Following my earlier post asking about books on India, today's FT has a review by James Lamont, the S Asia bureau chief for the newspaper, about a batch of new titles, for others interested in the country.

A terrific article in the New York Review of Books/Guardian Review by Robert Darnton about the Enlightenment ideal of the Republic of Letters in the age of digital access (courtesy of Google) and insanely long copyright protection. Given the subject matter I hope the NYRB keeps this one accessible.

Earlier this week I met the author of The Romantic Economist, Richard Bronk, over lunch at the London School of Economics. The book is the product of his studies in moral philosophy at Oxford, a decade and a half working in the financial markets, and his latest career teaching political economy at the LSE. An economics book which quotes poetry, lots of it,  has to be a good thing. On top of that it makes an interesting argument about economic methodology. Before meeting Richard, I thought there were two key points I disagreed with – as posted here earlier. First, that he seemed to be saying economics doesn't require the use of models but can be simply narrative for example, whereas I think modelling is central and any other approach is related but not strictly economics. Secondly, that he placed a lot of emphasis on nationalism.

In our discussion, it became clear that we don't really disagree on the methodological point – he doesn't mind if I want to define economics my way, and I agree with him that economists need to be prepared to use more than one modelling approach. One of the key questions is in what circumstances the standard model is applicable, and when another modelling approach is needed. I wrote about this in my own book. Richard is keener than I am on opting out of modelling, however, and applying imagination to economic questions. He argues that economics has been too imperialist; but perhaps that's because other social sciences have left the territory to them. For example, it always surprises me how little sociological study of economic institutions such as the corporation there has been. Anyway, the economic approach to social and political institutions has been incredibly fruitful, and we wouldn't want to lose it. Clearly, I'm an unromantic economist myself even if interested in romantic economics.

On the nationalism point, Richard is a captive of the Romantic poets' intense nationalism, whereas I would insist on a more varied array of geographies as relevant to economic analysis, although with the unit of the nation state of course important. Still, the traditional nation state is more fragile now than it has been since its birth in 19th century Romanticism – although perhaps the current economic crisis will change that again.

I was glad to hear the book is doing well, with Richard in demand for radio shows, talks and seminars. And perhaps the most delightful discovery of all is that he writes longhand with pen and paper, although, sad to say, not a quill pen. Our lunch ended with a conversation with some of his colleagues about how we write, and the way typing onto a computer makes it unnecessary to think through a piece of writing fully before embarking on it. I myself have grown so used to composing on a screen that I hardly know what I think until I start typing it. The Romantic Economist has a more organic relationship with his words.