I agree. There's a case to be made that traditional macroeconomic models should incorporate more of the findings of experimental microeconomics that show how humans differ from idealized economic agents --- but this article is not such a case. Instead, it's just postmodern ideological drivel that suggests replacing numbers with advocacy, done under the guise of "ecological economics" and "feminist economics" and emphasizing "the collective over the individual".
This article in Nature is exactly the sort of dead weight that accumulates during economic expansions and that we discard during economic contractions. The article is a move in a tiresome academic status game. It is not useful for describing, predicting, or governing society.
You see this nonsense in every part of academia. The worth of theory is its predictive power, not its ideological purpose or its "values".
I disagree. A traditional economics education is problematic: It naturally (and ostensively ineluctably, from first principles by logical deduction) leads to libertarianism.
> The worth of theory is its predictive power
Naive economics predicts that deregulation leads to higher welfare. That prediction did not pan out.
James Kwak has elaborated on the above points in his book Economism [1].
> It is not useful for describing, predicting, or governing society.
Well, governing society better is precisely what is at stake here. This article might not be the best manifesto for reform of economics education, and might have gone over board a bit with the more fashionable and silly "<adjective> economics", but the fundamental point stands:
People that have taken traditional highly technical undergrad or even graduate economics classes without further context in economic history, political philosophy, etc. should not be left in charge of shaping policy.
The author's proposal is neither necessary nor sufficient for educating the next generation of leadership in philosophy. It sounds like you think it's "problematic" if economists end up being libertarian. Why is that? Your point about regulation is misplaced: both under- and over-regulation hurt welfare, and there are many instances of regulatory loosening leading to better outcomes, e.g. in cryptography and air travel. Is your position that libetarianism is itself problematic and that education should stamp it out?
This article in Nature is exactly the sort of dead weight that accumulates during economic expansions and that we discard during economic contractions. The article is a move in a tiresome academic status game. It is not useful for describing, predicting, or governing society.
You see this nonsense in every part of academia. The worth of theory is its predictive power, not its ideological purpose or its "values".