (YSI) are pleased to partner with the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, in organising the 6th India Public Policy Network Conference (IPPN), to be held from 8-11 June 2026 at NLSIU, Bengaluru, India.

Central bank money is still accounted for as debt, a legacy of an earlier monetary order. Treating sovereign money as equity would clarify central bank balance sheets, strengthen institutional transparency, and better prepare monetary systems for future digital-era design choices.

Global health financing is collapsing just as demands on health systems are rising. As funding retreats and reform debates intensify, a deeper question emerges about who bears the costs, and whether today’s fixes risk creating lasting damage that will be difficult to reverse.

Equality runs deeper than economics textbooks or policy fashions suggest. Across disciplines, evidence increasingly links more equal societies to stronger well-being, greater social trust, and healthier democracies, challenging the assumption that fairness must come at the expense of prosperity or economic dynamism.

The same technology that promises efficiency in offices is fueled by a system that is making life more costly for everyday workers. Part of “AI and the Future of the American Worker,” a series on how artificial intelligence is impacting labor, power, and the meaning of work.

What if the AI future being sold to markets rests on claims that cannot survive scrutiny? From superintelligence to mass job loss, the loudest promises around generative AI begin to look less like foresight than hype dressed up as inevitability.

The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and the Cambridge Central Asia Forum, University of Cambridge, in partnership with The Green Industrial Policy in the Age of Rare Metals: A Transregional Comparison of Growth Strategies in Rare Earth Mining Project (Funded by European Research Council (ERC) administered by University of Sussex, UK., are organizing the Research in Action Workshop 2026: The Science of Critical Minerals and the Realigning Global Order, on 27–28 April 2026 at the University of Cambridge.

Equality runs deeper than preference or policy fashion, rooted in human social instincts and reflected in outcomes across societies. It is time for economics and policy alike to reckon with how profoundly distribution shapes well-being and social stability.

AI surveillance and algorithmic management threaten worker autonomy and dignity. It’s time for a rethinking of rights. Part of “AI and the Future of the American Worker,” a series on how artificial intelligence is impacting labor, power, and the meaning of work.

Beneath the grand claims and vast capital spending, AI is delivering weak productivity, mounting losses, and growing financial strain. If the boom cannot generate profits, jobs, or durable gains, how much longer can the bubble hold?

Should antitrust law focus primarily on measurable performance outcomes such as price and output as indicated by Robert Bork’s Consumer Welfare Standard? Or is it more important to concentrate on whether conduct undermines the competitive process itself as per the newly revitalized Protect Competition Standard?