My publisher once told me adamantly: “Economics doesn’t sell.”
I was gobsmacked. “The subject that tells us all about supply and demand and how to run a business or a household doesn’t make a quid? How could that be?” I asked.
“Well, you see, my friend,” he explained, “it’s the dismal science.” Not to be deterred, I looked up the origins of this term to see whether it was an albatross around the neck of economics and its popularity. In my voyage of intellectual discovery, I found some myths and realities about economics and how it has been perceived.
The British historian Thomas Carlyle first used the words “dismal” and “economics” together in 1888 in his debates with the Quakers and Baptists – the “Exeter-Hall Philanthropists” – who called for emancipation of black slaves in the West Indies and whom he feared would be worse off as free people under the laws of supply and demand, as had happened to free agricultural labourers in Ireland during the famine. Carlyle is reported to have said of economics:
“Not a ‘gay science’ I should say, like some we have heard of: no, a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one, what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science.”
As a result, several myths about economics developed. Some are still hanging around today, like a dead cat, stinking to high heaven.
Myth one: economics is not ethical
It’s all about how to be selfish. Hence the term “homo economicus” to describe rational decision-makers pursuing their own ends. Or as my grandpa, who was a professional punter at Randwick, used to say: “Always back the horse called “self-interest”; it doesn’t always win but you can guarantee it will be a trier.”
However, the real story is more complicated. Early political economists were moral philosophers. Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments was in some ways a much more important treatise in the early development of economic thought than his The Wealth of Nations. Smith, as a moral philosopher, was interested in ethical behaviour and what was better for society as a whole.
In fact, in Australian economics today, many of our leading thinkers, such as UNSW’s own distinguished emeritus professor, John Nevile (after whom my fellowship is named), and the likes of Ross Gittins (the son of a Salvation Army chaplain) have strong ethical and religious roots.
On the other hand, some economists (of the neoclassical variety) take a different tack. For instance, Milton Friedman, the best-known member of the Chicago School, famously said: “The only ethical obligation of a business is to make a profit.” The debate rages on.
Myth two: economics is not accurate
Many of the natural scientific community have sneered at economics for “not getting its forecasts right” and resort to a familiar joke: “when you get four economists in a room, you get five answers”. This seems to forget that economics is one of the social sciences, predicting human behaviour, rather than “hard” science. Of course, economists themselves have tried to make the discipline more “hard” and mathematical. The risk? Rather than a rich man’s sociology, it’s become a poor man’s mathematics. Perhaps economists suffer from “physics envy”?
Myth three: economics is dry
You hear this all the time. Well it’s a difficult subject, but dry? Whether it’s the economics of being a child, growing up, getting a job, getting married or working out super, economics is about everything that touches our lives. As the Cambridge economist Alfred Marshall said, “Economics [is] the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life.”
Myth four: economics won’t get you a job
When I was at university, economics was deemed “too risky” and everybody was advised to do accounting as a “fall back”. Two decades of full employment later, I have found economics to be a means to a number of very stimulating and interesting jobs. Furthermore, I have found that many of my colleagues at Austrade, DFAT, the ACTU and in the private sector “secretly” have economics degrees but didn’t tell people they were economics graduates. (At Austrade I was the only one “out of the closet”, so to speak as the “chief economist”, a step up from my high school drama The Wind in the Willows in which I played the “chief weasel”.)
In many professions with a business dimension – accounting, politics, journalism, marketing, engineering or general management – economics is a useful discipline to have.
Myth five: economics books don’t sell
Well, we are no Stephen King or JK Rowling but we economists have actually done OK here. In fact, my own publisher had a change of mind, after he saw the success of Freakonomics (a collaboration between Steven Levitt and the author Stephen Dubner) and told me to “hurry up and get that manuscript finished".
There’s also Gittins’ The Happy Economist, John Quiggin’s Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us, Disconnected by economist-turned Labor MP Andrew Leigh, and the new contribution by Jessica Irvine titled Zombies, Bananas and Why There are no Economists in Heaven: the Economics of Real Life. In fact, my publisher (Allen&Unwin) is the publisher of most of these titles and has become a “true believer”.
So, economics does sell. In the words of the famous British economist James Meade: “We used to be called the dismal science, but now we are known to be gay.”
Maybe there is a happy and colourful future for economics after all.
No economists were harmed in the production of this article.
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
"Some economists (of the neoclassical variety) take a different tack. For instance, Milton Friedman, the best-known member of the Chicago School, famously said: “The only ethical obligation of a business is to make a profit.”
What a brute that Friedman is, hey! :)
In fact, free-market economists argue their economic prescriptions have been proven to make people better off. This, they would suggest, makes their activity profoundly ethical. The nice words and good intentions of Keynesians mean nothing if they don't actually work.
As Adam Smith wrote, 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest'.
Paul Pagani
Teacher
Adam Smith also warned against the market in the form of unrestrained capitalists but that is usually ignored by the neo-classicists, perhaps validating the very notion that they eschew ethical behaviour.
The ideas of Keynes seemed to prove fruitful in Australia over recent years.
Jeremy Hall
PhD student
I certainly buy into myths one and two. My perception (based on no training) is that lots of economics is only accurate if you assume everyone will act selfishly to get what they want. In cases where that's true it can be a "hard" science, and I'm under the impression economists get so much stuff drilled into them under that assumption that some of them start thinking it's universal.
I'm sure they do address the real world, & I'd be interested to learn how... no doubt it's a much harder science when you take into account that one thing most of us want is to not act like selfish jerks ;P
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
"No economists were harmed in the production of this article."
What a senseless waste!
I've never been able to find the alleged connection between economics and accounting, but quite clearly some economists see their work as some sort of book-keeping and auditing. The only direct connection I can see is they both deal with money.
But once economics is divorced from policy - from analysis of the system and how it works or doesn't - I reckon it ceases to be economics and starts to look like book-keeping, dancing attendance on the status quo, too micro to be of much value... a tool of shop-keepers. Dismal indeed.
Now I wonder how "Harry Potter and the Invisible Hand" would go in the market.
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
Economics is gay.
I follow Professor Steve Keen.
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
He has some strong views about his field.
His book is selling quite nicely, thank you.
http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DebunkingEconomics2FrontCover-198x300.png
The problem is psychological and needs a psychiatrist to sort it out.
Here is a good one.
Dr Iain McGilchrist.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoXiHStLfjP0&ei=1H1KUMGdEPCYiAf3tIHABg&usg=AFQjCNFoA-lDn_TgFhybDSkxSCTlRaEuTg&sig2=BclGhEctc2fxVmXt6JpFrQ
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Calling something 'gay' is not fashionable it is offensive.
Also, instead of copying and pasting links, anyone can do that, try writing an idea, a concept, an opinion.
Just a thought.
:)
Geoff Davies
Retired scientist
Arthur thanks very much for the last link. I was not aware of McGilchrist, now I'll buy his book.
Dianna he was just quoting the quote in the article, which is the old usage of 'gay'. Some of us are old enough to have seen the shift. :-)
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
Anyone can paste links, but can you read a whole book?
There is a fundamental flaw in the architecture of our brains. Without insight and understanding of this flaw we cannot understand the limitations of our models.
The error all of us make is a propensity is to confuse the map with the terrain.
We only have one Superpower, our brains. (Plural)
When all else fails, read the manual.
Who did I call gay?
Michael Bolan
Systems practicioner
Myth 5 - Economics is a science.
It's a set of theories collected together in an attempt to explain an abstraction. As Prof Ian Lowe stated - you can't see the economy from space.
Geoff Davies
Retired scientist
Sorry, mainstream economics is not accurate, it is wildly inaccurate. Mainstream economists did not see the GFC coming, though plenty of sensible people did. Steve Keen did it by looking at debt, which (amazingly) is excluded, along with money, from mainstream macro-economic models.
Neoclassical economics is pseudo-science - it uses fancy mathematics to cover absurd assumptions, and it fails to compare its predictions (esp equilibrium) with observations. The economy was far from equilibrium before, during and after the GFC. Actually it's a complex self-organising system that is always far from equilibrium.
Read my Eight Elementary Errors of Economics:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/eight-elementary-errors-now-on-steve-keens-debtwatch/
and my eBook for in-depth analysis:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/eight-elementary-errors-now-on-steve-keens-debtwatch/
Chris Booker
Research scientist
the main problem with economics is that it is based on very poor levels of evidence. Association is usually interpreted as causation. This has huge impacts in terms of economic policy, which affects the lives of everyone in a country but is usually based on nothing more than an affiliation to a school of thought which is probably best described as 'ideology' rather than 'economic science'.
Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
logged in via Facebook
...'Perhaps economists suffer from “physics envy”?...'
Economics will remain "physics envy" till economists finish the development of a unified theory which is free from all assumptions on market prices.
Rory McGuire
Science commentator
Poor Tim. The response to his article is not looking very kind . . . But if the Emperor is wearing no clothes - what can you say?
Read moreI will agree that his fourth myth, that economists can't get jobs, is indeed a myth. But the more important question is: who benefits from employing an economist? Apart from the economist, that is.
Economists get jobs because they are employed by other economists, or those influenced by economists. They have established an exclusive and mystical society that specializes…
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Is it time to go home now?
Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
logged in via Facebook
Adam Smith wrote, 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest'.
May I add "....and from the mercy of Nature"
A Smith's statement without Nature has led talented economists like M Friedman to the famed quantity theory MV = PQ while it should be
MV = PQ + aG where G: contribution of Nature in the production of Q and a is the cost of using Nature.
Just imagine an economy without money M = 0 or when V = 0 (eg. Cambodia between 1975 and 1979) so P = 0 but Q still remains different from 0 to give people a decent living at a greater cost to Nature and in that case the quantity equation becomes invalid for Q of the economy should be Q = aG.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Thank you Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
You awoke me from my slumber.
I have never understood why traditional economics fails to use as its basis the environment.
We would not be facing AGW had we looked at the consequences of our actions on the world around us.
And we are not learning:
Fracking; as in you have to be frackin' insane to consider fracturing the earth and then forcing water, sand and other additives (chemicals) to expand fissures in underground rocks to free oil or natural gas trapped within them.
I have a feeling that old Nature is going to form judgement and we not going to pass.
Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
logged in via Facebook
Dianna
Sorry to wake you up.
Human beings are smart so they invent the economic science to organise their production - together with various technological progresses, advanced processes and organisation methods - in the last few centuries to minimise the rate of nature utilisation (scarce resources including labour manual resources). Problem is human consumption and wastage are so excessive while enterprises are "over-driven" by profits so Nature starts complaining and demand human beings to be smarter in their exploitation of Nature, to search for new medicines to cure new diseases, and find new ways to control damages that come from their over-exploitation of Nature.
Back to the topic of this article: it is time for economist to search for new theories to keep up with scientific advancement which is serving humans but unfortunately damaging Nature at the same time.
Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu
logged in via Facebook
Some more food for thought:
Read more"In this lecture Professor King will argue that economics is unique among the social sciences in having a single monolithic mainstream, which is either unaware of or actively hostile to alternative approaches. He will present a case for pluralism in economics, derived from the complex and ceaselessly changing nature of the world in which we live. He will concentrate on two arguments. First, economic reality is very complicated, so that the questions that economists ask…