The Problem with the Top Mainstream Economics Departments There is a sentiment out there that the top university rankings in economics (and also other subjects) is all just specious nonsense. That is patent nonsense as I will explain. Part of the contrary sentiment of course is just sour grapes from those who could not get in or perhaps survive academically. Part of the sentiment also springs from the heterodox schools and thinking that the top schools are too buried in mainstream orthodoxy and too controlling, which are true. And part of the sentiment springs from a general animus toward anything or anyone at the top, a populist notion. However, if you think the rest of the world and significantly lower ranked schools seriously compete in terms of the quality of students and of faculty, you are badly mistaken. The top econ departments get the cream of the crop and push mainstream economics. But that is the problem in a way. The relevant issues is what is taught and how it is taught in those and other universities. Instruction in quantitative techniques is markedly superior, but such is not the problem. The framework of analysis in the top econ departments is mainstream neoclassical economics. Most economists at large recognize mainstream neoclassical analysis is clearly too narrow and flawed in some important regards. Worse, Chicago and now Harvard have become doctrinairely and apologetically very biased toward conservatism and a lassiez faire form of libertarianism. Neoclassical economics by no means needs to be that badly biased, even without the heterodox extensions, corrections and adjustments it needs for veracity. This is true because better students tend to sort it out and learn it all anyway. Recently, there have been walk-out strikes in Mankies undergrad Harvard econ classes because of the problems I discuss here. Even the newbies know something is wrong. But how to proceed is the problem. So the question is why is there this problem. The answer is simple. The mainstream is being very conspicuously belligerent here because its corporate research sponsors and top university donors have too much influence and control over the teaching and the research agendas. That control is considerable. It has been in place for sometime and it is growing stronger as the shift in Harvards economic department toward more conservatism indicates. For example, in about 1985, I was at MIT talking with a professor I was hiring as an expert witness in an big antitrust case I was handling. I asked him why MIT had no Marxist on it econ faculty like the top European Universities, He quickly said MITs corporate research sponsors and university donors would not tolerate that even for a heart beat. It had snowed the night before our meeting in his office at MIT and there was about four and a half feet of new snow on the ground. I had to low crawl on my belly much of the way from my nearby lodgings to get to Sloan Hall where the econ department is located. When I got there, about ten faculty members were already in their offices. I asked how and why. My expert explained, helicopters picked them up at their homes and brought them in. Without that minimal staffing, MITs econ department would lose about $400,000 for that day in corporate research grant funding. Talk about control! And this was way back then. The corporate control has other implications. Conservative faculty are hired and promoted over others, and what they teach and how they teach it is also controlled. A graduate student doesnt dare to try to do a dissertation under, say, Stanley Feldman on an aspect of MMT, for example. Heterodoxy is off limits where does not fit the conservative paradigm which is, in most regards. And good luck trying to get non-mainstream stuff published in the leading journals which the same top schools control. It is a lock out and it creates resentments. The money is controlling. If young grad students want recognition and later career advancement, they had better get in line and tow the line. Only the likes of later Laureates like Krugman and Stiglitz dare step out of line a bit. They are sort of untouchables. Top university faculty also whore themselves out as consultants because their resumes allow them to command top dollar saying and writing things publicly for their sponsors they would dare to in a university graduate seminar or class. The profession has adopted a toothless code of ethics, ignored in the breach more than honored. It is a mess. In short mainstream economics in America has largely been corrupted by corporate money and bought off, much like our congress. This is the problem in a nutshell. The hinterland must carry the torch in a balanced fashion until we come to our senses and act honestly.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 06:12:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015