It is time to open up university departments of economics for alternative schools of thought.

from Peter Söderbaum

Research and education in universities is subdivided into disciplines. There are departments of economics and departments of political science for example. Specialization and division of labour is thought of as being fruitful; Economics is about resource allocation at the micro and macro levels while political science is about democracy and governance. Something is sometimes gained through specialization but there are losses as well. This opens the door for counter-movements in terms of transdisciplinary research. Should “efficiency”, for example, be exclusively a matter for economics and economists and democracy exclusively something for political scientists?

Sustainable development is a challenge in contemporary society. It is a complex, multidimensional issue where contributions from all university disciplines can make a difference. Social sciences such as economics, business management, political science, economic history, sociology, psychology, all have something to offer. And barriers between disciplines become less relevant.

Present development is unsustainable in essential ways. Climate change and biodiversity loss are examples. This process of unsustainable development has been going on for some time and we have every reason to try to identify factors explaining the failures. This is not easy but the difficulties are no reason to refrain from attempts.

For many years there has been a common view among more or less influential actors in society about progress indicators such as GDP-growth and monetary profits in business. Such thinking patterns have largely been made legitimate by mainstream neoclassical economics. It can therefore be argued that neoclassical economists have been successful in propagating their conceptual framework and many actors have benefitted in some respects from referring to the ideas. Theories and methods in economics and business management have become popular in many circles. These days it is however increasingly understood that while some actors have benefited in the short run, the same actors and all other actors and citizens have lost something at a more fundamental level. How can one speak of progress if essential development trends are unsustainable?

Through education and research neoclassical economists have had an impact on development in single nations and globally. What is more of a problem is that those employed at university departments of economics have largely neglected alternative schools of thought. The neoclassical monopoly in introductory economics education for example has been protected. Neoclassical theory may have a role among other schools of thought but the monopoly position can no longer be defended. A more pluralistic attitude in university departments of economics would, as I see it, have been more helpful in reconsidering visions and progress indicators.

Neoclassical economists may still argue that their approach is useful also when attempting to turn development in a sustainable direction. While neoclassical environmental economics may have something to offer I am sceptical regarding statements about the sufficiency of neoclassical theory and method. Something more is needed. I argue strongly that it is time to open up university departments of economics for alternative schools of thought such as institutional economics and ecological economics.  read more