Today, I attended an informal discussion with a senior scholar at the think tank where I work. The discussion was for other junior staff like myself, so we could learn about how that scholar came to be where he is, what his research was about, etc. Towards the end of the discussion, I asked him, “What value is there in understanding the history of economic thought?” He thought about this for a second, and then talked about his training at the University of Chicago.
Not too long before he got there (this would’ve been during the 80s), they decided to remove history of economic thought from the core curriculum, which was pretty grueling at that point. George Stigler had taught the course for years, and thought this class was extremely important to give students some perspective. However, he decided that there was a high opportunity cost of class time in the 2 year core curriculum, and that the classes giving young economists necessary tools were more important. Perspective would come with time, as immersion in the field would force an academic to read the historical literature. The scholar himself also seemed divided on this issue, but said that ultimately, he did get the needed perspective in the years to come.
I chose not to press him on these questions, as other RAs were eager with some more practical questions. I suppose I should have asked him how an economist gets the historical thought perspectives not directly related to the subfield, or even those that have not won in the battlefield of ideas but may still hold insights. In any case, this particular scholar seems relatively pleased with the toolkit that economics offers, and the process by which insights are made and formed into policy recommendations. Perhaps for his subfield of international finance, this is more or less true. For economics as a whole, though, it could be that a loss of perspective is leading to narrow sets of questions being asked.
In any case, this brief seminar seemed to further alienate me from wanting to be an economist. Even after the crisis, it seems the focus is on figuring out the next unifying idea (e.g. systemic risk), rather than taking a step back and reconsidering the discipline’s inherent biases. Learning history of economic thought is not a cure-all, but forcing one’s self to have some perspective early on will undoubtedly lead to better critical thinking, even if one’s toolkit is a little slower in developing (of course, the toolkit should probably be vastly changed as well). I then ask myself, is this discipline one that I really want to enter?
Whither economic thought, whither my very short career? These are the questions plaguing me…
History of Economic Thought by Harry Landreth and David Colander
The question to be asking in approaching any field is what are the fundamental problems that the field and its contributors are attempting to address? Are these the questions that need to be asked in the larger view and in terms of contemporary conditions? They you have to locate the problem that is most pressing for you, and the questions it raises. This is usually what a dissertation is about.
It is very difficult to answer this intelligently without knowledge of the history of the subject and what the principle contributors have said.
Don’t leave the field, Obi Wan. You (and others like you) may be our only hope. 🙂
Yea, and whenever I browse through my google scholar results, it seems like the questions being asked are either narrowly conceived or narrowly answered, and indictment of the lack of history and the small toolkit.
[…] 28, 2010 by Kasey Dufresne This post is an indirect reply to the previous post. Without a doubt, mainstream economics is a very narrow discipline. Many smart people realize this, […]
I don’t think the scholar always gets to go where he or she wants to go. The trick is seeing the holes in the field that need filled and focusing on those. These are usually wide gaps and not the minutia that so many scholars spend a career bickering over. There are whole new songs to be sung in filling these gaps, and scholars have the wherewithal to sing them if they’ll let the field guide them. For that economic history is the scholars muse.
I might add this thought by Emile Durkheim. Sometimes the answers to modern social problems lie in the forgotten past. It’s the scholars job to remind people of how social problems were once approached. Without economic history the past is more likely to remain forgotton.
Studying economics can be a very rewarding intellectual enterprise, a superb exercise in critical thinking, and a useful preparation for many areas of work … PROVIDED you see economics as a contested discipline, where different perspectives may offer different insights.
I took a degree in economics more than 20 years ago. But the training I received in how to dissect different theoretical positions, their implicit assumptions, and so on, has proved invaluable time and again.
And once you “get” the different positions of different schools of thought, what their methodological and ideological starting points are, and what assumptions their conclusions are based on, you are well on the way to developing a sharp sense of critical judgement.
But I was lucky. I was told not to trust my textbooks, to read original authors, to be aware of the historical context of arguments, and to think for myself. It was good advice, and I can only repeat it.
Thanks for all your insights…this is surely something I’m continuing to think through.
[…] post-crisis navel-gazing in economics has concluded something like, “economists treated economics as a science, even […]