Economics and Engineering are merged togheter in different sub fields using different methodologies, for example :

In Thermodynamics, with the function called Exergy, using the technique of Exergy Balance and calculating the Useful Work, the Irreversibilities of the system (or in the process) and the Efficiency of 2nd. Law. This is a subfield that can be called "Thermoeconomics".

In Energy Systems, the generated Output Power and the Energy Efficiency of an Energy Conversion System are the imputs for the subsequent Economical Analysis of a whole project.

Thermal Engineering, Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics and Mechanical Engienieering are linked with Economical and Financial Analysis in the subfield of Energy Engineering known as "Efficient Energy Use"

These are just some examples, but,

Broadly speaking, when there is a problem or project where money is involved and those capable of calling the last word of an important decision is a board of executives, then engineers and economists will be required alike.

Regards !

Ecomics is part of the Humanities. No matter how much math you use, the basic assumptions are about human interaction. And even here they tend to use extreme models. Take Homo Oeconomicus: The ever rational actor, who does not exist, but is the basis for models that would be too complex to understand if they were accurate.

To be perfectly clear: The idea that something is optimal in economics is dependend on the assumptions of the inquirer. What do you want to optimize (why?), what are the necessary variables (why?), what are the assumptions, that are not proven/provable (why?)... all those equations make us feel better, by seemingly solid mathematics, but that doesn't make them true. Especially not in an intersubjective world, where the value even of abstract ideas is negotiated and not a given fact.

That being said: methodwise we should all learn from each other! Combining inter- and transdisciplinary teams with diverse backgrounds will save us from dumb, unidimensional ideas. But there are caveats.

Klemens Köhler - what you say about models and optimization is almost exactly what I tell my engineering students about models and optimization.

James Whidborne - I appreciate that. I started out with modelling ecosystems and I am sure you have heard the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, too. However, the properties of human behavior are a lot less predictable than trees and/or technological systems.

I do stress this point, because I am afraid of an argument I hear a lot: That human behavior and interaction can be measured, predicted, and optimized. Which in turn often leads to: If only people would behave in a (to me) sensible manner and start behaving in a certain way (they don't want to), then everything would be fine. I am sure we can push them a bit for their own good.

Of course, being from germany, I am pretty sensitive to these approaches. So, while I don't think that your are making that point, I want to discourage everyone else.

Again, I am not against using shared research methods, similar approaches to complex phenomena and models, I believe that mathematical abstraction of people is often a misstep.

Klemens Köhler - agree. Sometimes in engineering we use models of people (eg pilot models for aircraft) and the same care must be taken. Pilots are not so bad, because they are highly trained, but car drivers are far less predictable, which is one of the reasons autonomous cars are taking so long to become a reality.

Indeed, It should be as you have raised this idea in context of COVID-19 however I think that it should encompass everything comprising all engineering disciplines and economics. Same idea remained in my mind last few years to develop such a framework and optimise it.

education should integrated with all aspects of social life..accountabilty, responsibility and sensitivity .. not simply maximising profit and minimizing cost, that what happens when most manufacturers move to china

I don't understand what you mean by merge. Economics is part of humanity and is automatically part of engineering as well

Inventing is a combination of brains and materials. The more brains you use, the less material you need.

— Charles F. Kettering

Economics abstracts from constructions of the world (both tangible and intangible). And then it develops constructs. We call the constructs economic theories. After high school, students study the economic constructs. But often, they are forced to merely memorise them. At that point, they struggle with the real constructions of the world. Engineering attends to the constructions. And these are dynamical systems. Now, we should desire to draw the constructions and constructs closer. The question is, how? The easiest way seems to be organisational. House them in one department. And note, the need for closer interaction is strongest in the more complex poorer economies. It is frustrating to see economists from the poorer countries rise to the top of policy-making without a robust understanding of their subject. And our engineers would emerge the better with constructs of economics. Many topics in engineering might be motivated more strongly starting with questions economics attempts to answer.

Let me use COVID-19 to develop the answer above. Most national planning authorities run midterm policy reviews after 2-3 years. That is the time for serious economic modelling. Given this crisis, most NPAs will use estimates (weakly founded) from the ministry of finance and the IFIs. They will not engage the crisis until the midterm review. Yet, if the NPAs were grounded in control theory, the approach would likely have been different. They might have developed model predictive controls. That means incremental and reflexive modelling drawing on the power iof computing and for Africa, the ubiquity of the mobile phone. So, the NPAs are stuck with a largely PID structure (i.e. proportional, integral and derivative adjustments seen in midterm reviews, though not explicitly). Therefore, we would be the stronger and the richer if our economists and engineers studied in the same big block and chatted over coffee breaks. Well, that might be mere frustration of someone immersed in post-Covid Africa!

We already tried such a feat. It got a name: econometrics. Was it successful? Absolutely not. Why? Simply: "The human factor."

The human factor came unexpectedly from two directions: described society and its internal interactions (totally unpredictable), and scientists themselves with their methodology (insufficient).

Society is not an ideal gas. Hence, it cannot be described by statistical approaches developed & used in statistical physics (gases, liquids, solids, ...).

This was the biggest mistake done by researchers pursuing econometrics.

Can it be somehow resolved? Definitely yes. By agent-based models -- ABMs --, which gives us the capability to make the 'gas' of society more flexible and keeping some internal autonomy. This feature is not present in physical models!

The relative autonomy of agents in the ABMs is the key to developing more precise models having much higher predictivity and reliability.

At this moment, it is good to mention the book of Illachinski - Artificial War. An insanely deep explanation of designing agents capable to reproduce military combat that can be easily turned into agents defining economical environments.

---

Further reading:

Those types of models and reasoning are often shared and discussed in generic projects providing the overview of Complexity that are maintained by myself.

It is not definitely easy to get a general overview of Complexity as the filed is vast and deep. On top of it, it spans all scientific fields. Not only economics and societal sciences.

You can find good resources to start with Complexity in said projects.

When we look deeper into econometrics, we find the institution (norms and values of society). The institution brings reality to econometrics, but it also brings complexity and discomfort to scholars. And the lens for peering into econometrics and identifying the institution is engineering. But that means engineering must know institutions. So, here is the caveat, we count on economics to bring along institutional thinking to the merger.

And a bit of history might help. Perhaps the time economics engaged most closely with engineering was the seventies. Look up Samuelson’s struggles with the ‘razor’s edge’. It was clear then that frames of econometrics would struggle. However, econometrics escaped and paid little attention to the struggles of Samuelson and lot. Then in the nineties, the institution and non-ergodicity came to prominence, thanks to Douglass North and group. However, by then econometrics had long forgotten the struggles of Samuelson and could not engage with the institution. Enter the 2007/8 financial crisis. It reminded us of the institution, and ‘new institutional thinking’ flourished. However, neither traditional economics nor the new thinkers sought to embrace engineering at the organisational level - departmental merger. And it is not easy. Egos are big.

And of the two (economics and engineering), it seems reasonable to say economics is more challenged. Now wait, economics needs more mathematics not less. It needs even more physics. And yet, more mathematics and physics will make economics simpler and more honest. That is what physics does. It becomes simpler as it digs deeper. So, the holy grail seems the joint department of engineering and economics. The aspiring PhD economics might be prudent registering in engineering and working with the group on dynamical systems.