How is it that despite the global economic crisis as a consequence to the practice of neo-liberal policy prescriptions, despite the turn-around in the globalization of the free markets with new protectionist policies being promoted by the United States, Europe, China and India, the discipline of Economics as it is taught in class rooms, continues to be dominated by Neo-Classical Micro-Economics, Monetarist & New Classical Macro-Economics and the free-radical Financial economics? Is it not high time that we promoted heterodox approaches in economics and thought a fresh on more appropriate and relevant analytical frameworks in the contemporary context instead of harping on neo-liberal ideology substituting for knowledge?
Well, of course, universities are usually behind the time in most subject areas! They say that in preparing for the next war, nations invariably actually prepare for the last one, which they weren't ready for! Universities hire mostly people they think are safe, and a few cutting edge wonders. Such candidates are either in the now or the wrong next! Hence, the lag when the world changes.
In this particular case, it might be argued, what's going on in the world is actually just a case of neo-liberal economics gone wrong. So, teaching neo-liberal economics, with a newish twist at the end, is quite valid. I don't think that's correct, but it will do for many of the universities for now until the now becomes clearer....
Christopher NOCK
Thank you very much Prof.Christopher Nock for that reply. I very much appreciate the way you seem to suggest a process of change in ideas with a lag. That is very optimistic. Yes, there is bound to be a lag in learning as well as coming up with alternative thinking in place of an established set of ideas holding dominance.
It's however, a decade now after the world has been hit by the global economic down turn. The world economy is still struggling hard to recover from it. Its been nearly the same time since the French Commission Report engaged in a self critical assessment as to whether the analytical framework economics as a discipline has taken vis-à-vis development and the policy approach it has encouraged have misrepresented development, because of which economists failed to see the crisis coming?
Given this long duration, that new ways of understanding have not yet seen the light in our class rooms, in terms of reshaping the curriculum, altering the weight assigned to the so called 'main-stream' thinking (occupying nearly the major part of compulsory courses), should we be wondering why there is so much of resistance to learning especially in institutions of higher learning?
Institutions of knowledge are supposed to be path-finders in moments of crisis. On the contrary if they themselves end up being slow learners, one would have to explain the underlying reasons for it. Compare the current experience with the one which involved the demolition of Keynesianism. Do we see some distinct difference in the role of the academia, academic institutions and organizations of today?
Well, in the end, Keynesianism had clearly failed, in a practical sense. There wasn't much wrong with it theoretically, and it fitted well with the economic situation of the post war era (and, indeed, the pre-war one). But, the internationalisation of trade eventually broke it's practical tools: state management, close to full employment, etc.
Neo-liberalism replaced it, but it also failed. Ten years yes. Not that long when you're my age! The was no ready and waiting alternative because it's rapid demise was so unexpected (not least by the economists, who should have known better!). So different blocs and nations now thrash around in all sorts of disparate directions. So what is there to teach now? No new orthodoxy....
I'm not an economist, I'm a political philosopher who dabbles in a few matters he shouldn't! I predicted the coming demise of practical neo-liberalism in 2005. I suggested there'd be a swift backtrack to something akin to Keynesianism, more suitable for current needs. But earlier than that, when all was booming, I was telling colleagues we were in the 1920s, heading for the 1930s. I was told I was talking nonsense. That says something about the vision of academia in general.
NOCK
Of course, I should have added, I was clearly wrong with my prediction of a new Keynesianism! I was in the wrong next, I'm afraid! Instead we got a long dose of austerity, combined with business friendly monetary policy.
I can see a committed neo-liberal arguing that this combination was actually neo-liberal in itself. A neo-liberal crisis response. A new phase in the neo-liberal story which demonstrates its resilience. So, again, teaching neo-liberalism could still be thought reasonable.
NOCK
As a long-time worker in the field of psychiatry, mental health and mental illness, in direct practice, as well as research, policy, and programs, I take strong issue with the used of the word "Schizoprenia," (as I always do) for anything other than what it is: chronic and severe mental disorder. The myth that it is /means "split personality" led to use of the word anywhere, everywhere to mean "split," and is incorrect, arbitrary, and NOT creative. Pleas stop.
Thank you
@Mary-Helen, dear lord, give the guy a break! I don't know, but English may not be @Vijay's first language. Certainly, he claims not specialist knowledge in your subject area. Are your foibles so important that we should all cow-tow to them? Is that the state of your culture today? God help us everyone....
NOCK
It's not a problem with what I said, it's a problem with your attitude and, indeed, your utter rudeness. So don't try an make joke of it in such a pathetic way. I'm perfectly relaxed thank you very much. You, on the other hand, behave like a vile adolescent. Nasty person.
NOCK
Dear Dr.@ Mary-Helen Castanuela please accept my sincere apologies for hurting your sensibilities. But in the context of its usage it is directed not at the victims of this condition but the privileged who create such a condition. And the usage is a metaphor and is merely describing the state of an inanimate abstract entity - the discipline of economics. It has no reference therefore to patients of this condition. I have merely borrowed the usage of this description which existed for an earlier era following the Keynesian contributions being taught simultaneously with neo classical thinking. This has been employed originally by Snowdon and Vene, two respected scholars on Macro Economics. Who from what I make out reading their writings are themselves quite sensitive scholars. I think the usage of the terminology is for want of a better description of the condition, more for common-sense usage with all its pedestrian errors, of which quite clearly as an expert you have much greater understanding. . If you could suggest a better way of achieving the intended objective of communicating about the 'split' which you seem to have seen through as a meaning in the usage of the current term, without being insensitive, it will be very helpful. Your concern however is well taken.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science
- International History and Politics
- Globalization