The core of what economics should be

September 25, 2014

Something may finally be changing in the study of economics. A new textbook, half of which has now been published online, is a small step in the right direction.

The book is called the “The Economy,” and it is produced by a group of economists known as Coreecon. They are supported by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, which is largely funded by speculator-turned-philanthropist George Soros. The text is available for free – which itself is a fine example of non-conventional economic thinking.

The voluntary effort is commendable, and the many students who complain that academic economics describes an imaginary world should be grateful. Still, the limits of “The Economy” show just how far the reformers still have to go.

To be fair, the authors were constrained. Most professors still do not see any large problems in the way that economics is taught. An overly heterodox approach would have prevented the book from achieving its primary goal of being adopted in normal academic economics programmes.

The intellectual conservatism, which is shared by the many political liberals in the discipline, is frustrating. Faulty assumptions and a dubious reliance on excessively abstract and unrealistic models too often lead to inaccurate observations, poor policies and worse forecasts. As a discipline, economics should be reconsidered from the roots.

The available portion of the Coreecon book, which deals with microeconomics, does not go that far but it offers a real improvement over the standard fare. Rather than simply assume the existence of markets, with governments in the background, there is a discussion of economic history. There is even a nod to the history of economic thinking. Also, some attention is paid to concepts such as institutions and environmental responsibility, which economics courses usually leave for optional study much later.

However, the approach is still far more conventional than innovative. The profession’s standard narrow vision of the world – numerical, monetary and materialistic – is only occasionally questioned.

The basic problem shows up at the end of the first chapter, when the authors provide a definition of the field. They write: “Economics is the study of how people interact with each other and with their natural surroundings in producing their livelihoods, and how this changes over time.”

That is a big improvement over the offering of Lionel Robbins, the man who more or less founded the London School of Economics. He characterised the discipline as “the relationship between given ends and scarce means.” Robbins’ words are paraphrased in many texts, but they could hardly be less helpful.

Robbins does not mention history, although economics inevitably studies a changing world. He does not mention the actual subject matter – labour, production, consumption, distribution. He assumes the ends are given, but in reality neither the actual nor the correct goals of economic activity are clear. And he assumes scarcity, while modern economies often suffer from too much unused labour. They may also have too much production and consumption to serve the good of society and the environment.

The Coreecon definition is better, but still misses much of what is essential to economic activity and its study. Economics cannot merely deal with how people do things, because descriptions of human behaviour make no sense without discussions of purpose. Economics should also be a study of why people behave as they do in producing their livelihoods.

The definition also limits the discipline to descriptions, as if economics were a physical science which makes no judgments of how things should be. That is unrealistic. Economists inevitably judge whether behaviour and organisations are more or less just, more or less efficient, and more or less helpful to some social goal. The desire to evaluate is not unscientific. Yet there is little point in studying the economy without wanting to make it better.

The application of a more realistic definition, however, would probably make the book unusable in most universities. For example, the two chapters dedicated to supply and demand in “The Economy” would not survive. And no introductory course would pass muster without the indifference curves that this approach generates.

The book follows the standard practice of assuming that at any moment there are knowable quantities called supply and demand which are balanced by a price. The question of what constitutes both sides of this equation – of why people want or are willing to make just this much – is simply abstracted away. Supply and demand are, in Robbins’ words, given.

This sleight of hand effectively erases most of what is interesting in the organisation of the economy. It ignores the stabilising influence of institutions and the complex interactions of wages, prices, taxes, interest rates, regulations and customs.

Worse than that, it hides an ideological judgment, by assuming that the standard economic arrangement is a market which pits perfectly self-interested buyers against equally self-interested sellers. That assumption sounds unrealistic. Even if it is correct, there is no reason to accept it without much reflection and study.

To be fair, there is an effort to think more broadly in many of the other chapters. And admirably, the organisers see this as a work in progress. Well, there is progress to be made.

4 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

As usual, Mr. Hadas, WELL SAID! The question, always, is “Who is listening” that matters?

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

Indeed, conventional economics misses most of what motivates human behaviour. A human is not an economic automaton. The “purpose” that lies behind “demand” can arise from a host of sources that have nothing to do with survival or “making money”: loyalty, guilt, curiosity, shame, compassion, pride, friendship, responsibility, pleasure, respect, to name a very few. The consequences of simplistic theoretical economic thinking reach pretty far into our lives. Example: neocon ideology is founded in the view that humans are survivalist economic automatons, which is why so many current governments hewing to that line run programs that seem so sterile or ineffective. We do need better economic thinking at its roots.

Posted by mind_emergent | Report as abusive

Great analysis. Self-interested buyers against self-interested sellers like many abstract economic theories needs to be connected to real life–tangible examples. What are the trade-offs/opportunity costs that all economic systems and societies make or don’t make and what are the consequences to ignoring the trade-offs. Provide real modern day examples to students. For example, how government institutions and the market fix or don’t fix economic problems. Provide examples of why software has competition but broadband doesn’t. There’s a wide array of examples. The goal should be to apply the economic theories to students’ lives, which makes economics relevant, engaging and challenging, too. This is how I teach economics to my high school students.

Posted by yohow | Report as abusive

My elevator definition of economics: Economics is the study of transactions and their impact. A combo of micro-macro.

Posted by Ransomexx | Report as abusive

[…] a strangely vague and unspecific opinion piece at Reuters today, economic editor Edward Hadas lauds the CORE initiative to change economics […]

Posted by Throwing Babies, Keeping the Bath Water | Economic Reasoning | Report as abusive