|
Post-Autistic Economics Network
|
A Brief History of the Post-Autistic Economics Movement Theories, scientific and
otherwise, do not represent the world as it is but rather by highlighting
certain aspects of it while leaving others in the dark. It may be the case that two theories highlight
the same aspects of some corner of reality but offer different
conclusions. In the last century, this
type of situation preoccupied the philosophy of science. Post-Autistic
Economics, however, addresses a different kind of situation: one where
one theory, that illuminates a few facets of its domain rather well, wants to
suppress other theories that would illuminate some of the many facets that it
leaves in the dark. This theory is
neoclassical economics. Because it has
been so successful at sidelining other approaches, it also is called
“mainstream economics”. From the 1960s onward,
neoclassical economists have increasingly managed to block the employment of
non-neoclassical economists in university economics departments and to deny
them opportunities to publish in professional journals. They also have narrowed the economics
curriculum that universities offer students.
At the same time they have increasingly formalized their theory,
making it progressively irrelevant to understanding economic reality. And now they are even banishing economic
history and the history of economic thought from the curriculum, these being
places where the student might be exposed to non-neoclassical ideas. Why has this tragedy happened? Many factors have contributed,
but three especially. First,
neoclassical economists have as a group deluded themselves into believing
that all you need for an exact science is mathematics, and never mind about
whether the symbols used refer quantitatively to the real world. What began as an indulgence became an
addiction, leading to a collective fantasy of scientific achievement where in
most cases none exists. To preserve
their illusions, neoclassical economists have found it increasingly necessary
to isolate themselves from non-believers.
Second, as Joseph Stiglitz has observed, economics has suffered “a triumph
of ideology over science”.1
Instead of regarding their theory as a tool in the pursuit of
knowledge, neoclassical economists have made it the required viewpoint from which,
at all times and in all places, to look at all economic phenomena. This is the position of neoliberalism. Third, today’s economies,
including the societies in which they are embedded, are very different from
those of the 19th century for which neoclassical economics was
invented to describe. These
differences become more pronounced every decade as new aspects of economic
reality emerge, for example, consumer societies, corporate globalization,
economic induced environmental disasters and impending ecological ones, the
accelerating gap between the rich and poor, and the movement for
equal-opportunity economies.
Consequently neoclassical economics sheds light on an ever-smaller
proportion of economic reality, leaving more and more of it in the dark for
students permitted only the neoclassical viewpoint. This makes the neoclassical monopoly more
outrageous and costly every year, requiring of it ever more desperate
measures of defense, like eliminating economic
history and history of economics from the curriculum. But eventually reality
overtakes time-warp worlds like mainstream economics and the Soviet
Union. The moment and place of the
tipping point, however, nearly always takes people by surprise. In June 2000, a few economics students in
Paris circulated a petition calling for the reform of their economics
curriculum. One doubts that any of
those students in their wildest dreams anticipated the effect their
initiative would have. Their petition
was short, modest and restrained. Its
first part, “We wish to escape from
imaginary worlds”, summarizes what they were protesting against. Most of us
have chosen to study economics so as to acquire a deep understanding of the
economic phenomena with which the citizens of today are confronted. But the
teaching that is offered, that is to say for the most part neoclassical
theory or approaches derived from it, does not generally answer this
expectation. Indeed, even when the theory legitimately detaches itself from
contingencies in the first instance, it rarely carries out the necessary
return to the facts. The empirical side (historical facts, functioning of
institutions, study of the behaviors and strategies
of the agents . . .) is almost nonexistent. Furthermore, this gap in the
teaching, this disregard for concrete realities, poses an enormous problem
for those who would like to render themselves useful to economic and social
actors. The students asked instead for a broad
spectrum of analytical viewpoints. Too often the
lectures leave no place for reflection. Out of all the approaches to economic
questions that exist, generally only one is presented to us. This approach is
supposed to explain everything by means of a purely axiomatic process, as if
this were THE economic truth. We do not accept this dogmatism. We want a
pluralism of approaches, adapted to the complexity of the objects and to the
uncertainty surrounding most of the big questions in economics (unemployment,
inequalities, the place of financial markets, the advantages and disadvantages
of free-trade, globalization, economic development, etc.) The Parisian students’
complaint about the narrowness of their economics education and their desire
for a broadband approach to economics teaching that would enable them to
connect constructively and comprehensively with the complex economic
realities of their time hit a chord with French news media. Major newspapers and magazines gave
extensive coverage to the students’ struggle against the “autistic science”. Economics students from all over France
rushed to sign the petition. Meanwhile
a growing number of French economists dared to speak out in support and even
to launch a parallel petition of their own.
Finally the French government stepped in. The Minister of Education set up a high level
commission to investigate the students’ complaints. News of these events in France
spread quickly via the Web and email around the world. The distinction drawn by the French
students between what can be called narrowband and broadband approaches to
economics, and their plea for the latter, found support from large numbers of
economics students and economists in many countries. In June 2001, almost exactly a year after
the French students had released their petition, 27 PhD candidates at
Cambridge University in the UK launched their own, titled “Opening Up
Economics”. Besides reiterating the
French students’ call for a broadband approach to economics teaching, the
Cambridge students also champion its application to economic research. This debate is important because in our
view the status quo is harmful in at least four respects. Firstly, it is
harmful to students who are taught the 'tools' of mainstream economics
without learning their domain of applicability. The source and evolution of
these ideas is ignored, as is the existence and status of competing theories.
Secondly, it disadvantages a society that ought to be benefiting from what
economists can tell us about the world. Economics is a social science with
enormous potential for making a difference through its impact on policy
debates. In its present form its effectiveness in this arena is limited by
the uncritical application of mainstream methods. Thirdly, progress towards a
deeper understanding of many important aspects of economic life is being held
back. By restricting research done in economics to that based on one approach
only, the development of competing research programs is seriously hampered or
prevented altogether. Fourth and finally, in the current situation an
economist who does not do economics in the prescribed way finds it very
difficult to get recognition for her research. In August of the same year
economics students from 17 countries who had gathered in the USA in Kansas
City, released their International Open Letter to all economics departments
calling on them to reform economics education and research by adopting the
broadband approach. Their letter
includes the following seven points. 1. A
broader conception of human behavior. The
definition of economic man as an
autonomous rational optimizer is too narrow and does not allow for the roles
of other determinants such as instinct, habit formation and gender, class and
other social factors in shaping the economic psychology of social agents. 2. Recognition of culture. Economic
activities, like all social phenomena, are necessarily embedded in culture,
which includes all kinds of social, political and moral value-systems and
institutions. These profoundly shape and guide human behavior
by imposing obligations, enabling and disabling particular choices, and
creating social or communal identities, all of which may impact on economic behavior.
4. A new theory of knowledge. The positive-vs.-normative dichotomy which has traditionally been used in the social sciences is problematic. The fact-value distinction can be transcended by the recognition that the investigator’s values are inescapably involved in scientific inquiry and in making scientific statements, whether consciously or not. This acknowledgement enables a more sophisticated assessment of knowledge claims.
of such explanations. In March 2003 economics
students at Harvard launched their own petition, demanding from its economics
department an introductory course that would have “better balance and
coverage of a broader spectrum of views” and that would “not only teach
students the accepted modes of thinking, but also challenge students to think
critically and deeply about conventional truths.”2 Students have not been alone in
mounting increasing pressure on the status quo. Thousands of economists from scores of
countries have also in various forms taken up the cause for broadband
economics under the banner “Post-Autistic Economics” and the slogan “sanity,
humanity and science” The PAE movement is not about trying to replace neoclassical
economics with another partial truth, but rather about reopening economics
for free scientific inquiry, making it a pursuit where empiricism outranks a
priorism and where critical thinking rules
instead of ideology. |
|
|
|