About Us

We, The Post-Crash Economics Society, are a group of economics students at The University of Manchester. It is our belief that the content of the economics syllabus and teaching methods could and should be seriously rethought.

The Report

We have published a Report outlining what is wrong with economics education at the University of Manchester and in the UK. It includes a foreword by the director for Financial Stability at the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane.

Contact Us

If you want to join our mailing list, if you have any questions about upcoming events and lectures, schools of thought, what we’re working on or, if you have any suggestions for speakers you would like to see at our events or anything else please get in touch and we will endeavour to get back to you as soon as possible.

Inequality and Poverty Module Petition

We are petitioning the University of Manchester Economics Department to introduce a module on the Economics of Poverty and Inequality. We believe that the content of this module is of great importance and interest to the student body, and should be available to select at some stage in the economics undergraduate curriculum.

If you are studying Economics in your degree at the University of Manchester, you can help us by signing the petition.


Dissertation Survey

We have launched, together with the University of Manchester Students’ Union, a survey that aims to find out what are the students’ opinions on the currently available Economics dissertation modules. We will forward the results of the survey to the Economics Department of the University of Manchester in an effort to increase the accessibility of these modules in the future.

If you study Economics at the University of Manchester, you can access the survey by clicking the link below.

Sign up for our Mailing List


Latest from our Blog

Our view on George Osborne’s appointment at the University of Manchester

As if 5 jobs weren’t already enough, It was announced today that the former chancellor George Osborne has been appointed as an honorary professor of economics at the University of Manchester. George Osborne has become a professor of economics at the University of Manchester pic.twitter.com/pOgJHz83ps — Tom 🍦 (@_tom_burke_) June 29, 2017 As an honorary professor, Mr Osborne will not be leading any courses but will be expected to deliver guest lectures. The appointment  of Mr Osborne, an economic policy maker but not an economist by training, represents a critical decision by the University and makes a bold statement about the way we wish approach the teaching of economics at Manchester. The Post-Crash Economics society have been campaigning for a more real world focused Economics syllabus and therefore welcomed Mr Osborne’s comments made in a recent interview to Research. The former Chancellor stated that the “teaching of economics has become a bit too science like and a bit too theoretical” and that “people don’t always look for the maximum utility”. Given that one of the main issues that the Post-Crash Economics society and the rest of the student movement is campaigning for in our economics education is for more real world application, Mr Osborne clearly shares some common ground with our efforts for this part of curriculum reform. PCES  welcomes economic policy practitioners into the economics department who recognise that more real world application is needed, and who seek to challenge the unrealistic assumptions the models that we are taught often make. With that said, we do not think the introduction of policy makers into our department goes anywhere...

Recent Sam Bowles talk on inequality

On Thursday the 4th of May in Lecture Theatre A of University Place, Sam Bowles delivered his lecture on the past and future of inequality. And to many of our minds it was perhaps the most rigorous exploration of the subject we have yet seen. Quite unlike many other talks on inequality, Sam traced inequality back right to the dawn of agriculture, looking at the foundational bases of inequality and how they may or may not carry into the future. He seemed to conceptualise the economy in a way that was quite different and in many ways more relevant than how it is normally approached, perhaps this was because of how interdisciplinary his studies were. For example, he brought psychological and biological studies to great effect, to assess to what extent our innate capacities affect inequality in a given society, this is something that economics as a discipline rarely does. All this was backed up by the rigorous application of the scientific method and loads of fieldwork, everything was backed up by big studies with graphs, data points and reasonable abstractions based on them. Leaving me, and many others, feeling like we could do with a bit more science in our social sciences. What was really almost amusing about the talk was when questions based on the classic: ‘nature vs. nurture’ were asked, which many of us to assume to be some kind of unanswerable point of controversy, was answered by Sam in a calm and reasoned manner, leaving us with a pretty good idea of which one it is. I wouldn’t want to try and sum up in any half baked way...

PCES Conference 2017: The Big Questions.

Our recent conference on the 18th and 19th of March was wonderful. For that weekend, University place was full of ideas and proposals from all kinds of people. There were raised voices at times, there were feelings also, at times of immense clarity, but more than anything it was just really interesting. There were over 20 talks over the course of the weekend. Richard Murphy’s one for example, was on tax avoidance and evasion and its effect on society. The level of energy and enthusiasm, and the insight he gave us on the true nature of tax avoidance. The picture that he painted provided gave us a good idea of the scale of tax avoidance and how corrosive this really is. It seemed almost comical how easily certain people and companies can avoid tax. But when we remember what our tax pays for the laughter is replaced by a kind of indignance. Especially during the last election when the feeling was very much that ‘we’ve run out of money’, and that thus we could ‘no longer afford’ to be splashing money on public services. The ‘Civil Discussion’ with Bob Kerslake was also very insightful, and similar to past events felt very much like an inside scoop on the world. Bob identified a number of regional imbalances within the UK such as London’s responsibility for 40% of UK output, despite as we know, only representing a tiny part of the UK. He suggested regional devolution in England into large areas as a more appropriate means of governance, along with some other suggestions, thereby stimulating a discussion within the room that saw us through to our...