Launch of Report: are we educating economists for the 21. century?

LAUNCH OF REPORT:

ARE WE EDUCATING ECONOMISTS FOR THE 21. CENTURY?

Sofie Bergset Janols Journalist Vetle Rakkestad Translator

“Economy is politics, economy has influence”, says Liv Anna Lindman from Rethinking Economics. Economists are are becoming increasingly influential when political decisions are to be made. They analyse, advise, and make their mark on the society. Are they fit to have this central role in the development of our society? A growing movement of economist and economy students are questioning this.

Rethinking Economics is an international network of economy students and economists that want to reform the economy education. The goal? A more pluralistic, critical and relevant education for the problems we are facing these days. Wednesday February 3., Rethinking Economics invited NMBU to a digital launch of the report “Are we educating economists for the 21. Century?” and a panel debate. The panel consisted of Liv Anna Lindman, Benedikt Goodman, Rani Lill Anjum and Ragnar A. Øygard. Marie Storli was chairman. Storli, the leader of Rethinking Economics Norway, opened the Zoom-event by welcoming the guests accompanied by Roon Elmi from Rethinking Economics NMBU. Rani Lilla Anjum, scientist at NMBU and leader of Centre for Applied Philosophy of Science, was then the next to talk.

Philosophic bias and interdisciplinarity

Anjum gave a short introduction to scientific philosophy. She explained the meaning of philosophic bias; the basic assumptions you have that you are unaware of. Different disciplines have different philosophic biases, different views on problems and different methods to solve them. Philosophic biases may cause a problem in interdisciplinary cooperation. Therefore, it is important to be aware of, and work with, your discipline’s philosophic bias. Anjum points on the advantages to a more pluralistic education where more philosophic biases appear: “Different methods finds different things, which gives a more holistic picture”. The next point in line was a presentation of the main aspects from the report, given by Liv Anna Lindman. The report is written by Storli and Goodman amongst others, but Lindman is behind the survey and wrote the master thesis which is the fundament for the report. The goal was to examine whether the criticism aimed at the economy education holds water; whether their education is far from reality, methodologically uniform and not a source for critical thinking.

The conclusions of the report

Lindman examined course and program descriptions, exam questions and sensor guidance for the bachelor degrees in social economics at UiB, UiT, UiO, NTNU and NMBU in 2018. She learned that the educations have a high percentage of mandatory subjects, with small amounts of education in economic history, and few traces showing that the students are encouraged to have a critical approach the subjects. In addition, there is a high proportion of written exams (90%), where 80% of the questions ask the students to explain the theory or use models, while only 15% of the questions ask for reflection or critical thinking. The report can’t determine that the social economics education in Norway is unrealistic or uncritical, but gives the economy program “the benefit of the doubt” and encourages to further discussion. On the other hand, the report concludes that the education is methodologically uniform. The students are educated in neoclassical theory, which is the dominating way of teaching economics. The problem, according to the report and Rethinking Economics, is that there is little evidence that students are made aware that they are being taught in this specific tradition.

NMBU among the best

However, it’s worth noticing that NMBU scores relatively high in the report. NMBU scores highest in the percentage of courses teaching socially relevant subjects (44%), and in courses that have hints of critical discussion (36%). Furthermore, NMBU have as the only institution surveyed, economical history as a mandatory course. They also teach the program with the highest percentage of group work, and the program where the largest percentage of mandatory courses utilizes more than five sources. After the digital launch, Tuntréet talked to Liv Anna Lindman, Ragnar A. Øygard and Benedikt Goodman.

From interest to master’s thesis

In the winter of 2017 Liv Anna Lindman and Benedikt Goodman started the local team Rethinking Economics NMBU. One and a half year later, on an international gathering with Rethinking Economics, Lindman decided that a survey of the Norwegian social economics education would be her master thesis, even though the survey would involve criticising the tradition professors, sensors and what the field of study stands for. She admits thinking “I’m gambling with the grade of the master thesis, but let’s go”.

The master thesis was nevertheless well appreciated, but Lindman feels sceptical to how much change there will be, and how

fast it will happen. She notices that there is a common agreement that the education should be closer to reality and encourage to more critical thinking. Regarding the criticism against a more pluralistic approach, there are a few more counterarguments. One of them is the argument that it is challenging to be exposed to too many theories at once. Lindman has a clear wish regarding this: we should “start believing in our young generation”. Challenge them and raise their enthusiasm. In addition, she is worried about the fact that today’s students don’t get exposed to other theories, that “those going into research is more unidirectional than ever”. That this should lead to more polarization between economists educated in “mainstream” theory and those educated in “alternative” theories. She knows very well what has been relevant for her to get a job in LO (cross-party organization) after her studies; involvement in Rethinking Economics, and side subjects as an addition to the mandatory ones.

Incorrect criticism

Ragnar A. Øygard, associate professor at the business faculty at NMBU and lecturer in macroeconomics, “does not think the critique is completely on point”. Amongst other things, Øygard states that neoclassical economy easily is made into a “straw man”, and that one simply doesn’t act “religious” on the models being used. These models are subject to empirical tests, at the same level as models from other fields of study. Regarding the criticism on the great share of mathematical models, he answers that “it’s easier to be precise in a mathematical model than in the Norwegian language”. And that the models often are precise on assumptions for how large groups, not individuals, behaves. At the same time, Øygard is clearly stating that we shouldn’t “go too far with it”. Behavioural economics, a deviation from traditional theory, could complement this point. Behavioural economics is starting to be incorporated in models and the field itself. Øygard also thinks that the discipline encourages to reflection. Exercises asking the student to utilize a model also wants them to prove that the model they choose is the best one. However, he agrees that the classic models and the original explanation of those should be included in the curriculum. Questioned on whether we are educating economists or not for the 21. Century, Øygard answers “yes”. At NMBU the social economic education weights communication, interdisciplinarity and social setting. Sustainable development is seen as as an important value. He also thinks economists alone will not be able to solve the problems we are facing, but have something to contribute with. For example, economists will think systematically and ensure that principles such as “the polluter pays” will be taken into account.

Only a pair of theoretical glasses

“A part of the problem is the fact that we only have been given a pair of theoretical glasses to interpret the world through”, says Benedikt Goodman about the field of study. He has a bachelor’s degree in social economics at NMBU and is now working on his Master programme in social economics. Goodman misses more diversity, history of ideas and context in education. To be exposed to several economic theories, which will give the ability to compare and identify limitations and biases with the different ways of thinking: “- This is what develops the students’ abilities to have critical reflections”. And that the origin of the ideas is in focus: “What we learn now is not given”. Furthermore, he had wished to learn more about social structures, and how the economy works in practice. The bachelor’s degree in social economy have given him a lot of practice within optimization mathematics, he says, but he also notices that he hasn’t learned too much about the state budget, tax processes, the finance system, bank crises and bubbles. At the same time, Goodman notices that NMBU scores higher than the other institutions surveyed, and that changes have been made. NMBU now have a few electives closely related to the real economy; there is a course about bank crises as an example. He thinks this is the best detail at NMBU: “They listen to what you have to say”.

Do you want to learn more? The report, and a course in economics could be found at rethinkeconomics.no