Economics and the civic mission of social studies education: Two critiques of neoclassicism

Abstract

This article examines the theoretical assumptions underlying K-12 economic curriculum and the consequences of this curriculum for citizenship education and democracy. Specifically, the article discusses scholarship related to the critique of neoclassic economic theory’s role in influencing the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics and the trickle-down effects into state standards and textbooks. From the literature, the author uncovers two main critiques of neoclassicism: that neoclassic theory is unrealistic and impersonal. Neoclassic theory has enormous consequences for the civic mission of social studies. The author investigates the extent to which neoclassical theory makes for good citizenship and is desirable for a democratic society.

Economics curriculum, perspectives and discourses

Social studies and economic education

Perhaps no other social studies discipline has incited a sense of urgency or importance in the public discourse quite like economics. The result of the 2016 election and the subsequent fierce debates, passions, promises and warnings surrounding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (otherwise known as the GOP tax bill) and impromptu tariffs signal the persuasiveness and precedence of “the economy” and what must be done for it, in public discourse and imagination (e.g. Krugman, 2017; Long, 2017; Thompson, 2018). Nobel prize winning economist Robert Solow (2003) articulated a purpose for economics education that is decidedly politically engaged, stating that the purpose of economics education was to develop “people who are able to look at economic policy issues and realize what they are really about beneath the slogans. They do not have to know the answers, but they should at least understand the questions” (p. 1). Solow was concerned that without a good understanding of economics, people would be more susceptible to simply taking politicians’ word at face value and consequently be easily swayed. These circumstances point to the dire importance of economics education, particularly in helping students critically examine various political discourses surrounding economics.

Although a contested field, “social studies” generally consists of four primary subject areas: history, civics, geography and economics. Although social studies scholars have debated the primacy of these disciplines (e.g. Brophy and VanSledright, 1997; Halvorsen, 2009; Thornton, 2008; Thornton and Barton, 2010), it is generally accepted that social studies is about civics. The National Council for the Social Studies (n.d.) states that “the primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.” Each discipline is expected to contribute to this civic mission; economics is no exception. A good economic education holds enormous potential for the creation of a more democratic society and a citizenry that is more informed and empowered to make decisions and initiate change.

However, some economists and social studies educators have cast doubt on K-12 economics curriculum’s ability to fulfill this civic mission because of the neoclassical theory that undergirds it (Gans, 2015; King and Finley, 2015; Marglin, 2012; Miller, 1993; Sober, 2017). In this article, I review critiques of K-12 economics curriculum (standards and textbooks) in order to understand the extent to which a curriculum framed by neoclassical economic theory is compatible with the civic mission of social studies. I argue that scholars critical of neoclassical curriculum in the United States have accused it of being unrealistic and impersonal and that those two traits are at odds with the civic mission of social studies.

Neoclassical economic theory

Neoclassical economics is likely quite familiar to most people who have taken an introductory economics class in high school or college in the United States and Western Europe. It is a theory that has come to constitute the mainstream to the extent that at the K-12 and college levels, “neoclassical economics” has become simply “economics.” E. Roy Weintraub (2002), in his explanation of neoclassic economic theory in the “Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,” stated that

Neoclassical economics is what is called a metatheory. That is, it is a set of implicit rules or understandings for constructing satisfactory economic theories. It is a scientific research program that generates economic theories. Its fundamental assumptions are not open to discussion in that they define the shared understandings of those who call themselves neoclassical economists, or economists without any adjective. Those fundamental assumptions include the following:

1. People have rational preferences among outcomes.

2. Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits.

3. People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information. (http://www.econlib.org)

Weintraub’s definition points to several key characteristics of neoclassic economic theory. First, it assumes that actors (i.e. people) are rational, profit and utility driven and are able to act on information. Second, its tenets are not up for discussion. Third, people and businesses are driven by the same thing-utility, that is, the maximization of utility, or happiness. For producers that means making money and for consumers it means consuming more quantity effectively and efficiently. In neoclassicism, “the central economic problem is the organization and allocation of scarce resources” (Boerger and Exploring Economics, 2016, para. 2). Decisions about these resources are made at the margin (i.e. the value of the next thing) and value is based on utility, that is, “the optimal usage of the available resources in order to maximize individual utility and consequently the welfare of a country” (Boerger and Exploring Economics, para. 2). The neoclassical “man” is homo economicus, what Devas, in 1883 referred to as “dollar-hunting animal” (p. 27). Today, homo economicus is described as “infinitely rational, possessing both unlimited cognitive capacity and access to information, but with the persona of the Marlboro Man: ruggedly self-centered, relentlessly materialistic, and a complete lone ranger” (Haldar, 2018, para.2). This model of human being, born of the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, came to dominate economics and serves as the discipline’s model citizen. This being fits well with American values of individualism and consumerism. Homo economicus strives to build wealth in order to consume most efficiently. This consumer make decisions (choices) about resources (supply) because of, and also in spite of, their infinitely unmet desires (demand) (Goux, 2011). All of this supplying and demanding happens within an abstract entity called The Market, which (allegedly) acts objectively and mediates these supply and demand relationships through laws that govern it in order to assure maximum efficiency and utility (pleasure).

Classical economics was concerned with “plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … and second, to supply the state … with a revenue sufficient for the public services” (Lefeber, 2000: 529). In contrast, neoclassical theory is concerned with maximizing individual consumer happiness without regard to moral evaluation or the good of the people. Instead of the economy working for the people, people and the State work for the health and welfare of the economy. A key feature of neoclassicism is its use of mathematical models which makes it appear scientific, neutral and value free, relying so much on mathematical models that “it desists from every ethical decision” as “it does not have to be concerned with the value of value, with the just or unjust evaluation of things, rather it ‘considers this evaluation as a fact’” (Goux, 2001: 9; citing Say, 1841). Value is calculated by supply and demand not from an innate worth or goodness. In other words, neoclassical economics presents itself as value neutral and objectively true.

The authors in the literature have found these neoclassical narratives in the K-12 economics textbooks and standards they evaluated. For example, Gans (2015) described the neoclassicism he found in textbooks as:

an economic world dominated by an abstract entity called the market. It is, in turn, ruled by the law of supply and demand, which determines prices, wages, and much else. The texts are full of supply-and-demand charts and curves to back up this lesson. They portray people, institutions, and the larger economy as striving for perfect competition and equilibrium, although monopolies, cartels, and other obstacles stand in the way. (p. 245)

In these textbooks, economics is the study of the market’s immutable laws and “the market” is not just a concept; it is the economy. Gans went on to assert that the teaching of vocabulary rather than reality means textbooks teach economics (the vocabulary of a discipline) rather than the economy itself.

Critiques of neoclassical theory

Critiques of neoclassical theory are not new. Writing in 1883, economist Charles Stanton Devas criticized the work of William Stanley Jevons-forefather of marginalism/neoclassicism. Devas expressed concern about Jevons’ assumptions that people are motivated only by the accumulation of wealth without regard to time, locality or race (p. 38) and the exclusive use of examples from the industrialized England Jevons was living in (p. 37). Devas accused Jevons of spending time “examining what would be done if men were what they are not, instead of what is really done when the said motive is really predominant” (p. 38). Jevons was accused of presenting as fact a world and people that he wishes could or should be, rather than what actually is. Devas was concerned with Jevons’ “misleading” mathematical methodology and “abuse of mathematics” (p. 39) as well as the separation of sociology from economics-creating two distinct disciplines and two (seemingly) distinct realms of human activity. That is, “as long as his [Jevons’] economic theories are not a part of social science, they are mere fruitless speculations” (p. 38). 130 years later, scholars would still be echoing these same critiques and economics would still maintain an uncomfortable relationship with social sciences education (Buckles and Watts, 1998).

More recently, scholars have blamed neoclassicism for failing to anticipate, or even causing, the 2008 financial crisis. Ötsch and Kapeller (2010) write that

The neoclassical focus in economic education has a variety of different effects. Among other things it may illuminate, why economists and similarly educated professionals (speculators on financial markets, business journalists …) were not only unable to predict the financial crisis, but, moreover, believed that such an event was possible at all. (p. 19)

For a theory premised on the ability to predict the future, neoclassicism failed to predict, and/or prepare people for, the crisis. Instead of retreating after 2008, scholars note that it has managed to maintain “its stranglehold” over mainstream economics and may even have invited the crash:

the same neoclassical priesthood who had ruled out a crisis like the Crash of 2008 shamelessly returned to explain it after the event, employing tweaked up versions of the same, bankrupt neoclassicism which helped bring us the Crash of 2008. (Varoufakis et al., 2011: 282)

Yet, despite a slew of critiques, neoclassicism is still the ruling paradigm in K-12 and introductory-level university economics courses “despite the neoclassical turn’s absurdity, its discursive power proved stupendous. More than a century after its inception, it retains a stranglehold on almost every economic textbook on the planet” (Varoufakis et al., 2011: 154).

K-12 economic education curriculum: Commentaries, studies and critiques

The neoclassical tradition that informs economics standards and texts in the United States has become so normalized in K-12 and university-level economics courses that it has become synonymous with simply “economics.” This is synonymy results in the kind of anonymity that conceals authorship in the social studies disciplines and thus creates a powerful mechanism of gatekeeping and control (Cherryholmes, 1988). The literature in this study comes from authors who offer concerns about the “official” economics curriculum and its potential effects on children and society. The authors of the studies presented here primarily draw on three main sources for economics curriculum; textbooks, state standards and national standards. I examined literature particularly related to standards and textbooks because these items comprise economics curriculum and define and frame what is taught in schools.

Neoclassical curriculum in Europe

Although I primarily focus on K-12 curriculum in the United States, studies show that neoclassicism and its related issues can be found in Western curricula (Earle, et al. 2017). A special issue of the Journal of Social Science Education (2015) contains studies related to neoclassicism and economics curriculum in Europe including England (Brant, 2015), France (Blanchard and Coleno, 2017), and Germany (Weber, 2015). Similarly, Lofstrom and van den Berg (2013) found that Finnish secondary schools do not adequately address “the crisis” (financial crisis of 2008) and position economics as something that happens to people rather than as political decisions made by people for people in a democracy (p. 59). Weber (2015) writes that a narrowing, neoclassical, one-sided viewpoint is part of larger European discussions on entrepreneurship and financial literacy rather than issues such as labor and real-world phenomena. These critiques are consistent with the critiques of US curricula, which I will demonstrate.

US State and National Standards

Seven studies interrogated K-12 economics standards at the state and national levels. One study examined state standards, one study critiqued neoclassical curricula but was written before the publication of the 1997 version of the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics (Voluntary Standards hereafter), while the other studies address the 2010 Voluntary Standards directly. Marri et al. (2012a) analyzed economics standards for all 50 states for mention of the federal debt or deficit. They found that “our review yields one major conclusion: almost universally, state standards pay little or no attention to the federal budget, the budget deficit, or the federal debt” (p. 135). They believed these concepts were important in “preparing well informed citizens who can evaluate the various sides of this debate” (p. 139). Since economics did not have much to say on these topics, the authors suggested history, civics and geography could also be places where these issues could be discussed:

developing understanding of these concepts within civics courses would also allow for debate and discussion of the many controversial issues surrounding these topics and their relationship to taxation, entitlement, and other federal programs that are critical to the formation of future citizens. (p. 139)

In sum, the authors saw an understanding of economics-related topics as essential for democratic citizenship.

Writing in response to the conservatism and Milton Friedman-inspired economics discourse of the late 1980s, Miller (1993) offered a critique for the field of social studies of what he saw as the neoclassic paradigm’s influence over the discipline of economics curriculum in US schools. Miller wrote that economics teachers were inadvertently “inculcating” a neoclassic vision of the market in their students. Miller described this neoclassic paradigm as encompassing 11 normative principles that are very similar to the CEE’s Voluntary Standards in their focus on the free market, the law of supply and demand, free trade, pure competition, and limited government intervention. Miller was critical of neoclassic economics’ normative assumptions and the messages they send to students “whether intentional or not, the classic liberal reliance on individual self-interest as the proper driving force of a free society has provided an ideological rationalization for rampant greed, profound inequalities, and overconsumption” (p. 26). Miller cited environmental destruction, and eventual human annihilation, as the ultimate outcome of these values, making the provocative claim, articulated in his article’s title, that, “in order to save the world for human habitation we must stop teaching economics!”

The other studies address the revised 2010 version of the Voluntary Standards which are recognized as “the de facto definition of economic literacy” in the United States framing “what counts” and what is “worth knowing” in the field (Miller and VanFossen, 2008: 288). These standards, and their sponsoring organization, the Council for Economic Education (CEE) constitute the “official curriculum” and “official knowledge” (Apple, 2000; Quinn, 2010; Sober, 2017) of economics education. This “official knowledge” is clearly neoclassical, as stated in the preface to the Voluntary Standards (CEE, 2010: vi; Siegfried and Meszaros, 1998). Studies by Gans (2015) and Leet and Lopus (2007) revealed that leading high school economics textbooks in the United States are closely aligned with the Voluntary Standards. This alignment indicates the extent to which the standards are actualized in K-12 economics. The Voluntary Standards isn’t just a hypothetical or suggested (or even truly voluntary) curriculum but what is actually and almost exclusively taught in K-12 schools. Economists Marglin (2012) and Roberts and McCloskey (2012) questioned how the Voluntary Standards and “mainstream economics” (i.e. neoclassic) could possibly help K-12 students understand social issues. Their critiques were similar to Miller (1993) in several ways, including the suggestion that environmental destruction as a consequence of a curriculum built on neoclassical theory and the efficacy of teaching economics at all.

King and Finley (2015), Sober (2017), and Shanks (2018) were concerned that neoclassicism and the Voluntary Standards ignore ongoing socio-economic issues such as race, money’s influence on politics, unequal access to wealth-building opportunities, and unchecked capitalism. King and Finley remind us to consider “the affect of race and racism on economic decision-making,” that white people have inequitably benefited from economic policies and wealth building, and that reviews of economics education, like the 2008 review by Miller and van Fossen, have generally left out discussions of race (p. 201). The authors challenged the way economists and educators have used neoclassicism to either ignore race or position racists as irrational economic actors. Sober (2017) warned of the dangers of neoclassic theory and specifically took the field to task for its lack of multiple perspectives. All of the authors provided counternarratives to neoclassical theory that can be used in K-12 social studies classrooms.

US textbooks

Analyses of K-12 economics textbooks are mostly in agreement about the books’ content. In a study of 11 leading high school economics textbooks, Leet and Lopus (2007) found that the textbooks aligned with the Voluntary Standards and that only four publishers accounted for 80% of the books. This shows the influence of the VS as well as the narrowing of diversity in the publishing field. In a similar study, Lopus et al. (2008) found that standout texts emphasized a limited role for the government and central bank in general, with the exception of enforcing contracts and property rights and protecting the nation. Of the eight books they reviewed, none received fewer than eight stars (out of a possible ten). This indicates that textbooks in general largely uphold a view of limited government, limited income distribution, and the protection of private property and free enterprise, thus providing insight into the Milton Friedman–influenced ideology underpinning the textbooks.

Myers and Stocks (2010) conducted an analysis of high school economics textbooks to see whether they provided information about the social economy (p. 267). They found that the social economy, such as non-profits and public sector, was “weakly represented” in the textbooks in reference to the US economy (p. 299). They found that the economy was presented as competitive and profit-driven while downplaying the role of the public and the government (similar to Leet and Lopus’ findings).

Neumann (2012, 2014) analyzed the same set of books as (Lopus et al., 2008) Whereas Lopus, Paringer, and Leet praised the texts for their free-market ideology and promotion of laissez-faire policies, Neumann was critical of these books’ omission and skewed representation of socialism and wealth redistribution. Neumann found that the books misrepresented socialism, presenting it as a relic of the nineteenth century and not of modern America. Neumann (2014) warned that the textbooks contained “ideology” (p. 280), and “bias in the presentation of economic reality” (p. 281). Neumann cited the CEE and Voluntary Standards’ influence on the texts and biases they present. Neumann cited the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and its “we are the 99 percent” slogan as something students using these books would be ill-equipped to understand, rendering them “ill-informed” and “shortchanged” political participants (p. 281).

Gans (2015) evaluated leading high school textbooks, noting both the books’ alignment with the Voluntary Standards and neoclassicism. Gans stated that the economy depicted in the texts (via neoclassic economic theory) appears to be “leftover from another era” in that it is more akin to the eighteenth and nineteenth century economies in which it was codified rather than the complex, global, corporate-oriented economy of today (p. 246). Gans contended that the description of productive resources given by the texts and neoclassic economics, that of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship, were outdated and needed to be updated to include cyberspace, information and technology. Finally, Gans pointed out that this neoclassic version of the economy was highly impersonal, describing neoclassic economy “as one of impersonal processes that seemingly operate without or with only occasional human intervention” (p. 246).

Marri et al. (2012b) studied leading high school economics textbooks’ discussions of the federal budget, national debt and budget deficit in 12 leading high school texts and all 50 states’ economics standards. The authors singled out these concepts because

These are critical concepts in considering macro-economics and the state of the civic polity regarding longstanding entitlement programs emanating from the New Deal and Great Society programs under Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. These are also central issues in the contemporary debates on Capitol Hill about the state of the nation, its obligations to citizens, and the costs of these obligations to future generations. (p. 283)

In other words, the federal budget, national debt, and budget deficit are important concepts in US history that continue to affect us today. These concepts touch, and will continue to touch, every student in America rhetorically and financially. Rhetoric about the federal debt and deficit informs our public image about the state of US finances in the context of the global economy and in relation to other countries. Although they did not call out neoclassicism directly, the authors argued that the textbooks addressed the topic of debt and deficit with mathematics-laden graphs and historical examples rather than real-life examples and solutions that involved real people. They asserted that these omissions meant that textbooks provided no guidance for students to critically consider or take action toward resolving the debt crisis.

Whereas most researchers in this review analyzed the most popular economics textbooks on the market, Helburn (1997) discussed a single textbook Economics in Society (which she authored with a colleague) and which she described as a “commercial flop.” Providing an eyewitness account of the publishing business, Helburn noted that textbook companies try to appeal to a wide audience by appearing detached and neutral, avoiding political controversy and emotional or impassioned rhetoric. Books that stray from the neoclassical narrative or call it into question, like Helburn’s did, will likely not succeed. Helburn identified a myriad of social issues that students are expected to grapple with, noting that relying on single paradigm like neoclassicism is insufficient for solving socio-economic problems like global warming, drug abuse, and campaign financing.

The authors of these studies found that calls for political and civic action were largely absent from the texts, as were roles for people in general. These finding are concerning given social studies’ central civic mission to educate and empower participatory citizens for a democratic society.

Two critiques of neoclassicism

The authors in this study (with the exception of the two studies by Marri, et al.) have levied a plethora of critiques at neoclassic theory and the standards and texts that adhere to its ideology. There are many ways to examine the various arguments scholars have made against neoclassicism and their relationship to the civic mission of social studies. However, I will be focusing on two main critiques that I synthesized from the literature. First, that it is out of touch with the current, 21st economy. Second that it is impersonal, thus neutralizing human agency in favor of a deterministic market mechanism. In this section, I will present those two critiques, arguing that they raise concerns about how well economics fits in to the values espoused in the field of social studies and its civic mission.

Neoclassicism is out of touch with reality

Economics is intimately concerned with civic life; it is how people exchange goods, work, spend their money and pay their taxes, among many other things. However, the literature points to the way neoclassical curriculum fails to foster fully informed citizens because it doesn’t show a modern gendered, raced, classed, financially unequal society comprised largely of large technologically advanced corporations. Instead, what students get is an economy that looks a lot like the eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe (Britain, specifically) in which it was codified (Devas, 1883; Gans, 2015; Varoufakis et al., 2011). Marglin called neoclassic models “mainstream fantasy” for failing to help students understand the conflicts, frictions, and politics inherent in resource distribution, for example (p. 285). The authors contend that the neoclassical curriculum “is leftover from another era” and needs to be updated (Gans, 246) as “land, other than real estate, and raw material extraction no longer seem as important to the American economy as they once were” (Gans, 2015: 246). Myers and Stocks (2010) cited Rifkin’s (1995) book The End of Work to argue that job loss due to technology would not only change the future of work but would necessitate more jobs in the social economy. Yet, despite a neoclassical valorization of employment, there is a lack of engagement with the social economy in high school economics textbooks.

The authors pointed to several social phenomena that neoclassicism would be unable to account for. Several of the authors used Occupy Wall Street and mass corporate layoffs as an example of a current economy and employment-related event that neoclassicism is not equipped to analyze (Gans, 2015; Marglin, 2012; Neumann, 2014; Sober, 2017). Others cited environmental destruction, poverty and the war on drugs as issues neoclassicism cannot handle (Gans, 2015; Helburn, 1997; Miller, 1993). Shanks (2018) conducted a study with preservice social studies teachers who created economics lessons that utilized counternarratives to neoclassicism. Shanks found that preservice teachers were able to identify neoclassicism as a dominant narrative, could see its explanatory limitations and were somewhat successful in utilizing pluralistic discourses to explain real-life phenomena such as trade and agricultural policies and rebuilding efforts in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

King and Finley (2015) argued that neoclassicism was not necessarily untrue, but that its problems derive from its permissiveness and laissez-fair attitude that allowed interest groups to deploy the structural racisms inherent in the United States to economically disenfranchise African Americans. The authors called out economic education research for failing “to investigate the nexus of race and economics teaching and learning” particularly with regard to choice-one of the most fundamental ideas in economics (p. 215). Choice is not neutral, but can be based on a myriad of things, including bias and prejudice. To a scholar who opined that “you do not need to talk about race to explain supply and demand,” the authors replied, “to dismiss the salience of race to economic decision-making leaves students with a truncated, disjointed and ahistorical understanding of the diversity of economic thought” (p. 215). The reality is we live in a classed, gendered, and raced society and economy and any analysis ought to take that into consideration.

Scholars suggest that students are not receiving a well-rounded view of the economy but one that is ideologically slanted and simultaneously presented in textbooks as neutral and value-free (Helburn, 1997; Miller, 1993; Roberts and McCloskey, 2012; Shanks, 2018; Sober, 2017). Shanks pointed out that even economics textbooks might not be driven primarily by profit but by control of an intangible good – “the best minds in our society” (Shanks, p. 21 quoting Graupe, 2012). Shanks used a quote by American Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson to support this argument, “I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws-or crafts its advanced treatises-if I can write its economics textbooks” (Shanks, p. 21 quoting Saunders & Walstad, 1990). This speaks to textbooks’ power and influence as well as casts doubt on citizens’ ability to make informed decisions. It also suggests that authors sell textbooks for ideological purposes first and money second-contradicting the profit-driven businessperson portrayed within the pages of economics texts. The curriculum, both standards and textbooks, are “selling” children “a healthy dose of free market ideology just before they’re old enough to vote” (Roberts and McCloskey, 2012: 294; see also Myers and Stocks, 2010: 210). Ironically, teaching that people are driven by the desire for profit actually obscures, rather than enhances, students’ understanding of the field of economics education and conceals the work done by actual economists and their actual incentives or motivations. Similarly, Myers and Stocks (2010) and Neumann (2012, 2014) described how textbooks present unrealistic views of socialism and the social economy. Neumann noted that socialism was made to seem like a fad of the past rather than a relevant and functional economic model of the present, giving students an unrealistic view of what socialism actually is and making them more susceptible to anti-socialist rhetoric. Likewise, textbooks decried government intervention and privileged a for-profit economy (Leet and Lopus, 2007; Lopus et al., 2008), leaving little space for students to consider that the nonprofit sector is important and necessary for a well-functioning economy and democracy.

In sum, the literature points to the ways K-12 economics curriculum conceals the real workings of the economy in favor of outdated models and ideology. Scholars suggest that it does not provide adequate coverage or discussion of controversial issues and important socio-political topics that could help students make truly informed decisions and see through the political rhetoric and promises-all things that a good economics education should do (Solow, 2003).

Neoclassicism is impersonal

The authors were concerned with the impersonal nature of the economy presented in neoclassical curriculum. For example, Gans (2015) noted that the economy presented in the textbooks he examined consisted of a series of “impersonal processes that seemingly operate without, or with only occasional, human intervention” (p. 246). Gans described how a statement such as “society allocates resources” as an example of an impersonal statement. Grammar matters. In that statement, it is the ambiguous entity society that does the act, or work, of allocating, not people, which is a problem because it neutralizes the various human values, emotions, and motivations involved in resource allocation and ignores the unequal ways resources are allocated to various groups of people or the different ways people can, and do, participate in this process. For example, this statement leaves little room to consider that some people, like corporate CEOs, politicians, and wealthy entrepreneurs and White people, have a disproportionate advantage not only in the allocation of resources but the accumulation of them as well. Take, for example, a standard such as the eighth grade Voluntary Standard “banks and other financial institutions channel funds from savers to borrowers and investors” (CEE, 2010: 25). Stating that banks perform action (through providing services) makes it seem as if banks provide services to everyone freely, neutrally and evenly thus ignoring the very real ways that human bankers have systematically discriminated and exploited certain groups of people and the profits that banks, and bankers, make off of these practices. The 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis and pre-1968 Federal Housing Administration policies are prime examples of this type of behavior. These impersonal processes present the workings of the economy as inevitable and natural and leave few openings for students to conceptualize how people are involved in economic processes, how and why people experience these processes differently, and what they might do to influence or affect these processes. This impersonal language points to neoclassic economic theory’s limitations in explaining today’s socio-economic world.

King and Finley (2015) and Shanks (2018), in particular, noted how economics curriculum seemingly erases people through impersonal statements. A bank or a society does not have a race or gender. Neither do “consumers” and “producers” and “entrepreneurs.” When people are erased, so is race, thus reinforcing the idea that economic practices are colorblind, race-neutral, or even race-friendly (King and Finley). The authors call into question the seeming ability of economics, and money making, to transcend race. Utilizing critical race theory, King and Finley describe how the concept of interest conversion works in economics: “those in power or the majority group will only give up power (economic interest) if they can still benefit economically” (p. 205). They point to corporate multiculturalism, sponsorships, and philanthropy as examples of ways White people have profited off of the bodies, brands and presence of women and persons of color. In short, who is actually enriched by these initiatives and who maintains corporate power even in a “diverse” workplace? According to the ethic of neoclassical economics, diversity and inclusivity is desirable because, and only as long as, it is profitable-not because it is socially or morally right. The reality is that people are able to access and act in the economy differently based on a host of identity factors that make human beings who they are. Yet, these identities, and thus personhood, is erased by “producer,” “consumer,” “entrepreneur,” and other depersonalized categories.

Even choice-making, perhaps the most agentic activity in economics, is mostly denied to economics students. True choice-making only works when consumers have all of the information they need to make informed decisions. Yet, neoclassical economics withholds vital information that can help students make informed choices for informed citizenship. For example, when important socio-economic issues that affect all of us, such as the federal debt and deficit, are left out of standards and textbooks, they are, in turn “[left] out of the hands of everyday citizens” (Marri et.al., 2012b: 293). Although the authors agree that economic understanding is vital for democratic citizenship, “the textbooks generally do not consider what citizens can do to bring about change in the political system” (Marri et.al., 2012: 293). More egregiously, perhaps, students are not given a choice in the kind of economic subjectivity they are able to adopt or the various approaches that are possible with which to study economic phenomena. That is, they are limited to homo economicus (Shanks, 2017; 2018) and neoclassicism. Sober (2017) pointed out that the Voluntary Standards purposely withholds multiple viewpoints by presenting only a neoclassical perspective. Even the Voluntary Standards writers admit to concealing other viewpoints for the promotion of neoclassicism alone (CEE, 2010: vi; Siegfried and Meszaros, 1998). The works of Helburn (1997) and Leet and Lopus (2007) point to a shrinking variety of textbooks available for districts to choose from. Neumann (2012, 2014) and Myers and Stocks (2010) pointed to the ways textbooks conceal multiple ways of conceptualizing an economy for the common good and being an economic actor. By purposely concealing other viewpoints, the Voluntary Standards and textbooks deny people the ability to make informed choices, which, ironically, is supposed to be the purpose of learning economics. Moreover, multiple perspectives and civic agency, the ability of people to take action, are the cornerstones of social studies education. This points to a further disconnect between the neoclassic theory of the K-12 curriculum and social studies education.

The potential danger of impersonality and a lack of human agency in economics is that it does not invite controversy about the different ways people can, and do, participate in society. In other words, economics education, as expressed in the neoclassic view, falls well short of its potential if it frames people as having a small role to play in very large processes that are out of their control and presents structures such as banks and “the market” as givens that humans only react to and obey instead of as human-made entities and theories.

Neoclassicism and social studies

Economics is conceptualized as a set of laws that simply exist; its students and teachers, the people and the public, are not told where, or from whom, they come from (Sober, 2017). Hence, economic actors must obey laws not make them or question their origin or authorship. Marglin referred to this system as “catechism” writing

“the conception of economics education that underlies the document [Voluntary Standards] is fundamentally at odds with what I regard to be the primary goal of a liberal education. Teaching a catechism is not how to cultivate the questioning and searching that is the end product we should be seeking” (p. 288).

In other words, Marglin accuses economics of being more akin to a religion than to the science it perceives itself to be since it cultivates believers instead of democratic citizens able to engage in dialogue and consider multiple, and sometimes competing perspectives.

The seeming lack of human agency ought to be particularly concerning for a field social studies, which is concerned with creating agential human subjects or “civic agents” who are empowered to do things to make change in a democratic society. Yet, neoclassical economics takes the watchmaker approach, presenting the economy as already fixed and set in motion. People are the cogs and gears, destined to do their part to make the operation work (Ansperger and Varoufakis, 2006). In neoclassical curriculum, when people can act, they do it in acceptable ways according to the role they’ve been assigned to play. Mostly, however, they react to the market’s ups and downs and to banks and other impersonal entities, which are portrayed as having most of the power and agency in the economy.

In sum, the authors who critiqued neoclassic theory were concerned with the theory’s ability to portray a realistic, modern-day economy and the seeming lack of human agency in neoclassic theory in general and curriculum (standards and textbooks) more specifically. Social studies, a field that embraces and encourages the discussion of controversial issues, should be concerned about a curriculum that is admittedly free of “frictions” and “unresolvable conflict” which includes race, class, and gender (Weintraub, 2002) and that withholds the vital information people need in order to vote, make decisions, and engage in civil dialogue. Moreover, Marri and collaborators (Gans, 2015; Marri et.al., 2012a, 2012b) stressed the importance of students learning about the national debt and deficit because of the affect it has on their lives and wallets, and, yet, the sense-making tools students have at their disposal, neoclassic economic theory, could be insufficient to students’ abilities to fully understand the affective, political and social consequences of the national debt and deficit and its discursive deployment by politicians. In other words, in neoclassicism, humans have a very small, very specific, role to play (that of rational actor) with little room to imagine other possible subject positions and solutions to social problems.

Neoclassicism, now what?

Discussing controversial issues, human activities and experiences and understanding social phenomena ought to be the cornerstone of social studies education. The scholars that I discussed leveraged several critiques at neoclassic theory that are important for social studies scholars who strive to embrace controversy, relevance, and agency in their teaching. The critiques leveraged here against neoclassicism have undoubtedly been harsh, and some might argue even unfair. After all, neoclassic theory is just that-a theory and like all theories, it is able to explain some things and not other things. Weintraub (2002) explained how neoclassic economics would explain layoffs, something that the 2008 economic crash brought to the forefront of social consciousness:

Consider layoffs, for example. A theory which assumes that a firm’s layoff decisions are based on a balance between the benefits of laying off an additional worker and the costs associated with that action will be a neoclassical theory. A theory that explains the layoff decision by the changing tastes of managers for employees with particular characteristics will not be a neoclassical theory. (http://www.econlib.org)

In the layoffs example above, neoclassic theory is shown to explain layoffs in terms of the law of marginal return, but what it cannot explain or account for are managers as humans with attitudes and feelings who exact those feelings and attitudes upon other humans. Yet, we know that people are laid off all the time for a variety of reasons, including managers’ personal feelings and whims, or else there would not have to be legislation in place discouraging such practices and protecting workers from these whims and desires. Weintraub’s quote points to the importance of recognizing a theory’s affordances and limitations. There are simply things neoclassicism can explain and things that it cannot. Thus, a generous approach to neoclassicism is to view the problem as one hegemony scholars, textbooks companies, curriculum writers, and economists have afforded it. In short, the problem is the way neoclassicism has been used. It is not treated as a theory but as the (only) theory. Furthermore, as I have shown, neoclassicism might be unfit for fulfilling the civic mission of social studies. Because neoclassicism is so dominant, it can be difficult to image alternatives. In the following section, I describe some other approaches to teaching and learning economics that are potentially more pluralistic and critical.

Alternatives

If not neoclassicism, then what are the alternatives? The outlook so far has been grim, but there are things teachers can do to challenge neoclassical theory. Drawing on the authors in this study, I discuss two routes teachers might take. I call these approaches “people-pluralism” and “critical-postmodern.”

People-pluralism

The people-pluralism approach is the incorporation of many viewpoints to analyze and solve economic issues. This approach foregrounds people by remembering that economics is a social science that is “neither a branch of mathematics nor the study of nature. It is, instead, analysis of humans by humans” (Wolf, 2018: xiii). In this approach, educators employ multiple perspectives to counter neoclassical hegemony and foreground people in order to humanize the curriculum. These multiple approaches include the study of various economic paradigms including feminist, postmodern, behavioral, and Marxist. The recently published edited volume Rethinking Economics (2018) provides a useful overview of these traditional paradigms and more, whereas Postmodernism, economics and knowledge (Cullenberg et al., 2001) provides a theoretical introduction to the subjects of bodies, justice, the notion of gift, voice, and discourse within economic schools of thought. Shanks (2018) viewed preservice teachers’ “lack” of economic knowledge, usually thought of as a barrier or weakness as an asset, encouraging students to turn their experiences into stories that form the foundation of economic knowledge (Miller and VanFossen, 2008; Schug et al., 2012). This approach counters the idea of preservice teachers unknowledgeable (Aske, 2003) and instead draws off of knowledge gained from everyday lived experiences as human beings interacting within the economy.

Sober (2017) recommended lessons from Teaching Economics as if People Mattered (Giecek, 2007): “the lessons provide structure, experiences, and material with which students can engage and create meaning about the human influences on economic policy-making in a democratic society” (p. 84). In their book chapter, King and Finley (2015) provided a sample history/economics lesson on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 which is generally thought to have been a public good by expanding the American economy, yet it purposely destroyed African-American communities and economies in the process (p. 209) in what the authors call “racial realism” that “racial discrimination is a normal, systematic and indestructible part of economic decision making” in America (p. 208). This approach reinforces the idea that “economic development” is not created equally and that in addition to asking “what kind? [of economic development]” we must also ask “for whom?” In short, students must ask who actually benefits from “economic development” projects.

K-12 economic curriculum might not have much of a choice in turning to pluralism. In an article in The Economist (2017), the unnamed author(s) describes the need for changes to universities’ economics 101 curriculum. The article describes CORE, a curriculum developed by economics professors that teaches the “usual” material but takes a very different approach by engaging with and foregrounding “messy complications, from environmental damage to inequality” (para. 5). Renowned economics professor Samuel Bowles and Carlin (2018) wrote an impassioned plea for the Financial Times that outlined how to fix college economics courses using pluralism, providing examples of real-world issues and frictions such as the gig economy and employers and employees holding fundamentally conflicting views about the nature and purpose of work. Thus, K-12 economics educators might adopt pluralism not only because it is right, but because it may soon become necessary for preparing students for college.

The people-pluralism model utilizes studies of real people and events in both the present and history in order to examine issues from multiple viewpoints and counter both the impersonal and unrealistic aspects of neoclassicism. Because it is so dominant, it might be difficult to toss out neoclassical standards and textbooks. Thus, pluralism works by addition instead of subtraction “revolutions occur through making additions to the script … liberation occurs through addition” (Goodchild, 1996: 2). That is, pluralism counters neoclassicism’s dominance by crowding it out not by throwing it out. With this approach, teachers are still teaching “the” curriculum but also much more. Neoclassicism thus becomes one of many possible lenses with which to view the economic world.

Critical-postmodern

The second approach is the critical-postmodern approach. This means learning about a discipline rather than the discipline (Segall, 2013). With this method, students study the normative assumptions of a discourse and where they stem from – the “structure of thought” “at the foundation of the discipline” (Miller, 1993: 26). This approach interrogates the regimes of knowledge, legitimation, and social context that are at the source of neoclassical power. Segall suggested that a critical or postmodern approach to economics would:

[raise questions] about the ways in which narrow economic models portend to explain humans’ complex economic choices as individuals and within the larger context of society, many of which lie outside the realm of what such models explore. Similarly, one might examine the gendered, raced, and classed nature not only of our economic system but of the explanations provided about it in textbooks and in the pedagogical encounters through which students are invited to think about what economics is and could be. (p. 482)

Segall suggested that a postmodern approach in social studies could prompt questions about curriculum’s metanarratives and the knowledge and authority deployed to maintain them, highlighting their social construction and authorship. Analyzing authorship refers to not just the people, but the institutions and practices that “author” or write a neoclassical curriculum “tracing the narrowing of the debate [that] reveals the power of the dominant class to protect their interests by creating, funding, advocating, researching economics curricula that secure the consent of those least likely to benefit from such a system” (Sober, 2017: 89). In other words, critical analysis gets at who benefits from theoretical approaches to disciplines “the normative assumptions of economics and the behavior they rationalize” (Miller, 1993: 26). With this approach, students could interrogate the alleged “consensus” that is supposed to have made the Voluntary Standards (Miller and VanFossen, 2008; Siegfried and Meszaros, 1998) by taking Marglin’s (2012) advice:

by all means, articulate the consensus. But at the same time articulate questions about this consensus, questions coming from the very limitations of the consensus. Articulate the poverty of the mainstream when it comes to questions of distribution, pollution, and sustainability. (p. 290)

For example, students might ask whether consensus is real or manufactured. Who gets to define what economics is? Who gets to write the standards? How is power derived from claiming the standards are a product of consensus? In what ways do claims of consensus act as a legitimizing force?

Instead of railing against neoclassicism, this approach leans into it, so to speak, considering the consequences of its truth(s) and its social, or human, production. For example, drawing on King and Finley (2015), we could ask who benefits from believing economics is race-neutral? Students would also study the history of the discipline and strands of thought, a reminder that economics is not God-given but authored by people for people.

Revitalizing personal agency and realism

Method like personal-pluralism and critical-postmodern brings economics back into the social studies. Interrogating authorship, engaging in historical analyses, reconciling multiple perspectives, talking to people, and respecting multiple viewpoints are all methods advocated in social studies research. Both of these approaches position students (and teachers) as knowledge-creators rather than passive receivers of it, reincorporating the human agency and realism lacking in neoclassical curriculum. These approaches are also useful for a curriculum, and discipline, that seems unlikely, or unwilling, to change (Haldar, 2018). Just because the discipline (seemingly) doesn’t change does not mean teachers and teacher educators are without the agency to adapt their methods and approaches. Two websites “Economic Questions” https://economicquestions.org/history-economics-made-simple/ and “Exploring Economics” https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/orientation/ are excellent sources for teachers and students looking to understand both pluralist paradigms and the history and authorship of these paradigms.

Conclusion

The social, political, and economic problems facing students today, including rising wealth and income inequality, racism, debt, environmental destruction, and oligarchy, ought to be the subjects of study in social studies. Yet, as the literature on K-12 economics curriculum suggests, the current narrative found in economics curriculum may fall short of providing even a good economics education, let alone a good social studies, or civic, education. Although there are many ways to organize critiques of neoclassical economic curriculum, I pointed to a lack of realism and personhood/personal agency as two critiques in particular that puts neoclassicism at odds with the civic mission of social studies. It could be that neoclassicism, although prevailing (for now), is inappropriate for answering critical questions in social studies. In short, scholars might ask; is neoclassicism is being asked to do or explain phenomena (e.g. desire, inequality, poverty, racism, sexism) it is not designed, or equipped, to? If so, what other paradigms might educators turn to that can do a better job? I have provided some resources and approaches that can help decenter and deconstruct neoclassicism and provide access to pluralistic and critical approaches so that students become the informed citizens necessary in a twenty-first century democracy.