Skip to content

Economist bashing – enough already?

September 28, 2011

I am one of those who has enjoyed taking a pop at many academic economists recently.

Informally and to friends, I have compared academic economists of today to medieval scholastics: both beavering away on something which is more or less completely disconnected from and irrelevant to what the public understands them to be doing. In medieval times you have cloistered and often privileged monks debating theological niceties while those outside are ravaged by hunger, disease and wars from which God shows little inclination to save them; today you have academic economists constructing mathematical models which seem to have no bearing on the economics of the lives of ordinary people. The work done by contemporary academic economists appears impotent to resolve any of the increasingly desperate issues which are now debated nightly on our TVs, issues which are widely understood to be economic issues.

If you had a bunch of people in a university doing something called ‘physics’ which purported to understand the laws of nature and yet which, when taken outside of a university, seemed to have nothing to say about these laws as they affected our understanding of space, time, matter, energy and the cosmos, you would feel pretty grumpy about it – rightly so.

But is this really fair on economists? I think it might be time for some reassessment.

Firstly, it is not true that academic economics has always been rubbish. At the macro level, the majority view is that Keynes (who was a superb mathematician) is largely responsible for getting the world out of recession in the early 20th century and for setting up many of the structures that led to decades of peace and prosperity. On the other side of the fence, whatever you think of him, Friedman and his followers proposed policies that allowed for boom years that gave millions a lifestyle they could previously only have dreamt of. Those who critique this situation say either that we are about to realise just how much we had to pay for these grand theories and years of boom (as the Western economic world falls apart), or that the theories only worked and the boom years only happened because other poorer nations took up the slack. But the fact is that my generation, in the West, have lived through perhaps the best time ever in history to be alive. You can’t entirely sniff at that. There is no way to judge how it could really have been different and, taken purely at face value, millions in the West have had a remarkably good run for a remarkably long time. And a strong case can be made that this was due to good economic management, an understanding of monetary policy and banking based on deep and serious academic study. At the microeconomic level, too, during this time there have been innovations in insurance, pricing, accounting and so on which have benefitted firms and individuals – and many of these innovations have been devised by academic economists.

Secondly, apart from this positive view of the contribution of academic economics, there is the interesting  philosophical question: is economics really so different from other branches of knowledge in having this crisis? No field is immune from getting large dollops of historical egg on its face, so is economics not just going through a rite of passage on its way to greater maturity?

Take physics. We now know that Newton was wrong. I’m with Hilary Putnam who says that Newton was not just ‘a bit’ wrong, as is sometimes said, but he was massively, conceptually and metaphysically wrong. Time does not flow equably. Time is a dimension in space-time, not exactly like space but much more like it than the picture of time as kept by an external clock, which Newton proposes. Relativity is not Galilean/Newtonian; it is Einsteinian. It is true that Newton’s laws can still be used brilliantly for big chunks of engineering and mid-scale physics. But philosophically, metaphysically the laws are wrong. They just work well as tools.

Of course you could say Einstein’s Relativity is wrong as well – or at least waiting to be proved wrong – and we could get into a discussion about physics vs metaphysics and a whole bunch of related stuff,  but I don’t wish to get into arguments about these issues here  – that is not the point. The point is that we could say that classical economics also worked for a time, just as Newton’s laws did, but that it is now in drastic need of revision. Ricardo’s law worked well when you didn’t have to worry about environmental issues and there was no global financial system. Becker’s work on human capital made good predictions about the value of training when there were abundant jobs for skilled workers.  Even Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ of the market worked before the ‘market’ became a giant network of virtual wealth, fabricated by over-connected computers, and we began to realise that we could not just exploit anything at all in any old way in order to get rich. Sure, things have changed, and much of this economics no longer works. But things changed for physics too in the early 20th century and may well do again. Physics adapted, took a look at itself and worked out the implications for the – I guess I have to use this phrase – paradigm shift.

Similar cases could be made for biology and, of course, for religion – two other great fields of human endeavour.

I see no reason why economics and economists cannot adapt to the current intellectual shocks and come out better. Economists are often very smart people (though that sounds wrong for at least two reasons!). Many of them are not only superb mathematicians (which particular breed are generally acknowledged to be smart) but they are also able to model, to use their mathematics in creative ways. That is an impressive skill. The trouble is that at the moment they are at least putting junk into the models and so getting junk out; and maybe the sorts of models they are constructing need to change too.

So let us not think that economics is lost and that economists are a bunch of holy idiots. Yes, criticism and fiery debate is of the order now – just as it was when Newton was refuted and Darwin needed to be championed. But economics may come out much the better for this, 10-20 years down the line, provided economists are able to look one another in the eye, admit where the blunders are, and work out where to go next and how to do it.

Advertisements
4 Comments
  1. Peter Bowman permalink

    Carl, last Tuesday Steve Keen launched the second edition of his book “Debunking Economics” in the Gustav Tuck LT at UCL. Steve is an academic economist and very bright so this is not just a rant. One thing he points out is the poor level of scholarship there is in the subject. A theory may be soundly refuted and the refutation published but if that refutation is inconvenient it is simply ignored, life goes on and the textbooks continue to reproduce the same invalidated theories.

    • Hi Peter, thanks for this comment. It is difficult for an outsider to judge this, so Steve Keen’s intervention is certainly appreciated. I will follow up this reference. From the point of view of the blog, I guess we could say that there were many academic textbooks in outdated biology and physics that were published long after Darwin’s and Einstein’s discoveries. What we must hope for now is that academic economists show the necessary humility, followed by the necessary hard thinking, to turn their subject around in the way that these subjects were turned around.

  2. Peter Bowman permalink

    Hi Carl, In this respect I have found that one of most heartening developments has been the setting up of the World Economics Association (in the absence of a link please google). Much of the credit should go to Edward Fullbrook who followed up the Paris students’ rejection of the overly abstract mathematically-based economics they were being taught by setting up the “Real World Economic Review” an internet-based journal where the relevance of economics to the real world and the inadequacies of current theory could be openly debated. It has attracted a large following amongst professional economists. The WEA is the logical next step and provides for a much needed platform where the issues can be debated honestly, openly and in a way that is connected to the real world.

    • Thanks, Peter. I have already followed this up and read some short pieces by Fullbrook. I look forward to reading more from the WEA in due course. One topic I would like to discuss is what I naively call ‘negative economics’ – mentioned here in this blog. By this I mean the fact that certain goods and services that appear to subtract from the economy (removal of goods, provision of silent retreats, weight-loss services) can of course be monetized and contribute to growth of GDP. Do you know anyone writing on this?

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: