"In their recent book Where Economics Went Wrong, David Colander and Craig Freedman (2018) argue that economics went wrong when it abandoned the Classical liberal firewall that demanded separation of scientific theory from the art of policy making. Colander has long advanced the idea that applied economics should be classified neither as positive nor as normative economics. Instead it should be placed in a third category, 'the art of economics;' art requires vision and acumen in addition to knowledge and technique, and is thus more akin to engineering than the natural sciences. The primary contribution of Where Economics Went Wrong is thus to advance Colander’s general argument through the specific story of Chicago Economics. This essay make two interconnected claims. First, while I agree with Colander and Freedman that applied economics would benefit from more art and less calculation, the Chicago School is not the best vehicle by which to tell a convincing story. Second, a thicker history of the Chicago School reminds us of the importance of institutions and rules, not only for understanding the economy but also for thinking about how economists have constructed our discipline and how internal institutions and incentives affect our behavioral choices."

"The authors tell a story about the evolution, and devolution, of economic theory and methodology. Many economists, especially those who work outside the mainstream, know that the profession was greatly influenced by the scientific revolution in economics and the Chicago School. The related pressure for ideological purity and the narrow perspective on economic policy was not lost on those who took a broader methodological approach. For years, non-compliance with mainstream thought and method constrained the influence and career paths of otherwise excellent economists. Not all who were influenced by this phenomenon know the details of the Chicago story. This book will help the reader understand how economics, at least as a relevant policy science, went off the rails and the role the Chicago School played in the derailment. It is an interesting and relevant story that invites a return to policy relevance. The book consists of nine chapters covering 162 pages, followed by 97 pages of endnotes. The choice to use extensive footnoting seems to be driven by a desire to provide a well-documented argument while still making the book accessible to those who are not history of thought specialists. The authors have been successful; however, even in its kinder and gentler form, readers will benefit from at least a cursory understanding of the history of economic thought. The book is enjoyable and informative and is presented in a way that builds the reader’s interest as the story continues."

"The transformation of classical political economy into economic science and from economic science to economic engineering is the subject of David Colander and Craig Freeman's stimulating and important book, Where Economics Went Wrong. I have subtle disagreements with the book, but those disagreements are far less interesting than my general agreement with the central thesis of the book. So I would like to stress those points of agreement in this review. [...] There is a treasure trove of information in its pages, and a wealth of wisdom in its central message."

"I want to argue that the book fails on three accounts. First, I will argue that the distinction between scientific economics and political conclusion is different from what the authors assume it is. That is an argument on methodology. Second, I believe that the role of the Chicago school for the development of modern economics is exaggerated, an argument from the history of economics. Third, I found some arguments very problematic. That is an argument about proper behaviour in academic disputes."