Economics for the Greater Good

Reviewed by Faunce Elizabeth, Adjunct Professor, Radford University on 1/19/26

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Overall, I was happy with the comprehensiveness of the text. However, there were a few topics that I would have liked to see addressed, including the impact of conflict and political instability and physical infrastructure. Additionally, the chapter on poverty would have been better if it also addressed inequality.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

Each chapter was well supported with related articles and in-text citations allow the reader to click directly to the citation. However, I would have liked the text to provide links directly to the article/source, not just the source. This would allow the students to quickly read the articles that support the content they are currently reading. Also, I was a bit disappointed that the majority of the articles/sources were outdated, over ten plus years.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

As noted above, the text provides adequate sources; however, I would not say that the content is up-to-date. Additionally, the text/sources are not arranged in a way to provide relatively easy updates.

Clarity rating: 3

If a student has taken micro and macroeconomics, the text jargon and terminology is very easy to understand. However, I worry that students that have yet to be exposed to introductory economics courses may struggle with the terminology.

Consistency rating: 5

The framework of the text is very consistent from chapter to chapter.

Modularity rating: 4

Each chapter is written in such a way that appropriate sections can easily be broken down into smaller sections for specific assigned reading/assignments.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The text is organized in a logical and clear format. However, I would have liked to see a more informative introductory chapter to introduce the topic of economics for the greater good. The text jumps right into hunger, which is an important topic but is not an introduction.

Interface rating: 5

The text's images and charts are free of significant interface issues and are generally supportive of the content.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No grammatical errors were noted.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text is not culturally insensitive

Overall, the text is a solid and while I do see some deficiencies, they can easily be corrected/adjusted by supplementing current articles and core content.