Home > Uncategorized > University departments of economics are degraded to political propaganda centres.

University departments of economics are degraded to political propaganda centres.

from Peter Soderbaum

Climate change is perhaps the most threatening aspect of the ecological crisis but not the only one. Reduced biological diversity, reduced water availability and deteriorating water quality in some regions exemplify other relevant dimensions. On the financial side, the ‘market mechanism’ has been unable to come up to expectations.

How can these problems be understood? Many factors have certainly contributed but in my judgment neoclassical economics as disciplinary paradigm and neo-liberalism as ideology are among the most important. If actors in society have failed, this can largely be attributed to the mental maps they have used for guidance and these mental maps are largely connected with dominant ideas about economics (as conceptual framework and ideology) and neo-liberalism as a dominant ideology in many circles. Thousands of students, now in professional positions, have learnt neoclassical micro- and macroeconomics over the years and have supported each other and been supported by their professors to further strengthen the neoclassical perspective.

Studying neoclassical economics would have been less of a problem if also alternative theoretical perspectives had been taught at university departments of economics. But the strategy has instead been to strengthen the neoclassical monopoly. It is up to the reader to judge whether neoclassical economics by itself and in combination with neo-liberalism explains some parts of the ecological and financial crisis that we now experience. Since neoclassical economics emphasizes the monetary dimension, one might expect that at least monetary issues are well considered in the paradigm but these days we even doubt if this is the case. Something may be missing in terms of interdisciplinary openings, including social psychology and also ethical considerations.

In any case, neoclassical economists in leading positions should be held responsible and accountable for limiting research and education to one paradigm. As I have argued previously, each paradigm is specific not only in scientific terms (with respect to conceptual framework and theory) but also in ideological terms. Limiting education in economics to one paradigm means that university departments of economics are degraded to political propaganda centres.

A way out of this is to admit that the political aspect is always part of economics and to use a political-economics approach when attempting to respond to the questions asked earlier in this article. Individuals, organizations, markets, decisions, efficiency, assessment of alternatives – all this can be approached in political economic terms.

A political economics approach means a more humble attitude to economics where it is understood and admitted from the very beginning that there are more than one approach to economics. Neoclassical economists have often used their power to eliminate competition concerning professional positions and to reduce choice for students. But outside university departments of economics, the interest in heterodox economics is proliferating. There are social economists, socio-economists, feministic economists, institutional economists, ecological economists, Green economists, even interdisciplinary economists, many of which are openly critical of the neoclassical paradigm.[1] For this reason, a pluralistic strategy at university departments of economics is the only realistic one. A move from neoclassical technocracy to a democratized economics is called for. Since neoclassical economists have become accustomed to their monopoly, such a change will not come about easily.

Click to access whole49.pdf

  1. metaecongary
    June 8, 2022 at 9:42 pm

    As a now professor emeritus, with 4-decades of experience as a heterodox (ecological, institutional, and behavorial) economist: Exactly. University economics (as well as agricultural economics) departments are teaching and preaching the ideology of self-interest, seeing only the single interest Econ. And, few even realize it, we might suppose because it fits own-ideology: It is invisible. What do? Well, personally, I have (working with many students and colleagues: It has been a 4-decade shared effort) proposed and worked on developing Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics, which sees a Human as a Traveler on a finite Spaceship Earth. A Human seeks the joint ego-based self-interest & empathy (including with the Spaceship system)-based other-interest, each dependent on the other. A Human tempers the excesses associated with such matters as excess carbon loading to the atmosphere. It is about transcending the limitations of the ideology inherent in Single (self-interest only) Interest Theory in Microeconomics. Try Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics (https://www.metaeconomics.info ; see esp. the Blog), which gives the framework for building a scientific economics, building on data about reality. Try it: You might like it.

  2. robert r locke
    June 8, 2022 at 10:30 pm

    as an historian, i don”t ask how the study of economics is aided by knowledge of history but how economics gives insight into historical knowledge. after 50 years i concluded economics distorts and is useless to historians. it all began with the new economic history in the 1960s.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: