The following is a comment I have added to André Orléan's new uploaded article: Madame Najat VALLAUD-BELKACEM Souhaitez-vous vraiment la fin du pluralisme en économie ?

Article Madame Najat VALLAUD-BELKACEM Souhaitez-vous vraiment la fin...

********************************************

This is an important letter. If this is an open letter, I wonder why this letter is closed to a third party. At least, André Orléan should indicate where we can get this important petition. I have read this Open Letter at

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/wp-content/uploads/Lettre-ouverte-de-lAFEP-a%CC%80-Madame-la-Ministre.pdf

This is a petition from André Orléan, as president of President de l’AFEP (Associassion Française d'Economie Politique) to the French Minister of Education Mme Najat Vallaud-Belkacem asking to conserve (or create) the pluralism in economic education and research. Almost all countries are facing a strong movement that claims to "modernize" or "standardize" or "make more efficient" the economics education and thus to establish a more unified and uniform economics in education and research.

The origin of this movement may be traced back to various reasons. Each nation must have its own history.

In the case of Japan, a controversy started when the Japan Science Council established Working Group of Economics Section for Preparing the Standard References for the Economics Education at the end of 2012. A first draft of the Standard References was made open in June, 2013 and ignited a feverish argument among economists. The first draft was written totally in the neoclassical economics view. It cited Lionel Robins's the famous definition of economics: "Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." (Robbins, 1932,An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, p. 15).

Many academic associations including Japan Association of Political Economy (JAPE), Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics (JAFEE), Japan Association for Economics Education (JAEE), Socio-Economic History Society Japan (SEHSJ), Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought (JSHET) and 7 other associations expressed their concern and objected to the first draft. An open symposium to discuss the question was organized in December 2014. The final version of the Standard References was decided and made public in August, 2015. In my understanding, the working group members conceded much and its expressions became more ambiguous and obscure, but what they aimed did not changed much. A book The Future of Economics and Economics Education (in Japanese) was published in April, 2015, which contained a summary of the controversy and papers of various opinions from the opponent side. I also contributed a chapter. The main point of dispute was how to evaluate plurality in economics education.

The case of France has a totally different history. Already in 2000, when the French Ministry of Education tried to set more uniform system of economics education in universities, a strong movement of economics students erupted and many students asked a more diversified education. Aided by researchers, they formed a movement they named Post-Autistic Economics. It was then re-organized as Real-World Economics and now one of active activity center of heterodox economics. In 2009, a group of social scientists including not only economists but sociologists organized an AFEP. This group asked the Ministry of Education to admit a new section, named Economics and Society, which was to be the 78th of the National University Committee (Comité National des Universités). To under stand the whole history it is necessary to know the French university system. It is highly centralized and very different from other countries where the university autonomy is much more established.

See for the background a document by AFEP and an article in a newspaper Libération:

Some contextual and background information relevant to understanding the issue

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/some-contextual-and-background-information-relevant-to-understanding-the-issue/

Battle for Influence among French economists (in French) by Frantz Durupt Februrary 1, 2015.

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/02/02/bataille-d-influence-chez-les-economistes-francais_1193967

The Ministry was once prone to admit the creation of the new section. At that time Jean Tirole, the winner of 2014 Nobel prize in economics, tried to hinder the creation of new section in a letter to the Minister, pointing that selection of university researchers and professors should be made from the international standard.

See Jean Tirole's letter to the Minister

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/wp-content/uploads/Lettre-de-jean-Tirole.pdf

It took a form of thank you letter for the presence of the Minister at the Awarding Ceremony of Nobel Prizes. Tirole expressed his concern with regards to the creation of the new section that AFPE worked for years. Tirole pointed that the economics scientist community should have a world standard that is based on international reputation. He opposed that French government admit two different communities in the same discipline called economics. He even denounced AFPE economists as obscurantists. It was an explicit objection to the creation of the new section and the pluralist strategy in economics. André Orléan's paper is one of responses to Tirole's intervention.

I am not sure if it is good to create a new section Economics and Society in or at the side of economics, because it may help mainstream economics to keep its status quo. But it seems many French economists are thinking that this is the unique way to rescue heterodox economics from the actual dominance of economic sciences. The AFPE cites a statistical research result: Only 6 professors were affiliated to minority schools of thought among 120 professors appointed between 2005 and 2011. The crisis of economics is much more acute in France than in many other countries.

As I have put it above, the academic situation of economics is very different from country to country but we face a common situation in essence. What is the best way to design economics education in the undergraduate and graduate courses? This is the problem that all economists must think about. Supporters of pluralism and heterodox economics should explain that their claim is justified and necessary instead of being expression of their simple desire to keep their posts. Those economists who believe in the future of mainstream economics should show that, despite of all condemnations on their economics, it is not only sane and right but also the unique way to the future development of the economics and pluralism is only an unnecessary waste of intellectual resources.

This is not only an academic dispute inside of the ivory tower but an actual problem that will influence the future of our economy, because the economic policy is strongly influenced by the state of economic science and thought. In this sense, this is the problem that all policy makers and even common people in the town should be concerned with.

To think of this question requires a deep understanding of economics science and the real history of development of economics. On this point, I want to point @David Ellerman's paper: Parallel experimentation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260124152_Parallel_Experimentation_A_Basic_Scheme_for_Dynamic_Efficiency

The main purpose of this paper is not the study of economics but I believe it gives us a necessary framework to consider how a science like economics evolves. It gives us a persuasive reasoning why we need pluralism in complex science as economics.

*******************************************

The following is a comment I have added to André Orléan's new uploaded article: Madame Najat VALLAUD-BELKACEM Souhaitez-vous vraiment la fin du pluralisme en économie ?

Article Madame Najat VALLAUD-BELKACEM Souhaitez-vous vraiment la fin...

********************************************

This is an important letter. If this is an open letter, I wonder why this letter is closed to a third party. At least, André Orléan should indicate where we can get this important petition. I have read this Open Letter at

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/wp-content/uploads/Lettre-ouverte-de-lAFEP-a%CC%80-Madame-la-Ministre.pdf

This is a petition from André Orléan, as president of President de l’AFEP (Associassion Française d'Economie Politique) to the French Minister of Education Mme Najat Vallaud-Belkacem asking to conserve (or create) the pluralism in economic education and research. Almost all countries are facing a strong movement that claims to "modernize" or "standardize" or "make more efficient" the economics education and thus to establish a more unified and uniform economics in education and research.

The origin of this movement may be traced back to various reasons. Each nation must have its own history.

In the case of Japan, a controversy started when the Japan Science Council established Working Group of Economics Section for Preparing the Standard References for the Economics Education at the end of 2012. A first draft of the Standard References was made open in June, 2013 and ignited a feverish argument among economists. The first draft was written totally in the neoclassical economics view. It cited Lionel Robins's the famous definition of economics: "Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." (Robbins, 1932,An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, p. 15).

Many academic associations including Japan Association of Political Economy (JAPE), Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics (JAFEE), Japan Association for Economics Education (JAEE), Socio-Economic History Society Japan (SEHSJ), Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought (JSHET) and 7 other associations expressed their concern and objected to the first draft. An open symposium to discuss the question was organized in December 2014. The final version of the Standard References was decided and made public in August, 2015. In my understanding, the working group members conceded much and its expressions became more ambiguous and obscure, but what they aimed did not changed much. A book The Future of Economics and Economics Education (in Japanese) was published in April, 2015, which contained a summary of the controversy and papers of various opinions from the opponent side. I also contributed a chapter. The main point of dispute was how to evaluate plurality in economics education.

The case of France has a totally different history. Already in 2000, when the French Ministry of Education tried to set more uniform system of economics education in universities, a strong movement of economics students erupted and many students asked a more diversified education. Aided by researchers, they formed a movement they named Post-Autistic Economics. It was then re-organized as Real-World Economics and now one of active activity center of heterodox economics. In 2009, a group of social scientists including not only economists but sociologists organized an AFEP. This group asked the Ministry of Education to admit a new section, named Economics and Society, which was to be the 78th of the National University Committee (Comité National des Universités). To under stand the whole history it is necessary to know the French university system. It is highly centralized and very different from other countries where the university autonomy is much more established.

See for the background a document by AFEP and an article in a newspaper Libération:

Some contextual and background information relevant to understanding the issue

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/some-contextual-and-background-information-relevant-to-understanding-the-issue/

Battle for Influence among French economists (in French) by Frantz Durupt Februrary 1, 2015.

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/02/02/bataille-d-influence-chez-les-economistes-francais_1193967

The Ministry was once prone to admit the creation of the new section. At that time Jean Tirole, the winner of 2014 Nobel prize in economics, tried to hinder the creation of new section in a letter to the Minister, pointing that selection of university researchers and professors should be made from the international standard.

See Jean Tirole's letter to the Minister

http://assoeconomiepolitique.org/wp-content/uploads/Lettre-de-jean-Tirole.pdf

It took a form of thank you letter for the presence of the Minister at the Awarding Ceremony of Nobel Prizes. Tirole expressed his concern with regards to the creation of the new section that AFPE worked for years. Tirole pointed that the economics scientist community should have a world standard that is based on international reputation. He opposed that French government admit two different communities in the same discipline called economics. He even denounced AFPE economists as obscurantists. It was an explicit objection to the creation of the new section and the pluralist strategy in economics. André Orléan's paper is one of responses to Tirole's intervention.

I am not sure if it is good to create a new section Economics and Society in or at the side of economics, because it may help mainstream economics to keep its status quo. But it seems many French economists are thinking that this is the unique way to rescue heterodox economics from the actual dominance of economic sciences. The AFPE cites a statistical research result: Only 6 professors were affiliated to minority schools of thought among 120 professors appointed between 2005 and 2011. The crisis of economics is much more acute in France than in many other countries.

As I have put it above, the academic situation of economics is very different from country to country but we face a common situation in essence. What is the best way to design economics education in the undergraduate and graduate courses? This is the problem that all economists must think about. Supporters of pluralism and heterodox economics should explain that their claim is justified and necessary instead of being expression of their simple desire to keep their posts. Those economists who believe in the future of mainstream economics should show that, despite of all condemnations on their economics, it is not only sane and right but also the unique way to the future development of the economics and pluralism is only an unnecessary waste of intellectual resources.

This is not only an academic dispute inside of the ivory tower but an actual problem that will influence the future of our economy, because the economic policy is strongly influenced by the state of economic science and thought. In this sense, this is the problem that all policy makers and even common people in the town should be concerned with.

To think of this question requires a deep understanding of economics science and the real history of development of economics. On this point, I want to point @David Ellerman's paper: Parallel experimentation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260124152_Parallel_Experimentation_A_Basic_Scheme_for_Dynamic_Efficiency

The main purpose of this paper is not the study of economics but I believe it gives us a necessary framework to consider how a science like economics evolves. It gives us a persuasive reasoning why we need pluralism in complex science as economics.

*******************************************

Controversy in the Guardian (Dec. 17, 2017 to Dec. 27, 2017 )

Here is a more detailed timeline:

Larry Elliot: Heretics welcome! Economics needs a new Reformation / Neoclassical economics has become an unquestioned belief system and treats those challenging the creed as dangerous.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/17/heretics-welcome-economics-needs-a-new-reformation

Professor Orazio Attanasio UCL, Professor Oriana Bandiera LSE, Professor Richard Blundell IFS and UCL, Professor Steve Machin LSE, Professor Rachel Griffith University of Manchester and IFS, Professor Imran Rasul UCL: Letter to the Editor

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/21/ideas-for-an-economics-in-which-people-matter

Hugh Goodacre, Jeffrey Hnedrson and others: Letters to the Ediotor / Beware the dangerous orthodoxy of neoclassical economics

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/27/beware-the-dangerous-orthodoxy-of-neoclassical-economics

Economics can be taught in 1 lesson (PDF). The neglect of economics and social science as a subject of higher education is its evaluation as a lowly field of human learning. Economic questions are not regarded as of intellectual beauty, but as a kind of primitive craft. Those people who go into university economics, on the other hand, have to undergo a specialized 'treatment' that offers no broader understanding of human economic behavior, but advanced accounting (post mortem) of assets. It is like seeing a human body only in terms of anatomy, without physiological or pathological knowledge. Counting bones is not enough.

I am a retired senior lecturer in chemistry. After spending 36 years at universities, I have witnessed a decline in the "real" quality of university education in many countries. This decline had a catalyst which was the widespread of commercialization in terms of the "rigid" neoclassical economics theory. The theory is not a divine scripture but you will always find those "selfish arrogant" scholars who will fight tooth & nail to defend it since they reap personal benefits from it.

That the curricula are tailored, for providing "good" university education, is not always true. That universities were established, to serve the public & human interests, is not necessarily a correct statement of the state of affairs.

Many students are accepted at universities not because of a good academic record but due to their abilities to pay higher "parallel" tuition fees. Many scholars seek unreasonable overtime work to fill their pockets with money & not for the first-class education of students. Many academicians counterfeit research in order to get promoted thereby increasing their salaries & getting empty titles.

My youngest brother joined a school of economics, in my country, for 2 years. He found out that the courses were shallow & the instructors were incompetent. These persons were described as "big mouths" with loud voices & pretense. So he left that university & headed to Spain to study dentistry! Now, he is a successful Spanish dentist.

Please see this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/we-must-fight-commercialisation-in-our-universities-before-its-too-late-8615903.html

The most workers with college degrees earn so much more than those without.

@Stephen I. Ternyik

thank you for reminding me the book Economics in One Lesson. I had bought the book in somewhere in 1990's but it is now in one of cartoon boxes (about 300) that I had to remove from my home. My flat is so narrow and I have to house them in a remote country side house.

I found that Economics in One Lesson is now available at

https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

Anyone can freely download a PDF version.

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document

At the end of section 1 of the Lesson, Henry Hazlit declares:

[T]he whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. (Halitt's emphasis)

All right. This definition of economics is much better than that of Robbins. I have no objection on this point. However, problem of economics education does not stop here. Hazlitt's sentence is hardly indicative for persons in the town, young students and policy makers. Hazlitt himself attached 22 lessons as Part Two and concludes with the 23rd lesson as restatement of the first lesson.

Single lesson is not sufficient at all. To know the longer effects of an act or a policy, you should learn much of economics. What I am making as an issue is how to organize this education (in undergraduate and graduate courses). There are so many opinions on this matter and the trouble is that actual mainstream economists want to monopolize university education of economics and teach their system exclusively. It might be efficient way to indoctrinate naive people, but we have to be aware of the risk that we will have great majority of people who have learned economics only know to think in a neoclassical economics way. In my opinion, it is a very dangerous thing.

Stephen may not be aware that Hazlitt could never be accepted as professor of economics. (Put it aside whether he himself wanted to do so). Stephen's book is now considered as a classic of Austrian economics (von Mises, von Hayek and others). But there are only few economics department where students are recommended to read it.

If you believe that market of thought is efficient, there is no problem. True ideas will spread in a long run and will triumph in the end. However, you and I have a risk that a bad economics survives for a time and make a decisive mistake, from which we all must suffer for a long time.

Version:0.9 StartHTML:0000000236 EndHTML:0000001269 StartFragment:0000000272 EndFragment:0000001233 SourceURL:https://www.google.it/search?q=traduttore&oq=t&aqs=chrome.1.69i60j69i59j69i60l3j69i57.1999j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Everything is done to teach the economy induced by the meanstream, that is, the accumulation of capitals and therefore hymn to capitalism

@Yoshinori

Maybe, something like Gresham's law (Copernicus law) in academia exists: bad (false) economics drives out good (right) economics ?

@Nizar Matar

thank you for your personal experience. Universities are always under pressure that demand to make them more efficient and effective. The problem is efficiency and effectiveness are often contradictory. Most of neoclassical economists believe with sincere faith that efficiency is needed. When this voice becomes dominant, university education and research are prone to loose effectiveness. A breakthrough often comes out from the field where no one expected. A right looseness is required for the research. David Ellerman's Parallel Experimentation is highly inspiring and indicative in this regard.

To try to design complex entity like university is as silly as old time economic planning thought. The trouble with neoclassical economics is that it relies deeply on rationality assumptions and economists in this school become to believe that they can design complex entities just like they assume people maximize their objective function in their models. Many of heterodox economists are protesting this state of affairs.

Even though I feel this is a political debate of different wing theories in economics, I want to offer my contribution. I am a part of economics of education and I do mainstream research, which probably means neoclassical in this case. I agree that education is experiencing a downturn and so does my data analysis, complying with Pissarides(Nobel) results. Using classic tools like GDP and economic growth I have proven that "big mouths" as someone said earlier have promoted a negative relationship between university degrees and economic growth. I believe that the fairytale of "get a degree to better your life" has a sorrow ending as we have also seen around. But still I dont see an alternative for those people who want to study. where I come from education is popular. Highly educated people enjoy respect. Thank you for your time.

Good

Related questions

I found that we have some related questions. Here are some that I found closely related:

Stefano Lucarelli: Why teach heterodox approach to economics? Is the dominance of mainstream economics a reflection of the dominant political ideology?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_teach_heterodox_approach_to_economics_Is_the_dominance_of_mainstream_economics_a_reflection_of_the_dominant_political_ideology

Stefano Lucarelli: What is the best way to promote pluralism and critical thinking in economics education?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_best_way_to_promote_pluralism_and_critical_thinking_in_economics_education

Federico Gimenez: Which perspective is better to design public policies in Latin American countries, an orthodox perspective, the heterodox focus or both?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_perspective_is_better_to_design_public_policies_in_Latin_American_countries_an_orthodox_perspective_the_heterodox_focus_or_both

Economic education in Uzbekistan today is new phenomena. Why. We began to develop market economy in 1993 year but there are not high skilled specialists who might make contributions on improving economic education. International cooperation with foriegn HEI isn't satisfy demand besides still sensible inertia of former Soviet Union affect on high education system.

@Ziyoydin Israilov

I see what problem you have. The situation must be similar for all ex-Soviet Union and ex-East European countries. It is true that you are in a difficult situation but you can change it to a chance. You can design a new system of economics education. In that arguments and preparation, I hope our discussion will be useful.

Dear Professor Shiozawa,

In my country (Brazil) is happening something "sui generis". We are - in fact - far behind the discussion about "theories" showed in "The Gardian".

Actually, in Brazil, corruption of bad politicians overcome the economic models that could save the economy.

We are fighting corruption in so many ways to have the opportunity of having an economy - with success of failure - but by economic reasons.

Meanwhile, we can say that - in our beloved country - no model would or could work before we "clean" the institutions.

The natural consequence is that the population does not believe in economists anymore. And nobody wants to study economics anymore, because it seems to be a bad way in life, unfortunately.

Hope that we change it soon.

Best regards,

Prof. Hess

@Aurelio Hess

It is really sad to hear from you, but it represents a real phase of economic life.

In the United States, my experience is that a college (Bachelors) degree usually requires one course in Micro and one course in Macro. Some universities combine these two classes into one "Principles" course with about 5 to 6 chapters in Micro and 5 to 6 chapters in Macro.

Of course, a student with an Economics major is required to take 18 to 21 additional credits (6 to 7 courses) in Advanced Micro, Advanced Macro, International Economics, History of Economic Thought, Money & Banking, and Contemporary Issues. Some universities also require a course in Econometrics.

Thank you, Paul.

How about graduate course? Economics other than mainstream economics is taught? Or students are recommended to have wider scope over the mainstream?

Dear @Sophia A. Kassapi

I am sorry to make you wait more than 10 days. There are two points we have to discuss in your post: (1) Is it a political debate that we are arguing? (2) Is it a chance or not for education that the economics is divided between many strands?

In this "answer" I only explain the point (1). The point (2) will be posted as a different "answer,"

(1) Is it a political debate?

It is true that some economists are thinking that all debates between schools of economics are political. I do not deny it. For some people, the differences of schools are but political, because for those people, economics is a set of economic policies. For them, competition for hegemony is nothing other than politics.

I have a very different idea. Differences of schools come from the differences of understanding how market economy works. Mainstream economics is based on general equilibrium theory and the most refined theory is Arrow and Debreu's theory of competitive equilibrium (1954). All other theories and models of mainstream or neoclassical schools, like DSGE or endogenous growth theory, or new (or new new) trade theory, are partial theories on the assumption that Arrow and Debreu theory is a valid general theory.

However, there is a strong opposition against Arrow-Debreu model. The simplest reason is that the model has to must assume agents who are infinitely rational. See for the details, my paper

Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301766363_Microfoundations_of_Evolutionary_Economics

There are many other reasons to doubt Arrow-Debreu model as something which gives an indication on how market economy works. Arrow-Debreu model is a good mathematical model, but as an economic theory, it has various deficiencies. For example, it can show the existence of an equilibrium, but it does not give any idea how the equilibrium is found out by any market mechanisms whatever.

If the very foundations of economics are in this state, it is natural that there are many economists who claim it is necessary to abandon Arrow-Debreu model and the neoclassical mainstream economics based on it and reconstruct economics.

These objections arise only by studying the foundations of economics in depth. Thus the people of different political positions, from right to left, are opposing the present state of economics and are trying to produce a new theory that can replace Arrow-Debreu model and neoclassical school.

The trouble with economics is that these economists in opposition have not yet established a good theory that is comparable with Arrow-Debreu theorem. At least, mainstream economists are thinking like that, I am of a different opinion. Although neoclassical people do not want to admit it, we have already the new theory. On this point, the opinions of heterodox people are divided.

As an example of such a new theory, please see

The New Theory of International Values: An Overview

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304717720_The_New_Theory_of_International_Values_An_Overview

This theory of international trade is much more successful in treating trade of intermediates goods or input goods. All four generations of trade theory, namely (textbook) Ricardian theory, Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson theory, New trade theory, and New new trade theory are all exclude intermediate goods. In the age of global value chain this is a crucial defect for those four generations.

(2) Plurality of economics is a good chance for good education.

What is the object of higher education? One thing we have to aim is to give enough knowledge. But this is only a part of higher education. What is important in higher education is to train students to cope with the complexity of the world. Our knowledge is not always true. There are many points that specialists are arguing which of the competing hypotheses is right. In some other cases, it is necessary to work out a new concepts or a set of concepts. If we face a new problem in a new situation, we are obliged to do this.

Now, how about economics education in the university? In many universities, students are requested to learn standard models, to learn the standard interpretation, and to know how to modify them and use them in their discussions. Most of students remain passive, because accumulated standard theories are enormous and four, six, or ten years of university education is not sufficient to know them all. Proponents for the education of standard contents claim that they have no time left to other education, for example to teach or let students learn heterodox economics.

In my opinion, this kind of cramming education, placing emphasis on memorizing is not the proper style of higher education. If there are many competing strands of thoughts, it is the chance to let students learn why there are such different viewpoints in understanding the same economic reality. The experience of this kind must be extremely useful for students who will not be professional economists. Anyone in business or any other real life always face difficult situation that we do not know which solution is the best for the problem. Moreover, problem finding before problem solving is another important thing that all people experience in the real life.

Now we are talking about work loss because of the development of artificial intelligence (AI). At this time, to teach a theory that is established already is too bad a method as education.

Plurality of economic is a chance for a good education. If Sophia A. Kassapi is working on economics of education, she is required to assess present system of economics education. At that time, what we are talking about must be an important subject matter.

This is the essential core of what I have talked in the invited lecture at the 2016 annual conference of Japan Society for Economics Education.

Good day, all of you

In my country,at first before 15 years they have more attention and interest of science ,the member staff of universities write in this field ,and declared the importance of economic education ,also we have posted as a group of scholar ,and mentioned how this field of science if admitted to the subjects of teaching in schools and universities,can help the improvements in life and country economic situation,

In addition to that we try to do the similar disputes to repeat the other countries experiments and check the results ,and we have claim the necessity of pluralism in economic education in our country,enhance many conference are constructed, but now a days government mind is occupied by how they get more finance to the treasury of government,and to make more taxes and care of any due to financial cries.

Hi my friends,

I am really happy to read the brilliant opinions and great comments of Prof. Shiozawa who always gives us new thinking ways in economic science.

In the case of economic education, in my country (Iran) upon the particular economic circumstances, the graduate educations in economic sciences have moved from teaching advanced micro- and macro economics to some new empirical topics with focus on the Iran's economic situation. However, the overall economic education level in my country has moved down in the recent decades.

I am really happy to read the brilliant opinions and great comments.

Dear Yoshinori,

fortunately, there are no central bodies in Germany that 'regulate' the curriculum to be taught in economics education at University Level - this is due to academic freedom guaranteed by the German constitution. However, without heterodox professors (recruiting the rest of the teaching staff such as research and teaching assistance, lectures etc.), it is hard to believe that the economics education at German universities is anything resembling pluralism. The strength of the Student movement 'Plural econonomists' demanding a more plural economics education as well as recent Research document the monist (neoclassical) indoctrination in the German economics education. And the rationale for this is twofold: on the one hand, it has always been argued that German economics education must copy the program (and contence) of the most prestigous US elite universities (that is the unquestioned standard), and, on the other hand, most staff at German economics departments would not know anything else as they are quite unaware of heterodox economics.

Best

Arne

happy times

i like to add to my previous answer,that the importance of economic education in this period ,because this guide to how made progress in your account and government balance,and let the people how to adapt with the new conditions.