User:Jenkinsjz/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Modern Monetary Theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

If states hope to address climate change through public investment, the behavior of central banks is paramount in determining whether they have the monetary resources and fiscal space to pursue such policies. Understanding this, activists and politicians have begun to pair massive green spending proposals with a rhetorical embrace of Modern Monetary Theory-- a heterodox economic theory which proponents argue provides a better framework for evaluating their policies.

Evaluate the article

This article gives a thorough introduction to one of the most widely-discussed comtemporary heterodox economic theories, but is lacking in organization and coherence. Here are my reccomendations:

• The lead section could benefit from reorganization and elaboration. The opening paragraph should elaborate the central tenets of MMT, making sure to distinguish between its core theorhetical assumptions and the broader range of policy prescriptions it is often associated with. A brief description of the mainstream objections to the theory and its general contentiousness should follow.
• The "History" section is disjointed and lacks organization. It begins by introducing five economic theories which MMT is thought to synthesize, but only elaborates significantly on Knapp's chartalism. Additionally, various economists and academic works are briefly mentioned with little said of their substance or their importance to the history of MMT. I would reccomend cutting these segments and focusing solely on the intellectual development of MMT. References to progenitors should, in a concise manner, make clear how they inflected the development of MMT. Reference to contemproary political developments should be moved to the "Reaction and commentary" portion.
• Given that "Vertical transactions" is included as a subsection of "Theorhetical approach," it would be logical to also make "Horizontal transactions" a subsection of "Theorhetical approach."
• Consider shortening the "Interaction between government and the banking sector" section and turning it into a subsection of "Theorhetical approach," as it seems to elaborate on the ideas introduced in that section.
• In the "Policy implications section," the inclusion of both Kelton and Harvey's bulleted takeaways feels repetitive. It would be better to integrate and summarize these points.
• The "Reaction and commentary" section is disjointed and lacks coherence. I reccomend that you focus on statements made by economists reacting to specific components of MMT, rather than simply describing economists as supporting or opposing MMT. If the criticism or commentary is indirect-- meaning it concerns one of the theories which MMT synthesizes rather than MMT itself-- consider removing or rewording to make the relevance to MMT clear. If criticism or commentary is referenced, be sure to elaborate briefly on the substance rather than simply acknowledge its presence. Additionally, it would be helpful if the statements were listed in chronological order.
• The section comparing MMT to mainstream Keynesian economics is helpful. Given that MMT is contrasted with mainstream economic thought throughout the article, though, this elaboration of the mainstream economic thought in question comes a bit late. Consider integrating this information into the article earlier.
• Many sentences in this article are awkwardly worded or placed. It would probably be beneficial to have a copyeditor look at this article after content revisions are made.