Robert Cord – författare

Explore the Fundamentals of Political Science REVEL™ for Political Science: An Introduction shows students how the fundamental tenets of political science have helped important leaders make critical decisions for centuries. The authors present a balance of theoretical abstractions and applied reasoning to help students understand how to make calm, rational choices when it comes to political manipulation. REVEL for the Fourteenth Edition asks students to explore the controversial topic of exported democracy, and whether certain countries are ready and equipped to apply our form of government. By examining issues such as the Iraq war and the difficulty of adapting our own democracy in the U.S., REVEL for Political Science prompts students to form their own opinions about democracy and political science. Geared toward those learning about the topic for the first time, the authors encourage students to consider different paradigms, viewpoints, and theories when developing  their own political views. REVEL is Pearson’s newest way of delivering our respected content. Fully digital and highly engaging, REVEL replaces the textbook and gives students everything they need for the course. Informed by extensive research on how people read, think, and learn, REVEL is an interactive learning environment that enables students to read, practice, and study in one continuous experience — for less than the cost of a traditional textbook. NOTE: REVEL is a fully digital delivery of Pearson content. This ISBN is for the standalone REVEL access card. In addition to this access card, you will need a course invite link, provided by your instructor, to register for and use REVEL.

Various explanations have been put forward as to why the Keynesian Revolution in economics in the 1930s and 1940s took place. Some of these point to the temporal relevance of John Maynard Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), appearing, as it did, just a handful of years after the onset of the Great Depression, whilst others highlight the importance of more anecdotal evidence, such as Keynes’s close relations with the Cambridge ‘Circus’, a group of able, young Cambridge economists who dissected and assisted Keynes in developing crucial ideas in the years leading up to the General Theory. However, no systematic effort has been made to bring together these and other factors to examine them from a sociology of science perspective. This book fills this gap by taking its cue from a well-established tradition of work from history of science studies devoted to identifying the intellectual, technical, institutional, psychological and financial factors which help to explain why certain research schools are successful and why others fail. This approach, it turns out, provides a coherent account of why the revolution in macroeconomics was ‘Keynesian’ and why, on a related note, Keynes was able to see off contemporary competitor theorists, notably Friedrich von Hayek and Michal Kalecki.

Various explanations have been put forward as to why the Keynesian Revolution in economics in the 1930s and 1940s took place. Some of these point to the temporal relevance of John Maynard Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), appearing, as it did, just a handful of years after the onset of the Great Depression, whilst others highlight the importance of more anecdotal evidence, such as Keynes’s close relations with the Cambridge ‘Circus’, a group of able, young Cambridge economists who dissected and assisted Keynes in developing crucial ideas in the years leading up to the General Theory. However, no systematic effort has been made to bring together these and other factors to examine them from a sociology of science perspective. This book fills this gap by taking its cue from a well-established tradition of work from history of science studies devoted to identifying the intellectual, technical, institutional, psychological and financial factors which help to explain why certain research schools are successful and why others fail. This approach, it turns out, provides a coherent account of why the revolution in macroeconomics was ‘Keynesian’ and why, on a related note, Keynes was able to see off contemporary competitor theorists, notably Friedrich von Hayek and Michal Kalecki.