9 am, 1991; Keynes Lecture Theatre. The Scottish lecturer, still smarting at the result of the English Rugby Grand Slam, asks: ‘What is economics?’. Well trained, our hands shot up: ‘The study of scarcity; understanding money; consumer and producer theory’. Fast forward to 1997. Panic stricken as I give my first ever lecture on an overhead projector, I shakily write the same tried and tested question: ‘What is economics?’. The replies are the same: ‘The study of scarcity; understanding money; consumer and producer theory’. The definition appears bulletproof, by design.
Fast forward again to May 2022. I’m listening to the Norwich Economic Publications’ Three Minute Thesis Competition. Those mundane definitions melt away, replaced with a much more dynamic appreciation of the power of economics. My task today: How have our students so stridently eliminated conservatism in their economic outlook? My answer involves pinpointing the three traditional drags on economic discourse that they avoid…
1. The Simplicists
Consider the following two quotes from distinguished economists:
“…economics has become increasingly an arcane branch of mathematics rather than dealing with real economic problems” Friedman
“Existing economics is a theoretical [meaning mathematical] system which floats in the air and which bears little relation to what happens in the real world” Coase
They share similar tut at how the economic approach has gone awry. It becomes a playground of the technician, more interested in mathematical minutiae than policy impact. It’s an outcome ironically enabled by the simplicists; a stance focused on protecting facile made-up economic laws to hide from the complexities of the real world.
Back to the present day, up steps our winning student Shane Joseph (BSc Economics). Celebrating the unpretentious with a presentation entitled ‘Furlough Scheme’, they realign economic comment to policy critique. It’s a UEA student lesson in real world economics. Our purpose isn’t to mathematical grandstand. It is instead to understand data to show what works and what doesn’t; to ultimately ensure that mistakes aren’t repeated; to help maximise wellbeing and to minimise social ills.
2. The Isolationists
Economics has often listened to a peculiar perspective, one which arguably shuts down dissent. Coyle (2007), for example, writes that “economics isn’t defined by its subject matter but by its way of thinking”. This viewpoint encourages a hermit form of intellectualism, more aggressively rebuked in Fourcade et al. (2015):
“From the vantage point of sociologists, geographers, historians, political scientists, or even psychologists, economists often resemble colonists settling on their land—an image reinforced by some economists’ proud claims of economic imperialism”
Such insularity is deemed unfitting by UEA students. Up steps our 2nd winning student, Nur Mohamad (Ann; BSc Business Economics): ‘How behavioural economics can supplement telematics-based road pricing in lowering carbon emissions in cars’. It’s a presentation celebrating behavioural economics, necessarily blunting the perceived divisions across the social sciences. Ann’s application of Conformity Bias rings true. Unhampered by such isolationism, our students develop a more heterogeneous outlook. It is a suitable acknowledgement of their individualism.
3. The Oath Swearers
And finally we have the traditionalists who demand that economics is ‘monist’ perfection. They demand only one form of economics. There is one method; a binary ‘right or wrong’ outlook. Resorting to egoism to show how this unites our traditionalist drags, I’ll quote from one of my own papers:
“Economics derived its own language (linguistic and symbolic) from disciplines intent on proving their own infallibility, their privileged relationship with the infinite and importantly at the time harbouring little doubt that this state of perfection could be achieved. Such positioning explains why, even today, over one hundred years since neoclassical economics evolved, the chaos of the material world is considered irrelevant to the purity of the mathematical modelling. It also illuminates why occasionally the interference of reality is even scorned as a corruptive influence, diluting the pristine form of the discipline. The religious intensity which fuelled the ideals from which it emerged encourages such moral judgements. The idealism of the late 19th century is never far away from the current economic dialectic precisely because it still operates within the signification of that time.”
Our 3rd winner, Clare Purser (BSc Economics & Finance), demolishes this perspective with her presentation, ‘Remodelling the Labour supply – a pluralist approach betters our policy recommendations for the labour market’. She questions the orthodox understanding of work. This opens up a myriad of possible alternative schools of thought: Feminism, Marxism and Institutionalism. The sky is our limit. Necessarily echoing the joy of learning, it’s impact goes way beyond the three minutes.
In conclusion….
So why the banner image, as I switch Area 51 to Eco 51? Are we the Roswell of Economics? Of course not. But there is something here worth mentioning. Our students’ understanding of economics is ‘alien’ to the staid definitions peddled by the traditionalists. The truth isn’t out there. It’s in July at our Summer Graduation 2022.
I would also like to mention the other brilliant finalists: Ayusha Kumbhat (MSc Behavioural And Experimental Economics; Does Adding Penalties for Non-performance Reduce the Productivity Gap between Mission-Matched and Mission Non-Matched Employee); Selvin Thanacoody (PGR; Regulating Service Quality & Water Retention). Their presentations are proof of the depth of knowledge within our student community.
Special Thanks also to the organisers of the event, co-editors of NEP: Daniel Hempstead and Minh Ta.
Banner Image by Garneys Studio