Peter Radford — Do over?

From the always insightful Peter Radford.

You would have thought that, after all this time, economics would change. Or be changing. Or even be hinting at the possibility of changing. However, while there are a few encouraging signs, there is precious little sign of said motion inside the citadels that dominate the discipline. We still have a profession stuck in a most unprofessional rut, pursuing thinking that reflects not the world around it, but itself.
So, let me say it again: economists are, by and large, more interested in economics than in economies. They spend much more time on trying to display mathematical virtuosity than in trying to get to grips with the world around them. Even those who give the real world space to intrude into their thinking wrap it up in strange and unrepresentative ways.

Let me make this plain to those of you who follow the sport from a distance: most economists make their reputations nowadays by being steeped in the latest mathematics and by being capable of producing supremely logical, tightly wound models that conform to the discipline’s rules and to what the discipline thinks of as important.

The relevance of an actual economy – for example the US between 2007 and now – is not considered if it does not allow the wizardry to be displayed.

Rigor is decidedly more important the relevance.

In some part I think this is due to the notion held by many powerful and influential economists that the big questions have been decided upon and the main analytical approaches selected. Anyone straying from this ground is thus not regarded as serious. Especially if, when they stray, they appear to be a little ad hoc or less than totally committed to a mathematical exposition. Words as well as reality are a hindrance to being accepted.

I think that this is essentially correct. But I also think that there is an element of power and status at work institutionally. The economics profession is constructed in the way it is for reasons other than purely intellectual. Interests are at work, too.

Real-World Economics Review Blog

Do over?

Peter Radford