Description

Pedagogical pluralism is difficult to implement in practice, but when overlaps between competing approaches are considered, the benefits for the students exceed the costs. An example is given contrasting two approaches to the modeling of money in macroeconomics: the stock-flow consistent macroeconomic modeling associated with Godley and Lavoie \cite{godley:2006} and Barro’s \cite{barro:2007} more mainstream neoclassical dynamic general equilibrium modeling. I argue students can only contrast and compare approaches effectively when thematic overlaps are significantly large to make these comparisons obvious. Only then should a pluralist approach be considered desirable.