Economics plays a central role in our societies with major policies framed, formed and implemented by its specialists and its special way of viewing the world (Maesse et al. ,2021). This role has brought some benefits- it is hard to deny that the phenomenal increase in general living standards and equality in developed countries from the end of the second world war until the 1980s was aided by the work of economists such as John Maynard Keynes. It is even more difficult to argue against the damage to equality within countries caused by some forms of particularly neoliberal economics since the 1980s (McBride & Evans, 2017) or the flaws in that model that lead such disasters as the 2007/2008 global financial crises (O’Rourke & Hogan, 2014) . Many argue very convincly that bad economics and limited visions also go along to explain the relatively slow economic growth since 1980 (Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023).
Pitchfork Economics is a podcast series that argues that neoliberal economics has a lot to answer for in terms of the world’s current woes. In this recent episode, the guest was David Demming, who amidst much playful teasing about how damaging his profession is, managed to talk about some recent research work (Freeman, Xie, Zhang & Zhou, 2024) that shows economics suffers from a very economistic problem: a limited and restricted number of dominant suppliers. The basic argument is that economics is unusually dominated, compared to other disciplines, by economists from about eight very influential departments in currently highly ranked universities. The economics produced in this monopolised supply is then limited by the homogenous type of individual that get professorships there, and so reflects a limited range of interests and visions. The lack of the cognitive variety does not promote new insights or breakthroughs. David Demming highlights, in the podcast and his Atlantic article, this very big problem of monopoly in the supply of economics. Demming also points to some policies changes that might help but his very economistic approach to the issue illustrates how problematic the smallness of the economics world is.
The working paper that David Demming draws on seems very well researched and cites lots of other relevant work – no doubt it will soon find a home in a prestigous journal. However, the work does not connect with much outside the economics discipline that could help complement its insights. To its credit Freeman, Xie, Zhang & Zhou (2024) does cite one of Marion Fourcade studies on the economics profession but tellingly the one that appears in an economics discipline core journal. The work does not connect with any of the studies by Jens Maesse that show that the economics discipline’s practices restrict ways of thinking and talking about problems, for example how ‘proper topics’ needed to be focussed on by those striving to be successful economists. Dieter Plehwe and his colleagues have done lots of work showing how social networks (for example, of think-tanks) tend to restrict thinking in particular economics ‘thought collectives’, as well as suggesting ways of broadening sources of economic policy advice. This lack of connecting to work outside the discipine is not a particular problem with Freeman, Xie, Zhang & Zhou (2024). This general tendency of economics is the problem. Taking an approach purely embedded in one discipline is far from optimal, yet the most influential of social sciences on policy, economics tends to isolation.
Freeman, Xie, Zhang & Zhou (2024) stress particularly how the concentration of influence within the discipline problem adds to the greater problem as I see it of an isolated economics discipline. The word ‘elite’ no longer evocates in many,the often desire meaning of the ‘best’ or ‘highest quality’ but rather conveys implications of snobbery, narrow vision and self-serving power. The narrowness of background and prespectives of such elites does vary a lot (O’Rourke, Hogan & Donnelly, 2015) but there is much evidence in addition to that of Freeman, Xie, Zhang & Zhou (2024) that it peaks dangerously in some powerful sections of some societies. As recent work has shown even the Noble prize for the natural sciences might as reliable a measure of priveliged background as of scientific contribution. The competition to be ‘High Ranked’, ‘Excellent’ and ‘Top Tier’ seems to be limiting recruitment of talent and narrowing perspectives, more than promoting valuable work. Many talented academics are now trying to figure out alternative paths to excellence amidst the metrics of the modern university systems.
The greater problem for economics, of specialisation and isolation of academic specialists is not just one for the social sciences or even just academic disciplines in general but a problem of increasing hyper-specialization (Milgram, 2015) However, it is particularly damaging for specialisms that influence policy so much. Economics as a discipline urgently needs to tackle its dangerous aloofness but the rest of social sciences needs to learn to interact more fruitfully to serve policy and public discussions. Academic disciplines are often divided by their use of particular methods and methodologies providing a very sharp but restricted focus on problems. For policy discussion and greater overall understanding we need to learn to interact more, exchanging ideas and insights across methodologies, perspectives and ideologies. Work on ways to do this is important and needed for we don’t have many solutions to this problem. One way might be to focus cross-disciplinary conversations more on topic than method – I made such an argument here, suggesting ‘key words’ might be one way to do this. However, we need a lot more solutions from across the disciplines. if social science work is going to optimitize its contributions to society.
First version published 20250306, minor revisions 20250307.
Leave a Reply