How to teach Economics has become a major issue. The Bank of England has sponsored an INET conference on how to teach economics post-crisis.
As readers of this blog will no i’m not an economist, its merely a hobby; but I suspect that even if I had unlimited resources to study or my life over again the last thing I would want to do is take an economics major. From my own readings I know that modern economics teaching reinforces too many errors, has become isolated from mainstream thinking and theory in the social sciences, and worst of all often has a contempt for its own history so that the history of economic thought is often an optional module, not considered important, and worst taught in the worst whiggish form as a series of errors building to a triumphant conclusion.
What kind of test do we need to set for what is a good economic curriculum? I would suggest it is producing the sort of graduate that other graduates would want to speak to and take advice from in answering open questions about history and current and anticipated problems. Too often the answer is with rational actors and an unregulated market that problem cant happen, a none answer which means that the questions don’t get asked. A sign of health for economic departments is when other departments are banging on their doors to conduct interdisciplinary research.
I don’t agree however with the track INET is going down of a mainly empirical ‘teach macro first’ course. The problem as Noah Smith points out is that Macro is the one part of economics that no-one can agree on.
It is important that Economics be founded on an understanding of current problems and trends, the problem with a largely empirical and/or historical course is it does not necessarily provide a good foundation for modelling.
There seems to be, rightly, a reaction against courses being solely about teaching the skills at undergraduate level necessary to do DGSE type modelling at post-graduate level. This will simply dissillusion students who don’t go on to postgraduate study and teach them nothing but ideology rather than how to critically apply economic ideas.
However equally it is a danger to revert to a solely marshallian partial equilibrium type course. In a widely cited blog post Ryan Decker explores the dangers of partial equilbrium thinking and the advantages of proper modelling.
In typical empirical work and heuristic/narrative theorizing, it’s really difficult to avoid partial equilibrium reasoning. A DSGE model, even a very simple one, has more moving parts than my mind alone can keep track of, and it forces agents to obey resource constraints in a way that is really difficult without formality.
I don’t agree with him that DGSE is the best form of modelling. It has largely got is into the problem we are in. However as Ramanan says in response.
Personally I find stock-flow consistent models extremely useful to think about the working of the world as a whole. It is when you sit down and work through the models, that you realize how complicated the whole thing is and how naive intuition isn’t good enough.
DGSE models in ignoring state (stocks) and treating all agents with a single representative agents, rather than differential receivers of factor incomes as distinct agents were unable to properly model financial intermediation, money, liquidity or debt. But a properly education future generation of economists must be able to understand and model these in ways which are rigorous in their accounting.
So what is the role of economic history in building such understanding? The history of economic thought is too big a subject to a taught in a one semester course in the first year. All that can sink in from that is a chronology of economists. Rather I think it should build over several years into an inquiry of open questions in economics. Indeed I don’t think any of the great economists can be properly thought of in terms of providing partial and fully correct discoveries.
To my mind an economics curriculum needs to be founded around these contested core ideas, ideas such as what is interest? what are profits? what is saving and what is the impact of saving? What creates value? What is capital? There is no real agreement on any of these ideas.
To take just one example – savings.
Such a course might start off with the classical Turgot/Smith theory of savings and capital accumulation.
Then the early Austrian reformulation of the classical theory by Bohm-Bawerk where savings are intertemporal consumption.
Then the debate triggered by Bostedo’s criticisms of Bohm-Bawerk that he conflated two things (capital accumulation and not spending) and ignored the paradox of thrift, and Bohm-Bawerks famous response that money not spend adds to bank funding (implicit is loanable funds).
Then Keynes reformulation of the ‘paradox of thrift’ based on the savings=investment identity and Kaldors dynamic proof of this and the spending multiplier.
Then briefly dealing with the Ramsey theory of the optional savings rate.
Then finally all of these ideas would be revisited in terms of what we know now about money creation and accounting. This would reveal that none of the thinkers above provided full closure, that is because although investment creates savings ex-poste that investment if provided through loans still requires an expansion in banks capital ex-ante financed through profits invested from other firms. Also an endogenous money banking theory perspective (such as Davenport and Phillips) shows how excess reserves can propagate expanding banks potential lending even without creation of state money.
If studied alongside other core contested concepts such as interest the final year students would be able to understand the different ways in which these modules could be fitted together and how models could be built. It would require not a great degree of mathematical understanding to appreciate these modules. Rather the greater the mathematical understanding the greater options the scholar has in building the models. Such models would not be apriori general equilibrium, but once a model was comprehensive and properly covered stock and flow and all factor returns it could be used to test whether GE is achieved and behavior during disequilibrium. Much more useful.
Would not students taught in this way not be better modellers? Yes because in understanding the core concepts and debates they could model and test competing theories against different assumptions. The true mark of a science.