Totally agree Ian Kennedy. It should be noted that physicists and mathematicians different style of thinking, which helps to solve economic problems.
It is because they can model complex systems well, such as causes-and-effects.
Totally agree Ian Kennedy. It should be noted that physicists and mathematicians different style of thinking, which helps to solve economic problems.
I am not sure about the facts but can understand the reason. Most of the modern economics is dependent on mathematical models. Obviously mathematicians and physicists are the best people who can identify the variables and build complex system that can explain the behavior which is difficult to explain qualitatively.
I don`t think so. Economics and Physics belong to different faculties. There must be some sort of consideration for this issue.
Not exactly physics, but I personally know many people who have their basic degree in science (engineering) and then master and PhD in economics. Many Research Fellows and Senior Research Fellows working with International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) have such profiles. It is only in developing countries where, people are not moving into disciplines, which are not related to the ones in which they graduate. Otherwise it is common practice world-wide particularly in US of A.
What I can infer is that physical sciences are more mathematical and so is modern economics, so it is easier to make a switch, and also there is no harm, as most of us now work into a multidisciplinary mode.
I know some students of mine who did their Ph D in manufacturing engineering, move into finance sector because of their better mathematical modelling and computer skills.
I did meet many Ph.D holders in almost all fields who have the first degree in basic science.
I have never heard anyone who is a Ph.D. in Economics with a Physics background. Therefore, it is difficult for me to believe that most Ph.D. in economics are with Physics background. Though I have heard people from mathematics and engineering background doing Ph.D in Economics.
My older son is a Ph.D. in economics from John Hopkins University; i will ask him and come out with what he says.
I do not know about this fact. However, from the answers I see that Mathematicians and Physicists are good for economics, because "their better mathematical modelling and computer skills", etc. I tent to disagree with that. If you examine what kind of mathematics they teach in economics departments, you will see some classical mathematics (functional analysis, optimisation theory, etc.). They do not teach how to cope with non-probabilistic uncertainty. this may be the reason for bad economic models. These models we have to pay for the risks. In fact the whole economic crisis are essentially due to the bad models and of course the infinity thirst for money. Any way the calculations of risks for all these products are made usually by mathematicians!
So I think there is a serious problem of economics curriculum.
Dear Sylantyev Sergiy,
I think that your presumption is not a rule in Hungary. I have never heard on an economy PhD holder who started his carrier with a physics degree.
Would you be as kind as to tell me which one is your first name Sylantyev or Sergiy?
Physicists have an advantage when studying economics because they are trained to understand how the 'micro' scale works through their studies of fundamental particles of matter and energy. They understand how the 'macro' scale works through their studies of cosmology (e.g., how did the universe form, how do galaxies operate, etc.). Physicists also understand how systems work through their studies of laws of motion, momentum, forces (strong, weak, nuclear, etc.) and how objects interact with eah other. Physicists alsocome with an outstanding understanding of mathematics and how to apply it to problem solving. As you can see, Physicists by their training understand how to approach ecomonic problems through their training: micro scale (Microeconomics), macro scale (Macroecomomics), mathematics (econometrics), interactions between objects (business transactions), forces affecting interactions between different objects (politics, wars, social unrest, news, etc., and their impacts on business transactions), systems knowledge (how does a trade war between Columbia and Argentina affect the price of industrial diamonds from southern Africa). I believe this is why Physicists who study economics do well in the subject.
Dear @Costas Drossos, People who are doing models for economical problems are not mathematicians, they are economists because mathematicians do build abstract solution models from different points of view taking into account some factors and leaving others. So, the final decision to take a model and include and leave factors and leave other models does affect the solution.
Don't know the answer to the question, but the following is a direct quote from the Economist Jokes page (http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/JokEc.html) which may give some insights:
'from the preface to Paul Krugman's book, "Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations" (1994, page xi): An Indian-born economist once explained his personal theory of reincarnation to his graduate economics class. "If you are a good economist, a virtuous economist," he said, "you are reborn as a physicist. But if you are an evil, wicked economist, you are reborn as a sociologist."'
While there are many opportunities for interdisciplinary work there is no clear majority of economists with a PhD who were also physics students. But economic research is rapidly absorbing the math and methodology of physics so a bit of time in a physics department wouldn't hurt anyone.
Is there any evidence - any statistics, regional or global? It would be interesting to see data by sub-fields.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the most productive economists have some knowledge and degrees in physics and math (they all should have some knowledge of math but some study more math than others) but I don't think this should necessarily be so. Theoretically, it is easier for a physicist to be involved in economy than the other way around.
One important reason for a career in the economy and finance sector is that there are a lot of jobs and gains (both monetary and others) are more immediate compared to science. However, there are many other factors such as how physics and economics are approached academically, whether economists have had any experience in the private sector, what are their personal motivations if any, etc.
I think that there are many interesting combinations of science fields useful to science as well as the private sector and researchers themselves, e.g. chemistry and economics (esp. pharma sector), psychology and biology, linguistics and robotics. It happens that researchers from different areas collaborate on more complex projects (e.g. neuroscience) but if a scientist's education and experience is versatile, then it is more likely that the added value will bring the research to new perspectives.
Here is a discussion thread you might be interested in:
"Principles Common to Both Economics and Physics"
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_principle_that_is_common_to_both_Economics_and_Physics
and a blog post based on a personal experience -
Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist
https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
- a physicist discusses energy & growth with an economist, he is convinced he is right but I tend to agree with the economist on the eventual importance of virtual reality
Econophysics is an interdisciplinary research field, applying theories and methods originally developed by physicists in order to solve problems in economics, usually those including uncertainty or stochastic processes and nonlinear dynamics. Its application to the study of financial markets has also been termed statistical finance referring to its roots in statistical physics.
The concept of entropy in physics can be extrapolated to the world of economy and talk of economic entropy, which means, in this way, the degree of disorder of any economic reality.
If economics relied on statistical methods only, it would make some sense to be involved there as a physicist. After all, it's difficult enough to describe the behaviour of many-particle systems in physics. The main problem I see is that in economics the 'particles' can think.
The main difference of approach is that in physics we usually are not interested in single particles, whereas in economics we want to know the results for individuals or subsystems (e.g. companies).
I am not sure how true this is, but what I can say from experience is that colleagues who have a first degree in the hard sciences or engineering make very good PhD theses in the social sciences in general.
By economic actions humans change the world for improving their living conditions. For the changing of the world physics presents a measure, named entropy. Since economic actions are evaluated in money there must be a connection between money and entropy.
Maybe it is the try to build a new theory in Economics that will be compatible with other physical theories: But when you enter in a 'department of economics' they give you to 'eat' tons of classical economics (competitive equilibrium model) that after a while you say: oh, no thank you! Thus nobody makes the difference...
I believe that applied Economics or Management fields are transgressed (if I am allowed to use the word) by Physicists, Mathematicians and Engineers. Pure Economics theory are still the domain of purists!
http://icef.hse.ru/news/122382661.html
This material is about a unique, universal personality -both Ph D in Physics, Ph D in Economics- Full Professor Alexey Bulatov. To him, one of the reasons is money. Besides, Economics is perceived as Naturalis science by him. He tries to minimize the impact of subjective factors, applying quantitative research techniques. He and his colleagues are working on 3 projects- micro-structure of financial markets, optimal e-auction markets, high frequency trading.
In a simplistic view, my answer for Sergyi's question is that this depends on which PhD in Economics we are talking about. If the characteristics of the PhD include traditional neoclassical economics, which uses Math and Statistics as the main core language in most of the courses, than my answer is that many (but not most) of the PhD in Economics have degree in Physics or Math. However, in the case of PhD in Economics that are based on History, and heterodox economic theories, with little emphasis in Math and Statistics, then my answer is that there should not be that many people with Physics degree.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics