Business and Economics Journal

The IMF's duty to oversee the stability of the global financial system has long been centred on macro financial linkages. With the onset of the financial crisis, the Fund has used this research to add to vital discussions on the types of suitable national and international policy responses. Since few collections have been published in this field, the current time is a wonderful chance to evaluate this body of work by IMF personnel and to share it with a wider audience. The best literature by IMF economists on macroeconomic issues is collected in this volume, which also emphasises the ideas and methods that have shaped IMF thought in the field as a whole. The book's chapters fall into one of three categories: macroeconomic policy, business and financial sector challenges, including domestic and international financial liberalisation; financial crises and boom-bust cycles; financial integration, financial liberalisation, and economic performance. With the emergence of new theories about how monetary policy affects real economic activities over the past few years, there have been significant changes in the way the financial system operates and how monetary policy is carried out, which have advanced our understanding of the macro financial linkages.

The demand for economic plurality has received a lot of support in recent years, but it is still being disputed for a variety of reasons. Although the majority of the literature on plurality in economics has focused on defending pluralism, this paper's main objective is to engage directly with criticism, which has not previously received enough attention. As a result, we add to the discussion of pluralism by going over five well-known and frequently made arguments against it. As a result, we present a new typology of critiques, in which some critique the pluralism movement while others reject the idea itself. Although we contend that the criticisms levelled at the movement are we believe the arguments against pluralism as a concept to be less compelling, but they do include viable contributions that pluralists must deal with.