I realised that I needed to record a new introduction to my YouTube channel as the last one still suggested I was still employed at Sheffield University Management School, and that is no longer the case.
So, we recorded a new one, with a focus on political economy. This is it:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Excellent stuff, Richard. Sharp and focused. I’ve raised this subject over recent years through comments on various blogs, but it’s worth repeating in the context of your new intro. So, a short(ish) – true – story, by way of illustration.
Back in the early 1990s, when I was studying (as a mature student) for a degree in public administration (later to become government and politics), one of the most popular economics subjects was a second year option on political economy, which then fed through into a final year option on the political economy of the European Union. The second year course introduced students to the thinking of Ricardo, Smith, the two Mills, and Marx, all of whom set their ideas and theories of economics within a wider and deeper concern with the societies – and world – in which they lived, and therefore the politics of that world. They were, therefore, all political economists.
Economics taught as political economy was popular with students precisely because they could see how ideas/theories about economics were about the “real world” – albeit one that was by the 1990s part of history. But that’s where the lecturer who ran the course came in: explaining the impact of the thinking of these famous political economists on how contemporary economics and economies function (e.g. any discussion of free trade versus tariffs takes us back to Ricardo).
But sadly, despite its popularity, a change was afoot in the world of economics. Largely driven by academics in the US (unsurprisingly given they have more academics than any other country, combined with a decade of Reaganomics and Thatcherism) political economy was judged to be too “subjective”, and thus not rigorous enough for the new world of neo-classical (now neoliberal) economic theorising. This had to be numbers (maths) based. After all, numbers don’t lie, do they. And so econometrics arrived. And economic modelling and theorising using the newly available, and ever increasing, power of computing.
In practical terms at the university I was working at by that time (the mid to late 1990s) this meant that not only were courses on political economy dropped, but any student wanting to study economics now had to first pass an econometrics module. In short, anyone not good at maths didn’t get to study the “new” brand of – politics free – economics. In the Department of Economics and Politics where I worked the outcome was to be expected, but nonetheless, dramatic. Within a degree cycle (three years) hardly any students who were studying for a degree in (government and) politics took any economics options; and hardly any students studying for a degree in economics took any politics options. To my knowledge this type of development was, over time, replicated across many – if not all – English universities.
And yet politics free economics is probably one of the biggest cons ever foisted on academia, on what’s now a generation or more of students, and thus on society in general. And yet, somewhat coincidentally, it falls to an American academic – Harold Lasswell – to explain why. Because in 1937 Lasswell correctly asserted that politics is fundamentally about “who gets what, when and how” – to which we might also add “why”. Consequently, the public policy that (should) be a product of politics, and the economics that inform and underscore both the political thinking and the scope and scale of public policy, are fundamentally interlinked – as those political economists of old knew only too well.
And they also appreciated fully yet another fundamental feature of political economy – that, “who gets what, when, and how” (and why), is also all about power – which is why studying power (sources, types, etc) became such an important feature of political science in the 1960s and 70s. But that certainly isn’t a subject that those of a neoliberal mindset, nor those who benefit so very, very much from it politics and the policy that flows from it want “us” – the majority of the citizens of the world we inhabit – to appreciate. For politics free economics is, by definition, power free economics. It’s the economics of “take what you’re given and be thankful for it”; of the doffed cap to the landowner or your “betters”; of the slave or the serf and their owner; and, finally, of the fascist and dictator whoever they may be and wherever they are.
And so, YES, let’s resurrect political economy, and place recognition of, and explanation, analysis and critique of POWER – in all its forms, front and centre. If we do that neoliberalism will finally meet its match.
I entirely agree
I taught a very ppopulat course at City called ‘economics of the real world’
It was of the type you first noted – and very applied
Students liked it
My experience of degree courses in the 1990’s and mid 2000’s in housing management and an MBA echoes Ivan’s comments and it was that economics was not discussed at all, neither the political or pure versions. Attending the so-called student led reviews of the courses I did feedback on this, although in housing in the 1990’s it was time of coming to terms with Thatcher’s 1980’s housing policies and the analysis had all the hallmarks of left leaning critical consciousness. However, in terms of economic concepts, you were left to find these yourself and rope them in but you were on your own. Economics has become some sort citadel n academia I felt – it’s influence was everywhere but it was inscrutable.
However, after 14 years of what I can only call absolutely vicious austerity, a lot of that vibrant analysis and discussion in housing has become stunted – just like our poorer kids whose growth is being stunted by harsher living conditions. Housing is now not about delivering something better, it’s about coping.
The MBA I had done opted to take the orthodox route which for me was intolerable because I was told a lot about mastering a subject was by being able to question it and see pitfalls, being aware of the issues. The economics modules I was shown were all about analysing trends for competitive means and lacked anything critical – a masters course was essentially teaching bad economics I said rather than questioning the fundamentals was at odds with a masters level study. How did economics get a way with that I thought? Well, because it was a business administration course of course and maybe was Maybe Best Avoided (MBA) after all as Henry Mintzberg said I think.
So I agree with the post and Ivan. Economics has managed to shed the accountability, rigor and contestability that all other subject matters are exposed to, and in doing so, made a few of us extremely rich and the rest of us poorer because at the deep, dark heart of it is daylight robbery.
It is as simple as that.
Modern economics is intellectualised theft.
That’s a new angle, and one I like
Dear Richard,
What I am going to suggest might sound odd, nevertheless it will give you an insight to the issues you discuss on you channel with an added depth and dimension.
I am Dutch, and have lived in the UK since 2001. It took me ages to figure out how everything ‘functioned’ here. If I could only use one word to discribe the UK, it would be ‘chaos’. You British get such a bad deal, at every turn. You know that things can be lots better, yet can not seem to figure out how.
When I explain how the Dutch do things and values, to people of all walks of live, to university educated people, and my local Council member, they all experienced an epiphany, and realise how back-to-front the systems are here in Britain. I explain the Dutch ways, only on request, and with the aim to equip a person to think beyond the restains of British cultural thinking.
So, this is an invitation to you, to dicsuss Dutch political, media, and other social and democratic structures, with the aim to broaded you own insight and means to discuss the issues affecting the British. This can be a short and simple, or as detailed as you would like.
Have a great day (Een fijne dag toegewenst).
Pauline
Thanks
But I am finite – and will not be able to do that
Sorry
Richard
An excellent and clear introduction, very well articulated. No wonder you are a celebrity! Keep going, we need your voice very much.
Thanks
[…] It could also be because Economics has been purloined and disoriented as this informative post would suggest. […]