This statement explains the frustration that I have towards economics. The sharp and frank criticism from a Nobel laureate certainly gives comfort because now I know I am not the only person who is frustrated with economics.
I love the subject but I just can't accept that every single notion can be quantified and every economics student are expected to know mathematics as detailed and in-depth as a mathematics graduate. To me, economics today had lost the human touch, whereby initially the subject existed with the noble idea to understand the scarcity within our society. Looking at top-notch economics journals today, I can confidently said that economics students, without advanced knowledge of mathematics, could not understand these so-called 'economics articles'. It is no more art of scarcity but rather some exclusive art of sub-standard mathematics.
Therefore, I sincerely thank my professor in Development Economics for bringing up this quotation for discussion. I cannot agree more with James Buchanon.
22 August 2007
Economics! Oh Economics!
Economics, as a discipline, became 'scientific' over the quarter-century, but I put the word in inverted commas and I deliberately pronounce it pejoratively here. As it is practised in the 1980s, economics is a 'science' without ultimate purpose or meaning. It has allowed itself to become captive of the technical tools that it employs without keeping track of just what it is the tools are used for. In a very real sense, the economists of the 1980s are illiterate in basic principles of their own discipline...Their motivation is not normative; they seem to be ideological eunuchs. Their interest lies in the purely intellectual properties of the models with which they work, and they seem to get their kicks from the discovery of proofs of propositions relevant only for their own fantasy lands" (1986 Nobel laureate in Economics, James M. Buchanon)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Somehow i strongly feel that the preferences of mathematics in economics depends greatly on how one likes to view it. Mathematics, afterall is only a tool. Irving Fischer (1892) had rightly put it:-
The economic world is a misty region.
The first explorers used unaided vision.
Mathematics is the lantern by which what was before
dimly visibly now looms up in firm, bold outlines.
The old phantasmagoria* dissapear.
We see better. We also see further.
*phantasmagoria=optical illusions produced by means of a magic lantern.
Also, understanding mathematics is rightly described by Richard Courant (1941):-
Understanding of mathematics cannot be transmitted by painless entertainment any more than education in music can be brought by the most brilliant journalism to those who have never listened intensively. Actual contact with the content of living mathematics is necessary.
The notion to impress upon others on a preferred belief system, is indeed unnecessary. There are, afterall, different schools of thought to learn from.
Cheers.
Hey it's great to know that there are other people who share the same viewpoint as me. The sad thing is that I don't even quite enjoy my undergraduate econ course now since it's solely about math... all the best to you! =)
Post a Comment