Competition and Level Playing Fields

I am participating in a conference this week sponsored by the Global Enterpreneurship Monitor, the GMU School of Public Policy, and Babson College.  The conference is, as one would expect, about entrepreneurship and public policy.  In one of the papers that I read for the conference there is a discussion about how level is the playing field for different types of start-up enterprises, and how competitive the industries are that they enter into.

A lot of business literature often throws terms around from technical economics, but confuses the colloquial use of a term and the scientific meaning of the term.  When text-book economics refers to competitive conditions, they do not mean activity of competing, but instead a set of conditions.  When we discuss the idea of a level playing field we mean a fair race, not that the race isn't difficult.

When Austrian school economists speak of competition, they mean the activity of competing.  It is analogous to sports competition --- there is rivalry, active seeking of competitive advantage, etc.

This is one of the reasons that I believe there is so much to learn from the field of sports for the discipline of economics, for trying to build a career in the discipline, and for participating within an economy in general.  Sports provide us with one of the main "school of rules" in our youth and also demand of us the sort of commmitment to excellence (individual and team) to succeed that can provide important life lessons.

A few blog entries ago, I asked about the most inspirational quotes from coaches that provide life lessons.  I forgot two very important ones from perhaps the greatest basketball coach of all time, John Wooden. First, as he often said "It is what you learn after you think you have learned it all that matters most."  Second, he stressed a point that is foundational for any teacher "You haven't taught until they have learned."  Think seriously about both of them and tell me that if you truly listened to them it wouldn't improve your approach to scholarship and teaching!

One of the sports spots I read regularly is Brian McCormick's Cross Over Movement, which contains his reflections on what is wrong with the basketball training program and youth sports philosophy in the US today.  He also has a wonderful newsletter for players and coaches entitled "Hard 2 Guard".  A phrase he uses is one that I again believe is a very important one for aspiring economic professors: "Practice in proportion to your aspirations."

I cannot tell you how many students show up to earn their PhD at GMU with the aspiration of obtaining a faculty appointment at a major university.  Obtaining a tenure-track post at a top 20 PhD program in economics is, as David Colander, the brass ring everyone is seeking to grap.  The competition is fierce for these positions.  But the number of students are willing to really work as hard as it would take to achieve that goal is certainly much less than the number who say they want to achieve it.  As McCormick stress to players, it is what you do outside of your formal classes that matters for your ability to achieve loafty goals.  Remember that -- "Practice in proportion to your aspirations."  He talks about the 24 hour athlete, substitute the word economists for athlete and you get the picture.  When you find an athlete (student) who is willing to do, a coach (a professor) cannot help but appreciate that player (student) and do everything in their power to try to help them achieve their goal.

Comments

[Rafe Champion]

Many years ago in correspondence I told Popper that all the problems of philosophy could be found by making a close study of cricket but sadly he did not ask for an explanation. He missed the chance to learn about cricket and football in New Zealand where his closest associate, Colin Simkin, was a lover of classical music and spurned manly outdoor games.

For example the problem of induction arises from trying to predict what a batsman will score in his next innings, based on his previous record.
Beyond that there are all the problems of explanation in the human sciences. http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2368

Out of that analysis came the need for a theory of objective/public/shared ideas. This was thoughtfully provided by some Austrians and others, although it is generally overlooked.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/popobjectknow.html

That piece (from 1985) is not new but nobody has ever asked enough questions to prompt further detailed development although this is a more recent scan on the general line of thought.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2889

I am betting that this movement towards "objective knowledge" (alongside subjective knowledge and interacting with it) has more to offer the human sciences than the long march through Gadamer and the hermeneutic turn. Still, maybe they are complementary lines of thought.