Economics in a Churn at last

While there has been a concerted movement over the past two decades to bring heterodox analysis back into the domain, the threads seem to be coming together now with the  #BlackLivesMatter movement at the forefront. Can we hope that this churn will see a difference in the way economics is studied and practiced as the White Male perspective is questioned? 

As Dani Rodrik tweeted (quoting here for easy reference to readers), 

" It doesn’t surprise me that the field, as a whole, reflects the ingrained attitudes and practices of the society of which it is part. But there are some features of the discipline that magnify and aggravate the problem. First, Economics is clubby. While good research does get recognized, the ability to produce it depends on networks. If you don’t start with the networks in place–a PhD from a top dept, a well-recognized advisor--you start with a significant handicap difficult to overcome. Second, the field is hierarchical. Even if you are in the right networks, you feel you are constantly being ranked. As a result even top economists are a weirdly insecure bunch. This self-absorption reduces the generosity & mentoring that junior members of the profession receive. Third, there are too many jerks in the discipline. Reputation hangs on your publications, and if you are doing well there relative to your peer group – which could be the profession as a whole or simply your own department–you get away with a lot of awful personal behavior. Given the clubbiness, hierarchy, and jerk quotient it's not surprising so many people, especially people of color and women, feel slighted & discriminated against. Only way things can change is by discussing these problems openly and instilling new norms of behavior which is why this discussion is so important. We all have responsibilities here--but change must start with senior scholars. I'm grateful to all who have spoken out – sometimes at some risk to their career – and made us all so much more conscious of the urgency of the task."

Development economics, in particular, has always suffered from the prevalent Anglo-centric perspectives. In a review of Morten Jerven's book Africa: Why Economists Get It Wrong, Grieve Chelwa noted

"Jerven thinks development economics should engage more historians given their unique skills for interrogating historical data sources and narratives. This is welcome. Surprisingly, Jerven does not call for the active engagement of African economists given that most of what he critiques has been authored by North American and European economists (his book should really have been titled Africa: Why Western Economists Get It Wrong). This oversight is telling because his critique clearly builds on the often neglected contributions of the Malawian economist Thandika Mkandawire. This last pickle aside, Morten Jerven’s book is a refreshing contribution to the debate about development scholarship on Africa and it deserves to be read by all."

We need a considerable shakeup in the way we, as economists, study our economies, teach in classrooms, analyse and give prescriptions. The least we can do is introspect our conditioning, and read more widely, with an open mind. We have to make sure we cite outside our comfort networks and give space to voices that have been unheard so far. 

Writing on this blog after a gap of nine years, it feels good to know that there is a strong movement for the better in place now. The churn will take time, but once established in universities, we can expect economics to be a more realistic discipline.