How Silly Can We Economists Get

Economists are impressed with measurement and the allure of SCIENCE.  In fact, one could argue that our motto as a discipline is "Science is measurement, and when you cannot measure, measure anyway if you want to be perceived as scientific."  I jokingly tell my students all the time that in the old days we used to be political economy, but the problem was that if your discipline ends with a "y" you get thrown in with "philosophy" and "history".  This isn't the "cool crowd", it is much better to hang with the "ics" crowd --- "mathematics", "mechanics", and "physics".  If you hang with the "ics" crowd you are a scientist, if you hang with the "y" crowd, well you may be a lot of things but not a scientist.

Like Hayek, I think this attitude has done damage to our discipline and the unholly alliance between "scientisim" and "statism" was responsible for much of the failed public policy of the 20th century that not only produced economic deprivation but also political tyranny.  Despite our learning from these failures to some extent, we continue to behave as a profession in ways that reinforce these silly scientistic prejudices.

Here is the latest example --- the downgrading of economic history in Australia as reported on the History of Economic Society email list.

Dear Colleagues

As you may be aware, DEST has commissioned the Australian Bureau of
Statistics to review the use of the Australian Standard Research
Classification (ASRC). The RFCD codes is one of these classifications,
which will change to Fields of Research. As you will see from the
statement below, major and negative changes are proposed for economic
history. This appears to be largely the handiwork of one person in ABS
(David Brett). His logic is that economic history uses the processes and
methods of history rather than economics and that the lowish amount of
R&D money generated by our area requires a lower classification wherever it is located. These points are addressed in a general statement below.
We urge all economic historians to register their objections through
their own university and, if you wish, with David Brett himself. Our
statement is a guideline - you may wish to modify it to your reflect
your own views. Feedback needs to be provided by 10th September.

Kind regards

Simon Ville

President, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand

The economic history community in Australia is strongly opposed to
foreshadowed changes to its classification suggested by the proposed
reforms to the RFCD codes. Under the new Fields of Research categories,
'economic history and history of economic thought' is removed as a four
digit classification within economics and is relocated as a 6 digit
classification in the History and Philosophy category.

Economic history is an active field of research in Australia. Its peak
body, the Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, manages the Australian Economic History Review, an internationally significant journal in its field which recently was admitted to the Social Science Citation Index. In addition, the Society hosts an annual conference which receives in excess of 50 papers, and offers a range of prizes for best article, PhD, honours thesis, and conference paper.

While the new classification retains a place for economic history, it is
downgraded in importance and is incorrectly located in history and
philosophy. In Australia, as overseas, the overwhelming majority of
economic history research is conducted in economics schools and commerce faculties and explicitly uses the methodologies and theories of these disciplinary areas. This fact is recognised by the Research Quality
Framework, which locates economic history and its journals in Panel 10
(Economics, Commerce, Management). Economic history research does not seek substantial research grant expenditure, in most cases it is capital
extensive work that draws upon pen & paper (laptop) and access to an
archive. The substantial output of economic history, though, can be
clearly indicated by the contents of the Australian Economic History
Review, the regular contribution of Australian authors to overseas
journals in the field, and the authorship of monographs. Further details
can be provided.

It seems that some of the protests to the proposed changes are having an impact.

We are also getting press coverage. Many emails have been sent to

asrc.comments@abs.gov.au <mailto:asrc.comments@abs.gov.au> 

Very high profile Australian economists have been writing to voice their
disapproval, including those that are Chairs of our various Economics
Societies.

The pressure seems to be paying off. The ABS is starting to be less
dogmatic. Now they are saying we can stay in the economics
classification IF we remove the word "history" from our title. For
example, we might use the label "Development of Economic Theory and
Policy" or "Review of Economic Analysis". This is unacceptable to many
members. Steve Kates writes "The ABS should not tell us what to call our
subject area because it is convenient for their classification system.
We have to tell them that we are economists who learn our trade by
studying the history of our subject. In my view we should not give an
inch". The fight continues.

So I guess my depiction of the battle between the "y" crowd and the "ics" crowd continues.  I guess by calling it silly I reveal my preference for those "y' words.

Comments

[Daniel J. D'Amico]

Did you see this post by Dani Roderik?

"if you are smart enough to be a Nobel-prize winning economist maybe you can do without the math, but the rest of us mere mortals cannot. We need the math to make sure that we think straight--to ensure that our conclusions follow from our premises and that we haven't left loose ends hanging in our argument.

In other words, we use math not because we are smart, but because we are not smart enough.

We are just smart enough to recognize that we are not smart enough. And this recognition, I tell our students, will set them apart from a lot of people out there with very strong opinions about what to do about poverty and underdevelopment."

PS -- you should allow html in your comments.

[Steve Horwitz]

There may be feedback effects here - if HET and EH get excluded from "economics," and that matters for tenure and promotion and other decisions, won't it even further eviscerate the study of those two areas in graduate programs? If "those who make such distinctions" want to exclude those subfields, it will matter a great deal.

I certainly agree with your overall point here Pete, but I don't think it's a silly debate. Given the various institutional structures in place, where EH and HET get "placed" has real impact.

[Peter Boettke]

Steve,

I agree with you. I was being unclear. I side with the "y" crowd and deplore the argument and tactics of the "ics" crowd. I was calling the "ics" crowd silly. I agree this battle is worth fighting --- with sustain efforts, with reasonable agression, and with ridicule.

Pete

[Andrew Leigh]

I agree on the issue, but the lobbying effort is a bit heavy-handed. David turns out to be a nice bloke, trying to do a tricky job. I wouldn't be surprised if personalising and politicising it becomes counter-productive.

[John]

Dr Boettke,

I was reading a response to another post on math in econ by Rodrik by Dr. Cowen.

Dr. Cowen mentions Rodrik's new book with an Amazon link. The book description says the following:

To most proglobalizers, globalization is a source of economic salvation for developing nations, and to fully benefit from it nations must follow a universal set of rules designed by organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization and enforced by international investors and capital markets.

Am I being simplistic here? I never considered those supra-national institutions like the WTO and IMF to be integral to globalization. Am I wrong here?

[PJ]

The problem with the reclassification is that it would separate economic history from economics for purposes of funding and in other respects (salaries?).

It is not a 'y' vs. 'ics' thing.

In Australia university funding is very centralised and this is no small problem.

[PJ]

The problem with the reclassification is that it would separate economic history from economics for purposes of funding and in other respects (salaries?).

It is not a 'y' vs. 'ics' thing.

In Australia university funding is very centralised and this is no small problem.