It is argued that in educating economists we should sacrifice some of the more technical aspects of economics (which can be learned later), in favour of the compulsory inclusion of philosophy, political science, and economic history. Three reasons for these interdisciplinary studies are given. In the discussion of the place of mathematics in economics, fuzziness enters when symbols a, b, c are identified with individuals, firms, or farms. The identification of the clear cut symbol with the often ambiguous and fuzzy reality invites lack of precision and blurs the concepts. If the social sciences, including economics, are regarded as a ‘soft’ technology compared with the ‘hard’ technology of the natural sciences, development studies have come to be regarded as the soft underbelly of ‘economic science’. In development economics the important question is: what are the springs of development? We must confess that we cannot answer this question, that we do not know what causes successful development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KeynesJ. M.: ‘F. P. Ramsey: an obituary’, Economic Journal, 1930, 40, 153–154(reprinted in J. M. Keynes: ‘Essays in biography’; 1933, London, Macmillan).
2.
KeynesJ. M.: ‘Essays in biography’, 150–266;1933, London, Macmillan.
3.
BouldingK. E.: ‘The economics of knowledge and the knowledge of economics’, in ‘Economics of information and knowledge’, (ed. LambertonD. M.); 1971, London, Penguin; R. Frisch: ‘Induction, growth and trade. Essays in honour of Sir Roy Harrod’, (ed. W. A. Eltis, M. F. Scott, and J. N. Wolfe); 1970, London, Clarendon Press; W. Leontief: ‘Theoretical assumptions and nonobserved facts’ (Presidential Address to the American Economic Association, 29 December 1970), American Economic Review, 1971, 61, 1–7; G. D. N. Worswick: ‘Is progress in economic science possible?’ (Presidential Address to Section F of the British Association, 2 September 1971), Economic Journal, 1972, 82, 73–86; E. H. Phelps brown: ‘The underdevelopment of economics’, Economic Journal, 1972, 82, 1–10; G. S. L. Shackle: ‘Epistemics and economics: a critique of economic doctrines’; 1972, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
4.
See David Colander ‘Reform of graduate education in economics’ (mimeographed); also ‘Why aren't economists as important as garbagemen?’; 1991, New York, NY, Armon. I am greatly indebted in this paper to David Colander's incisive critique of economics. An extreme critique is Hazel Henderson's, who regards modern economics ‘as a form of brain damage’.
5.
KruegerAnne, et al.: ‘Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 1991, XXIX, 1035–1053.
6.
BeckerG. S.: ‘The economic approach to human behavior’; 1976, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, and ‘A treatise on the family’; 1987, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
7.
RowleyCharles K., TollisonRobert D., and TullockGordon(ed.): ‘The political economy of rent-seeking’; 1987, Boston, MA, KluwerAcademic.
8.
This applies to all the criticisms of the education of economists made in this paper. The truly top people will always overcome these handicaps and teach them; it is the average student with whom we should be concerned.
9.
HirschmanA. O.: ‘Exit, voice and loyalty’; 1970, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
10.
LiptonMichael: ‘Interdisciplinary studies in less developed countries’, Journal of Development Studies, 1970, 9, October.
11.
RoosCharles F.: Econometrica, 1948, April.
12.
MyrdalGunnar: ‘The unity of the social sciences’, Human Organization, 1975, 34, 327.
13.
DurbinE. F. M.: ‘Methods of research – a plea for cooperation in the social sciences’, Economic Journal, 1938, 48, 183–195.
14.
My friend Hugh Stretton wrote to me after reading an earlier draft of this paper. ‘As I finished reading the paper, one more argument occurred to me … To come to economics from another discipline, with another structure of social theory in one's head, induces an instrumental, perhaps more sceptical view of theory itself. All but the brightest Economics I undergraduates tend to learn that national income, opportunity cost, marginal value (and all the rest) are facts out there in the economy, to be observed and respected. That is harder to swallow if you come to class with Parsonian sociological theory or Austinian theory of law or pluralist political science in your head. If the theory you bring is mostly bad, that prompts scepticism about economic theory; if it is good … that prompts scepticism too. The effect is not necessarily pragmatic anti-theoretical; on the contrary it may rub in the lesson that one must select, simplify, distil (etc.) to grasp such complicated life. But it can teach people to think of theory as a toolkit, useful in relation to their purposes of study and action; with the need to change some of the tools as either the life out there changes, or the student's social purposes do. They should be less prone to hit Ming vases with the hammer – or try to understand relations between employer and employee by means of theory designed to explain the supply, demand, and price of carrots.’
15.
BouldingKenneth: ‘Samuelson's foundations: the role of mathematics in economics’, Journal of Political Economy, 1948, 187–209(quoted in Munir Quddus and Salim Rashid: ‘The overuse of mathematics in economics: Nobel resistance’, Eastern Economic Journal, 1994, 20, 257).
16.
BouldingKenneth: ‘Economics as an institution’, in ‘The fifth annual Kenneth Parsons lecture series’; 1989, Boulder, CO, IBS(also quoted by Quddus and Rashid in ‘The overuse of mathematics in economics’ (see Ref. 15)).
17.
MarshallAlfred: Letter to A. L. Bowley, 3 March 1901, in ‘Memorials of Alfred Marshall’, (ed. PigouA. C.), 422; 1966, New York, NY, Augustus M. Kelly.
18.
KeynesJohn Maynard: ‘General theory of employment, interest and money’, 297–298; 1947, London, Macmillan.
HahnFrank: ‘An intellectual retrospect’, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, 1994, September, 246.
21.
Salim Rashid commented: ‘I do not like the analogy with a map. Chicago remains in Illinois regardless of scale. I am not sure this applies to economics.’ He is quite right that in economics, as we have seen, there is a lot of throwing out of babies instead of bathwater.
22.
Interestingly, Gordon Tullock also considers mathematical economics as escapism, but in his case it is an escape from the antimarket sentiments that he regards as characteristic of most American universities, especially outside the economics departments.
23.
KuttnerRobert: ‘The poverty of economics’ (see Ref. 19).
24.
KlamerArjo and ColanderDavid: ‘The making of an economist’, 16; 1990, Boulder, CO, Westview Press.
25.
FreyBruno S., PommerehneWerner W., SchneiderFriedrich, and GilbertGuy: ‘Consensus and dissension among economists: an empirical inquiry’, American Economic Review, 1984, 74, 986–994.
26.
FrankRobert H., GilovichThomas, and ReganDennis T.: ‘Does studying economics inhibit co-operation?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1993, 7, 159–171.
27.
Amartya Sen raises the interesting question whether the presumption of exclusive self-interestedness is more common in America than in Europe, without characterising actual behaviour (‘Rationality and social choice’, American Economic Review, 1995, 85, 15). Alexis de Tocqueville thought so: ‘The Americans … are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state. In this respect, they frequently fail to do themselves justice; for in the United States as well as elsewhere people are sometimes seen to give way to those disinterested and spontaneous impulses that are natural to man; but the Americans seldom admit that they yield to emotions of this kind; they are more anxious to do honour to their philosophy than to themselves.’
28.
BerlinIsaiah: ‘Fathers and children’; 1972, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
29.
SenAmartya: ‘Economic methodology: heterogeneity and relevance’, Methodus, 1991, 3, 70.
30.
GalbraithJ. K.: ‘American capitalism: the concept of countervailing power’; 1952, Cambridge, MA, Riverside Press; ‘The aZuent society’; 1958, Boston, MA, Houghton Miffin; and ‘The new industrial state’; 1967, Boston, MA, Houghton Miffin.
31.
KornaiJ.: ‘Anti-equilibrium’; 1971, Amsterdam, North Holland.
