Economics in University: Teaching or Propaganda?

In spite of the utter failure of academic and professional economists to predict, explain or find solutions to the financial and economic crises sweeping the globalised, marketised world they have created, there is still little challenge to the narrow and one-sided way that economics is taught in our universities. In spite of the fact that economics is about complex human relationships, and is therefore bound to be the subject of debate and disagreement, there is no problem with university courses that only teach the neoclassical pro-market approach.

A list of universities that offer 'pluralist' components in their courses, that is to say that they include approaches other than the neoclassical orthodoxy, does exist, but it is short. The Association of Heterodox Economics is doing great work here, but it is unfunded and run by people who know that their commitment to dissent and debate will limit the success of their careers, their opportunities for promotion and publication, and their chances of finding research funding.

In the US, the website Remapping Debate is running a series of articles on the limitations and political bias of economics education in universities. In the latest Martha Starr, professor of economics at American University, makes the obvious point that it is not helpful to teach students about economics as though all the problems have been solved. Not only does this make it less likely that they will come up with new solutions, but given the mayhem they see all around them it is likely to be unconvincing. In any other subject this proposal of dividing up the curriculum between different schools of thought; only in economics could this seem dangerously radical.

This is not an internally focused debate revolving around a bunch of disgruntled academics. Politicians and policy-makers have generally studied one year of economics, which means that they have learned the biased system of thought and the mantras they repeat throughout their lives, limiting options and closing down debate. Teaching orthodoxy rather than reality is dangerous and is against the academic freedom which our universities should set as their highest standard.
. Tweet

Elite Syncopations

For those not familiar with the working of universities this post may seem rather obscure, but in reality it explains one crucial mechanism used by neoclassical economists to ensure that the routes to publication and promotion are controlled by their own. It explains how orthodoxy maintains its hold on the economics profession.

This is a large claim made for a research paper presented at the recent Association for Heterodox Economics conference in Nottingham by Harry Bloch, from Curtin University in Perth, Australia. It traced how Australian economists were involved in the process of deciding the quality of different pieces of research produced by their peers. In Australia this process is transparent; in the UK it is not. Hence the focus on scholars on the other side of the world.

The academics were told to rank the journals they commonly read into four categories; it was suggested that they should have 5% in A* (Nobel Prize material), 15% in A, 30% in B and 50% in C. The first conclusion from Table 5 is that economists are very hard on themselves: they considered a full 60% of journals in the also-rans category, a much lower percentage than other disciplines.

But it also demonstrates the domination of the field by proponents of econometrics. The method of regression analysis is the fast route to promotion. A mathematical model is always ranked more highly in terms of esteem than a paper which relates to a real-world problem, such as the financial crisis for example. Theory is rated well, with applied economics – that area which deals with policy – less so. Meanwhile ‘other economics’, such as that which actually questions the status quo, receives the lowest rating, with no journals featuring in the A* category at all.

It is also important to note that these were not everyday academics but Professors and members of professional societies. These are the guardians of orthodoxy, and their own work is likely to be in the field of econometrics and economic theory that presently dominate. As the table shows, none of the journals that covered heterodox economics was included in the A* ranking, making it extremely difficult for those outside the mainstream to achieve research funding. The process of ranking specifically excluded heterodox economists, although they were identified as a specific group - the only group to be excluded.

The second table (Table 7) illustrates the effectiveness of the gatekeeping by the orthodox. It shows the domination of the field by conventional economics while the majority of economists with different views languish at the lower tiers.

Bloch concludes his article as follows:

'The processes employed in the 2010 round of research evaluation under Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) did not provide a fair assessment of heterodox economics research in Australia. The rankings used as the indicator of the quality for journal articles were unbalanced in favour of economic theory and econometrics and against applied economics and other economics (which included heterodox economics).'

We can expect no better form the UK's Research Excellence Framework process.
. Tweet

University Futures

The hiatus in posts was caused by a brief trip to Cambridge to see my son graduate. The ceremony was typically bizarre in a way only Oxbridge can manage. The graduands were gowned and robed, but had little sense of what they were undergoing, since the ceremony took place in Latin. Much of this seemed entirely appropriate to a ceremony which is one of the few rites of passage that remains in our civic life and would have provided excellent subject material for an anthropological study.

More fun might be had designing the robes for the co-operative university, which has been under discussion here and elsewhere. The UK Society for Co-operative Studies held a session at Co-operative Congress last week as part of an ongoing debate about the need to establish a co-operative business school for the UK. The document produced there for discussion, and the report Co-operation in the Age of Google to which it in part responds, can be found on the Social Exchange Repository.

One aim of the Society is to take forward the debate about the structure of education: 'An educational programme, therefore, is not simply an opportunity to accredit what is already taking place. It is a mechanism by which those who have spent years on co-operative development activities can contribute their knowledge in a way that informs the development of higher education.'

In this regard there are interesting developments already underway in Lincoln's Social Science Centre, which is 'run as a ‘not-for-profit’ co-operative and managed on democratic, non-hierarchical principles with all students and staff having an equal involvement in how the Centre operates'. Staff donate their time for free, but such models could be developed as alternatives to the elite private universities that the government is encouraging.

Perhaps more important, though, is to build up our research knowledge about alternative economic models. So much of the existing neoclassical framework, from economies of scale to the concept of profit itself, have no meaning in the context of co-operative businesses. Until we can create our own concepts and coherent intellectual framework we are not equipped to replace the destructive and defunct capitalist paradigm with a new business model that we can teach with confidence in our universities.
. Tweet

Defend academic freedom

As soon as David Cameron uttered the phrase 'Big Society' I made a mental note not to use it. Giving currency to such banal phrases also lends them credibility, and is now being used as a justification for the AHRC, the body that allocates research funding to the arts and humanities, assigning it a particularly priority. The question that remains to be tested is whether research proposals excoriating the shallow ambiguity of the phrase are funded as well as those that lauds its prescience and political astuteness.

I have already had my say about the loss of academic freedom that has resulted from the political pressure on the UK funding councils. Professor James Ladyman, head of philosophy at Bristol University writes:

'If we do not take a stand on this matter we will be betraying academic integrity, freedom and standards. The academic world has been watching this story unfold and I have received correspondence from all over the world about it. This is fight for the heart and soul of academia. Words matter, ideas matter and reason matters, and defending clarity of thought and expression and the political independence of research is our true strategic priority.'

Please take the time to sign the online petition.
. Tweet

Revolving Doors and Revolting Publics

The outcry against our politicians, which has been focused on their scandalous expenses claims, is surely a result of the growing sense that they are a class apart. They work hand-in-glove with the 'captains of industry' to ensure that our legal, economic and social structures work for the benefit of this tiny minority - and against the interest of people and the planet.

I spent some time this week responding to the consultation document on the Research Excellence Framework. This is the structure that will decide how valuable the research produced in our universities is, and therefore how public grants and promotions will be allocated between researchers.

We have moved on from the judgement of our peers about the quality of our work to a system of impact assessment. This might not be such a bad thing, since it encourages academics to think beyond their ivory towers. But the indicators used to measure impact are frightening, focusing heavily on the ability of academics to generate patentable scientific ideas that can be sold to support industry.

Close relationships between 'industry' (undefined) and academia are encouraged - including secondments. Academics who take a critical view of the business community, or who see their research as a service to the citizen, will receive short shrift in the next round of spending allocations. This is a natural consequence of the shifting of universtities out of Education and into the Business department. The taxes paid by citizens are now used to subsidise research that businesses will later exploit to increase their profits.

The forthcoming report of the Public Affairs Select Committee raises related concerns about the influence of industry lobbyists on legislation. PASC notes that 'Ministers can, within all existing rules, use their former ministerial position to help them to gain access for private interests' and has 'specific concerns about former Ministers who take up paid employment after they have left ministerial office but while they remain Members of Parliament paid from the public purse.'

Examples cited include that of Stephen Ladyman, who left the Department of Transport and accrued a consultancy with the road-pricing company ITIS. Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, moved into 'industry' working for Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems, and then came back through the revolving door to a job as a government whip. And king of the dungheap you will be unsurprised to hear is Tory Blur himself, who is receiving expenses from the British government to tour the Middle East apparently to spread peace but opening doors for the expansion of Tesco in the area as a nice little sideline.*

Thanks to Barbara Panvel for these examples. A new website tracking government corruption will be established soon and will be linked from this blog. Tweet

What if Business is the Problem?

Of course, for me this is a rhetorical question. My whole work as an economist is predicated on my belief that business itself is the problem. But I work in a Management School that was formerly a business school and is still dedicated to producing young people to manage business. Our courses focus heavily on international corporate business culture and structure - although the vast majority of our students will not join these sorts of companies.

My research is supposed to be directed by the Association of Business Schools which produces a list of journals to which I am intended to aspire. Clearly, my work will not find favour, since it has at its heart a critique of business. Business has taken control of government and has now taken control of the universities as well. Universities once found their political space within a department dedicated to education; they now reside within the department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. So if business were the problem, it clearly would not be any of my business to identify this, or to study the reasons why for the sake of the public benefit. Well at least not in my day job.

So it did not surprise me to read that a report from Scientists for Global Responsibility has found that the objective scientific research we expect from our academics is being increasingly distorted by the priorities of the funders, either business itself, or government which, is dominated by business interests. Universities are also being encouraged to act like businesses. In my case, the Dean who was brought in to assure that this happened to our teaching and research has experience of neither himself, having spent his career as a civil servant at the Welsh Office. I have no idea what expertise he was supposed to bring to an institution focused on teaching and research.

As Stuart Parkinson, co-author of the report, comments, ´The trustworthiness of science and scientists is at stake.´The credibility of government is no longer worth defending, sadly. Although the report draws attention to the appointment of Lords Drayson and Sainsbury as consecutive science ministers, this is really the least of our problems.

As debate over climate change hots up with the approach to Copenhagen, the increasing polarity between profit and survival is felt as keenly in our research institutions as anywhere. When business is the most powerful player in our society, and its profit logic is the central cause of a destructive expansionist economy, how can we hope to develop ideas to counter this when are universities have already been subsumed into the government department dedicated to business support? Tweet