The history of economic growth, the kind to which we are now accustomed, is inseparably intertwined with the discovery, and then plunder, of fossil fuels. Some historians have even argued their unearthing was its main catalyst, relegating more popular theories of free trade and technological innovation. The argument is seductively simple, and although something of an exaggeration, usefully highlights the strong connection between the two – for in tandem, they radically altered the course of human civilisation.

In 2018, the World Meteorological Organization published its statement on the State of the Climate. The report showed that the 20 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 22 years. In the same year, the State of California’s Energy Commission published a report linking changing atmospheric conditions due to global warming as a direct cause of the devastating forest fires that swept through California, burning nearly 1.9 million acres’ of land and costing more than US$3.5 billion of damages.

Automation will transform our world; there is no doubt about it. Quite how, though, is highly contested – whether optimist or pessimist, there are predictions to match every predilection. Newspapers alternately run articles speculating a work-free, post-capitalist future filled with armchair philosophising, with forecasts of a world ravaged by inequality in which robots tend to the mega-rich, and everyone else is cast onto the scrap heap to contemplate what-on-earth went wrong. Little, it appears, exists in the in-between.

With the European elections just two weeks away the EU’s future is looking far from certain - the union is beset by crises and the resolve of its member states is being tested like never before. Much has changed since Europeans last took to the polls: Ukraine had its borders forcibly redrawn when an increasingly hawkish Russia invaded and annexed Crimea; global drought, poverty and violence drove record numbers of refugees to the shores of the Mediterranean; and China has continued its march as a formidable economic and political force. There has also been the small matter of Brexit and the emergence of a populist movement that has made electoral gains across the continent. The current moment, evidently, is one of flux, and the full implications of the transforming political landscape are still to be fully understood.

Along with a border wall and vague promises of greatness, one of Trump’s key campaign pledges was to bring back jobs to the American people. He situated himself, in contrast to Clinton, as the protector of the everyman, a mystical demographic that were at the mercy of the Chinese, their jobs being poached from right under their noses. His plan – as far as he ever articulated it – was predictably grandiose, and in part based on the resuscitation of the dying coal industry. The mines, he promised, would be brought back, en masse, bringing with them jobs and prosperity. His envisioned ‘greatness’ was to arrive accompanied by thick, black, environment-threatening, smog.

There are lots of different types of academic event that you might want to attend, such as conferences, seminars, workshops and symposiums. Each has its own benefits and drawbacks, and generally they have a different slant. Size, for instance, is usually a big factor in whether something is regarded as a conference or a symposium. Usually the difference between a conference and a symposium is that a conference will be a larger event and a symposium a smaller one.

As a policy, support for Universal Basic Income (UBI) flouts traditional political and social lines, making unlikely bedfellows of those on both the right and left wing. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, free-market evangelist Milton Friedman, and firebrand economist Yanis Varoufakis all count among its high profile, and rather disparate, champions. With the help of their advocacy the initiative has entered into mainstream consciousness, and widespread political discussion of its implementation, in contrast to a few years ago, is now readily had. Gone are the days in which UBI was simply dismissed as an unattainable utopian concept.

The Brexit clock is now deafening, and the British political and media establishments seem utterly consumed by its inexorable ticking. In the public realm, little else is considered, even less discussed. And yet, despite this obsession, with just 42 days before Britain departs the European Union, negotiations for a withdrawal agreement remain in deadlock, and the hopes of breakthrough seem to be fading. At the core of the dispute is the Irish backstop and, by proxy, participation in a customs union. On both, neither the Conservatives nor Labour appears capable of sincere compromise, favouring, instead, a game of high-risk brinksmanship. The stakes: the future of the country. By using the approaching deadline as leverage, aimed to cow opposition, Prime Minister Theresa May is gambling, big. And at the point of writing, it's unclear who will hold their nerve. Without concessions being made, Britain will crash out of the EU with no deal, with World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs beckoning.

In the cacophony of the Brexit debate the names Phnom Penh, Dhaka and Addis Ababa, if ever spoken, are rarely heard. And yet, with the March deadline looming on the not-too-distant horizon, and little, if anything, seemingly agreed upon, it is they who stand to be most affected, particularly if a no deal comes to pass. And things in that regard are not looking good.

With every passing day - and they seem to be whizzing by now – the likelihood of the UK leaving the EU without a deal, known as a ‘no deal Brexit’, is increasing. For the large majority, the prospect of this is nightmarish. In the event, it is widely understood that there would be a number of inevitabilities: the economy would slump, possibly crash; many businesses would flee, and with them whatever tax receipts they hadn’t yet evaded; and the Tory hard right would sit back and revel. That only a handful of MPs and a slither of the broader population actually desire this, testifies to the failure of parliament, and more so, the failure of government in dealing with the negotiations. For two years, it has concerned itself with little else, shelving manifesto pledges to deliver the country here, to the now. And the situation, to put it lightly, is a shambles.

One area of life that is greatly influenced by economics but you might not think of as a typical economics topic is sports and match betting. Gambling on sporting events is a huge international multimillion dollar industry covering gambling from traditional betting events like dog or horse races to modern betting outfits that let you place bets on everything from how many goals will be scored in a given match to which players will be picked for a draft. As betting on sports events is essentially an exercise in modelling and probability, we can use the lens of economics to understand more about how match betting works.

Can economics ever be ethical? This might sound like a strange question to an economist who focuses on collecting data, analysing it, and using that data to make predictions. What ethical considerations could be raised here? What do abstract theories of ethics have to do with cold, hard economic facts? Today we'll look at some of the ways that economics interacts with the topic of ethics.

Although it is generally thought of mainly as a theoretical academic subject, economics has been a driving force in society for thousands of years. The exchange of money and the way that financial systems interact has lead to some of the most profound changes to the everyday lives of human beings across the planet. To illustrate how the practice of economics has changed the world, today we'll look at the role of economics in Western history from the 6th century BC era up to the present day.

Economics is a broad and always developing subject, and there have been many schools of economic thought over the years. Today we'll be looking at two prominent schools that are relevant for modern economists, Marxian and neoclassical economics, to see how they differ and why they both continue to be of interest despite their many differences.

If you're in the field of business, whether you're a student, a researcher, or an entrepreneur, then you'll know how important it is to keep up to date with all the latest developments. To help you with this, we've compiled a list of the top academic journals in business, so you can know where to look for all the latest cutting-edge research.

Responding to the success of our blogging article in our 2019 INOMICS Handbook – for those of you unacquainted, click here – the economists are back, answering more blog-oriented questions. This time around, we’ve taken a bit of a personal turn, quizzing our participants about their blogging successes; the concepts behind their writings; and their preferred reads. For those setting out on their economic journey, the following makes for essential reading

Climate change is back on the front pages of the world’s press – belatedly. Its return is thanks to the landmark IPCC report, published in October 2018, which has served as a brutal reminder of the dystopian future that awaits humankind if radical policy change is not enacted immediately.

The announcement of the Nobel Prize in Economics 2018 could not have been timed better. It took place just 24 hours after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) stark warning that only 12 years now remain for global warming to be kept to a minimum of 1.5C, beyond which catastrophe looms. Rather appropriately, considering the admonishment, the gong was jointly awarded to Americans William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for their research into, as put by Swedish Academy, two of the most ‘basic and pressing’ economic issues of our time: ‘long-term sustainable growth and the welfare of the world’s population’.

Responding to the success of our blogging article in 2018r’s INOMICS Handbook – for those of you unacquainted, click here – the economists are back, answering more blog-oriented questions. This time around, we’ve taken a bit of a personal turn, quizzing our participants about their blogging successes; the concepts behind their writings; and their preferred reads. For those setting out on their economic journey, the following makes for essential reading.

The following is an analysis of data taken from the INOMICS Salary Report 2018 - downloadable for registered users here. Specifically, it looks at the representation and average salaries of both men and women, across all levels of seniority, in academia and the private sector. It is the 5th instalment in a series of insights handling the Report’s findings, and the first that seeks analysis through the prism of gender. The first four can be found in our insights section.

Responding to the success of our blogging article in this year’s INOMICS Handbook – for those of you unacquainted, click here – the economists are back, answering more blog-oriented questions. This time around, we’ve taken a bit of a personal turn, quizzing our participants about their blogging successes; the concepts behind their writings; and their preferred reads. For those setting out on their economic journey, the following makes for essential reading.

There are some surprising ways in which the opinions of economists diverge from most other people – and some things about which economists agree that they can't stand. Here are 9 things that economists hate:

The reporting of British politics for journalists has rarely been so onerous. Dramatic landscape shifts in the form of u-turns, resignations, and unexpected elections, are now so frequent the lifespan of articles, previously measured in days, are better predicted in hours - sometimes just a handful. Last week’s rapid-fire resignations of Brexit Secretary, David Davis, and Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, over their intransigence regarding Britain’s Brexit strategy epitomised this difficulty. Following the double salvo, it looked, albeit briefly, as though anything was possible: a vote of no confidence; a leadership election; maybe even a general election. All bets seemed off.

With the world cup now over a week old, we have reached the moment when even those initially reluctant, those who decried it at its outset, give in to football frenzy and find themselves, at least twice a week, standing amid a crowd of similarly dressed strangers, screaming at 11 little men on a screen they can barely see. It is wholly inevitable, and few would disagree, thoroughly enjoyable.

In this interview, Dr. Mark Thoma discusses his dislike for the 8 – 5 lifestyle, his lifelong love of math, the importance of economic history and why he’d like to have dinner with Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes and Adam Smith, among other topics.