Pluralism och ekonomins speciella inställning till det

I want to point out that the special position of economics among the social sciences is revealed by the fact that we speak of “dissenting” economists. The question is of course, dissenting from what. In other branches of social science we also have alternative and competing theories, some of which may be more accepted and some less, but a large number of them will exist side by side taking part in a continuing debate. Only in economics do we observe this sharp division between a ruling, dominant paradigm which enables one to speak of other theorists as “dissenters.”

When we look critically at this situation of the economic establishment we should first of all make it clear that the criticism of contemporary mainstream economics with regard to its neglect of power and other socio-political and psychological factors should not be regarded as a wholesale repudiation of neoclassical theory. On the contrary, the elaborate structure of that theory and its capacity to analyze complicated interrelations in the market network make it an essential element in the economist’s tool-box. What can and should be criticized is the narrow methodological perspective of that theory which hinders interdisciplinary work, the tendency to jump too quickly from the restricted universe of the theory to policy conclusions for a far more complicated and heterogeneous economic reality, and finally, but not least important, the claims for dominance vis-à-vis other approaches which have a lot to offer both in criticism and in complementing the mainstream studies.

Secondly, we should also be aware that the community of critics and dissenters is today wide enough to present an impressive basis and critical mass for developing the necessary complementary and alternative theories which can take care of the various elements which are neglected in the mainstream.

So what are we complaining about? The answer is quite simple: What is “wrong” is the inequality of opportunity. The trouble is not that or how much economists differ about the pros and cons of various theories whose coexistence is—as I have pointed out before—unavoidable in a complex social reality. What is a problem is that one “school” has obtained a privileged position in the academic world and is claiming—under a very debatable definition of “science”—a dominant position for the neoclassical theory both with regard to teaching and the access to the so-called core journals. It is this privileged position with its self-enforcing character which can be accused: students are taught one-sidedly and accept the neoclassical standards so that they can teach them and can publish their work in the career-determining core journals.

Not only is this unfair to economists of other “schools” whose chances of being discussed and of finding attractive jobs are reduced, it means above all that the pattern of economic research is distorted in one direction with unfortunate effects for economic science and its progress as a whole. In other words, the question is not, important as it may be, how effectively neoclassical theory manages to deal with economic problems by itself and in comparison to other theories, but whether we can come to an arrangement, where the various theories can meet and listen to each other on equal terms in the lecture rooms of the universities, in the text books, and in the journals. This actually is—in contrast to the more radical aims of 1968—the very modest demand of the so-called post-autistic movement of France’s economics students who—with an amazing echo among the public and in political and academic circles—are asking just this: to be informed on a broader scale.

To move in this direction, even if intended, would not be an easy task. Too great are the sunk costs of neoclassical investment in human capital to be modified easily. But the progress towards greater openness in theoretical discussions may be helped by the fact that the breath-taking changes which we experience just now in technology, politics, and economics ask in any case for new ideas in the social sciences in general and economics in particular.

Kurt W. Rothschild



Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s