Introduction
As explored in a previous blog entry, there are growing levels of global frustration amongst economic students at higher education institutions, as they grapple with their degrees’ lack of relevance and substance in relation to real world socio-economic challenges.
Although not a new phenomenon, the disconnect between what economic students are being taught in the classroom versus what they see take place in the world around them reached peak levels in the 2008 global financial crisis, spurring them on to make more concrete demands for change. Consequently, universities have been subject to mounting pressure as calls for adaptations to tertiary economic curriculums and, in particular, demands for pluralistic economic teaching are being echoed across all continents.
South Africa is no exception to this global trend and has just hosted its first ever Rethinking Economics for Africa Festival at WITS university, bringing together hundreds of students, social activists, academics, researchers and policymakers to discuss possibilities for adapting economics to better suit the African context. This is a very important first step to take, as it has become evident that one of the biggest challenges to changing economic teaching in South Africa is the uncertainty and apprehension as to what ‘economic pluralism’ actually means. Fears of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater,’ and simply replacing orthodox economics with heterodox theory are widespread, as those pushing for pluralism have not always made their case in a clear and precise manner, tainting the movement as being ideologically driven without a sound, objective basis.
Hence this blog aims to provide a framework with which to analyse the issue of economic pluralism in higher education institutions, so as to enable more precise discussions and effective problem-solving. It will also outline the author’s vision of what a pluralistic curriculum would achieve including, very importantly, a clarification of what economic pluralism is not meant to be.
So, what do we mean by economic pluralism?
Economic pluralism – ask twenty people what they understand by this term, and one is bound to get a wide variety of responses. This is part of the reason why the call for more economic pluralism at higher education institutions is often a very difficult, complex and contentious topic to discuss. What one would think should be an objective decision around the merits of including or excluding certain content in higher education economic curriculums, frequently turns out to be a politicized debate about which people have strong, varied emotions.
More often than not, this is because the ambiguous and nuanced nature of the term makes it difficult for people to effectively communicate their arguments, often unknowingly talking at cross purposes. Thus, it is very important to develop an analytical framework with which to untangle the various components of the pluralism debate, ensure clarity around the type of pluralism being discussed and correctly assess the specific issues.
Someone who has already been thinking about this is Sean Muller, a senior lecturer at the University of Johannesburg. In his insightful and very useful paper entitled, ‘What does a South African economics degree look like?’[1] – he clarifies various issues regarding the creation of a localized South African economics degree by asking a series of questions.
These questions are a brilliant way in which to wade through the pluralism debate, as they carefully draw out the different aspects involved and enable one to be very thorough in an assessment of economic curriculums in South Africa. For example, if we apply his framework to the main complaints being made by students across the world – a clearer picture of the problems emerge:
- Content of curriculums – what topics are being included? Many students working their way through a typical university economics curriculum are not taught that their course content, often neoclassical, is a specific school of thought, distinct from the myriad of economic theories that have emerged from a rich and complex global economic history. Similarly, they are not exposed to complementary subjects such as politics or history, which play an integral role in shaping economic events.
- Framing of content – how is the content being interpreted and presented to students? What is being portrayed in a good light, versus what is being shown to be bad? How are the different schools of economic thought or different types of economic systems being portrayed against one another? Why is economics framed as a discipline separate from politics, when political factors influence so many economic decisions?
- Contextualisation of the content – does the content reflect local circumstances and history? Students are taught economic models, mathematics and theory in isolation and in the abstract, without any contextualization to real world applications. But the circumstances of our countries or living environments often violate the assumptions underpinning models or theories. What then? Abstract models, mathematical equations and graphs, albeit meant to simplify complex phenomena, are undermined by their strict assumptions which fail to represent everything that is going on in the real world.
- Relevance of the content – is the content relevant to the socio-economic challenges currently facing students and their country? Many young economists graduate feeling very under-equipped to use their education and struggle to explain the things they see going on around them. They are not given the skills and the holistic understanding needed to be able to begin addressing the challenges their economies and countries face. Likewise, the textbooks from which we are taught do not reflect many of the major socio-economic issues challenging society, and you feel no more equipped upon graduation to begin addressing these than you did upon entering tertiary education.[2]
- Accessibility of the content – is the content being taught and assessed in a manner that students can relate to and understand? Are the teachers relatable?Economics is not always taught in a way that all students from different backgrounds can understand. Here, issues such as language barriers, the quality of teaching, the way in which the content is assessed is of importance.
Each of these points raise related yet separate issue; each meriting a debate in itself. It follows, that no single change is likely to address all of these issues and reforming the way that economics is taught may require multiple interventions to get it right. This is not necessarily problematic, as any proposed changes to the way in which economics is taught should be made incrementally and with caution.
What do we NOT mean by economic pluralism?
Just as important as creating a framework within which to have the pluralism debate, is the need to clarify what the call for economic pluralism in higher education institutions is not. People are skeptical because it is not entirely clear what such changes would entail or what a pluralistic economic curriculum would look like. It is particularly crucial to address this, as misconceptions and false assumptions are a hindrance to collaborative and inclusive progress.
For example, the call for pluralism has, for some reason, become associated with a ‘dumbing down’ of economics – people immediately assume that the intention is to remove the technical difficulties students struggle with and make the subject, as a whole, easier. Others have associated pluralism with “the politics of the left,” just as “the dominant economic orthodoxy currently has such a strong association with the political practices of neoliberalism”[3], and thus oppose it on an ideological basis.
Many of the negative reactions also stem from the assumption that pluralism will entail the baby being thrown out with the bathwater – getting rid of orthodox, neoclassical economics all together and just replacing it with alternative schools of thought. Another significant opposition to the call is the group of academics who see other schools of economic thought as being incorrect and therefore, not something that should be taught. For those who view economics as an objective science with a clear right and wrong, separate from other more subjective areas of humanities studies, there is not much room to debate different views and understandings of how the world works.
To address this particular perspective, a different and separate conversation may be necessary. But to move the debate forward, I would like to put forward the following personal statements about economic pluralism:
- It is not about taking away from curriculums but rather it is about adding more content
- It is not about the ‘dumbing down’ of economics but rather the development of more critical reasoning skills
- It is not about removing mathematics or technical, quantitative skills from the curriculums but rather it is about the development of the ability to apply such skills to varied, real-world issues
- It is not about an outright rejection of neoclassical economics but it is about broadening the scope to include more heterodox economics
- It is not an ideologically driven movement and it need not be aligned to any one political view at all
What would a pluralist economic curriculum achieve?
What then, would I like to see in an adequately pluralist economics curriculum? I am of the personal opinion that it would achieve the following objectives:
- Exposure to all relevant schools of thought, the history of their development and associated subjects such as politics or history
- Ability to critique different schools of thought and justify preferences
- Ability to adapt the application of economic theory to complicated and country specific situations
- Ability to creatively apply mathematics to solve real world issues as opposed to rote learning of formulas without understanding
- Stronger critical thinking, reasoning, research and data analysis skills
- Ability to draw on a range of theories and different subjects to create unique, multi-faceted solutions
The aim of such a curriculum would not be to get rid of orthodox economics, but instead, to present it as one possible way of interpreting economic events in the real world, with students being made aware of the myriad of other schools of thought and being able to substantiate why they might prefer one over the other.
It’s about equipping students to understand why they are being made to focus on getting the mechanism of mathematical tools correct, and how they can use these in a variety of real-world applications. It is also about ensuring that young graduates develop a well-rounded understanding of how development and policies works.
This blog is an excerpt from a longer report published in The New Agenda, the Institute for African Alternative’s flagship publication. If you would like to read more regarding the state of economic pluralism in South African universities, please follow this link.