It’s helpful now and then to remember where we come from.
For me, so much of my formation deepened as an economics major at Notre Dame. The department had been embroiled in conflict for over a decade by the time I arrived 2004-2008.
But the decision to suffocate critical thinking, history and heterodox schools of thought came while I was in my four years as an undergrad.
Here’s a curated set of articles that gives some of the trajectory between 1997 and 2012.
My classmates and I formed a group. We wrote a petition. We then started a blog.
As I went back to read our initial open letter, I was surprised to see my comment immediately below the open letter that reminds me of my own journey.
- How did I start thinking about these questions?
- How did I start learning about how power works in the world?
- Why do some questions stand out to me more than others?
- What does encounter (and relationship) with those on the periphery do to you?
- What are the conventional logics that we need to learn to name and see to realize the water we’re swimming in?
I think this is part of why Pope Francis’ 2019 “Economy of Francesco” Letter resonated so deeply with me.
Here’s what I wrote on April 2008:
My 2008 Comment
In June of 2007, I travelled to Brazil to study the economics and net energy balance of sugarcane-based ethanol production. During my trip I encountered complexities of all sorts. The inseparable social and environmental issues spoiled my hopes for a quantitative analysis that proved sugarcane-based ethanol to be a sustainable fuel source. I returned to the University with more questions about the social and environmental implications of ethanol production.
Since my return to Notre Dame, I’ve been searching for explanations. But none has captured the complexity of my experience with ethanol in Brazil. Over time, classes began to frustrate me. Economics classes were the worst. My environmental economics professor kept trying to convince me that economics did not make value judgments; it just indicated the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. While I liked the elegance and simplicity of such argument, it didn’t jive with what the Brazilians I met told me about the development of sugarcane-based ethanol.
The neat equilibrium models in my intermediate macro theory class also did not reflect my experience with the many and varied forces that drive energy and sustainability issues, nor my new questions about the slave-like working conditions. The ahistorical reduction of economics to graphs that end in the harmonious unity of equilibrium didn’t capture the layers of depth behind what I had seen. The history, politics, and power dynamics were inseparable parts of the economic and technical development of ethanol in Brazil.
As I continued to ask questions of my economics professors, the simplicity of their responses aggravated me more and more. Slowly, I began to see that I wasn’t the only one struggling with economics. It was a meta-problem scourging the academy. The entire discipline was divided and nowhere was the division more apparent than at Notre Dame.
“Efforts to open the field to diverse views are smothered by an orthodoxy — neoclassical economics and its derivatives,” wrote Peter Monaghan in the January 24, 2003 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Monaghan described the orthodoxy as “indulgently theoretical and mathematical in its aspiration to be more ‘scientific’ than any other social science.”
Having learned more about neoclassical theory in my one political economy course taught by a heterodox economist than all of my previous four economics courses, I was infuriated to find out that: “The University of Notre Dame’s economics department… split into two separate but unequal bodies” and the strictly orthodox department got the upper hand.
Since the neoclassical brand of economics dominates the discipline, its practitioners decide what work deserves notice by controlling what is published in the field’s prestigious journals. This becomes a problem when the National Research Council ranks institutions accordingly, such that Notre Dame as a University is 18th (U.S. News & World Reports) and our economics department is 84th (NRC). In this regard perhaps a division makes sense so that one department can be more highly ranked amongst peer institutions because it publishes in the foremost neoclassical journals. But does the pursuit of high rankings for one department merit the effective starvation of the other department? Why should only one department be allowed to hire new faculty and administer a graduate program?
I agree that neoclassical economics should be taught well at Notre Dame. Much academic and government research is based on neoclassical analyses exploring the effects on the economy. Thus students should know the mainstream theory. But where do students really learn it?
Most of the core required economics courses at Notre Dame are taught pretty close to the book. Lectures, assignments, exams all draw heavily from the text. Occasionally, a clever YouTube video poking fun at Ben Bernanke is shared. Class discussion is nonexistent. Even more rare is a students who questions the assumptions or logic of the theory. The classes simply are not designed to encourage critical thinking about the material being learned and its relationship to the real world. At best, a professor may incorporate current events into his or her introductory remarks for the class. For most students, however, the introductory and intermediate micro- and macroeconomic theory courses are an exercise in memorization and regurgitation. It’s more about endurance than excitement or engagement.
Fortunately, I have taken two courses devoted to heterodox theories – political economy and Marxian economics – and the professor has presented the evolution of economic thought and charged his students with writing assignments that encourage discussion of both the mainstream and alternatives. While pushing students to examine the assumptions, internalize the logic, and explore the implications of economic theory may demand more, most students enjoy the challenge. Consequently, students of these courses gain an appreciation for the assumption, logical structure, and usefulness (as well as the problems and criticisms) of neoclassical economics.
In fact, as I reflect on it, writing and critical thinking are the two most valuable parts of my formal Notre Dame education that I will carry with me. Unfortunately, most mainstream economics courses never teach either of these skills. What is worse, however, these courses almost never carry the theory through to its implications for society. Although growth models may be introduced, and their assumptions and methodologies compared, the differences in terms of their application to the world is never discussed. Deirdre N. McCloskey, who made a name for herself as neoclassical economist at the University of Chicago, states, “Probably three-quarters of the scholarly activity in economics is useless, will result in no understanding of the world.”
McCloskey elaborates this point by describing one of the vices of the mainstream as “blackboard economics: endless thinking about imaginary economies that don’t ever have anything to do with the world.” In her view, “that’s not science; that’s just chess problems.” Many Notre Dame economics students aren’t looking for a chess game. They want the messy realities of the world like the ones Brazil introduced me to.
The increasing number of students traveling abroad and the growing population engaged in service with underprivileged communities mean that more students are being exposed to the growing inequalities both in the United States and around the world. Seeking disciplines that can provide them with the skills, knowledge, and credibility they need to analyze and pragmatically address the disparities, more students are turning to economics. Curious about the root causes of inequality, students begin to identify some questionable assumptions and policy implications they disagree with, but for the most part the way the neoclassical theory is taught, it appears as a complete science, no questions asked.
Some students are curious and in fall 2007 about fifteen of them started a group called Questioning and Understanding Economics in Society Today (QUEST ND). We met weekly and tried to apply the theory we had learned in class to real economic issues. With a reading and person responsible for guiding the discussion each week, we explored mainstream and alternative perspectives on issues like poverty, health care, environment, consumption, happiness, and development. Guided by the idea that by engaging a diversity of approaches we were able to more effectively learn mainstream economics, we decided to meet with the Chair and a few faculty members from the strictly neoclassical department. We framed the discussion in this way, but as soon as we started talking about alternative approaches and methodologies they tried to play ignorant and say they didn’t know what we were talking about when we referred to “neoclassical” economics. Upon clarification they tried to respond, “Well, we do teach different [growth] models and alternative accounting methodologies.”
Next, we discussed assumptions: “We do criticize our own assumptions. We even show what will happen if the assumptions are relaxed or changed.”
The meeting evolved to the point that they told us that what the five of us QUEST ND students wanted was for graduate-level classes. Additionally, they dismissed us as a representing a small sliver of economics students – most weren’t as intellectually engaged or interested. If the majority of economics students felt that a political economy course and/or a history of thought course should be added, then they might consider something.
Now, we’re trying to collect that support, to bring attention to the split, and to expose the injustice that is now playing out in the way undergraduate economics majors are being taught. The inadequate and one-sided education of economics students undermines the Catholic character and violates the academic freedom espoused by the University. There is a long road ahead but the gravity of the issue is bringing attention and support to the movement.
At Notre Dame, I believe we are capable of an economics department that educates its students in line with the values our university embraces: diversity of thought and care for the common good. However, my experience as an economics major has hindered my ability to engage the complexity that I experienced in Brazil because my training was so weak and mostly aloof from the real-world issues. Also, equipped with only one lens to view the intimately interwoven social and political issues, I failed to realize my intellectual potential as a student seeking to understand. Last semester in my econometrics course, I was advised to forsake many of the social and political factors that I deemed important, in order to create a more “publishable” regression analysis. Fortunately, a few engaged heterodox economics professors still teach at Notre Dame, but with the starving of their department and the marginalization of their rich teaching, the future looks bleak.
===
For posterity and future research sake, I’m posting the set of links to key articles and resources here:
Economics at Notre Dame
David Glenn “Notre Dame Plans to Dissolve the ‘Heterodox’ Side of Its Split Economics Department” from the Chronicle of Higher Education
John Tierney “Future of Economics Department Uncertain” from the Observer (Notre Dame student newspaper)
Matt’s blog post on the article
Nick’s followup
Chris Hayes “Hip Heterodoxy” from The Nation
Deirdre McCloskey “Notre Dame Loses” from the Eastern Economic Journal
Peter Monoghan “Taking On Rational Man” fromThe Chronicle of Higher Education
Gill Donovan “Economics Split Divides Notre Dame” from the National Catholic Reporter
Gill Donovan “Students Opposed Department Changes” from the National Catholic Reporter
TPM Cafe “Heterodox and Mainstream Economics” (posts start at bottom of page)