Written by Alexander Bray
Illustrated by Paavas Bansal
According to the Complete University Guide, London School of Economics and Political Science is ranked second in the United Kingdom in economics, which makes sense for a university with ‘economics’ in its name.
Does this reflect the ability of Economics at LSE to tackle some of humanity’s greatest modern challenges, such as climate change, universal access to basic goods and services, and societal inequality? This was the subject of a national report by Rethinking Economics UK, examining if ‘economics education [is] fit for the 21st century’ among twenty universities, including LSE.
What does a 21st century ‘economics education’ look like?
The National Report makes four recommendations to all universities on how to make economics education fit for the 21st century.
Firstly, they recommend changing the way that students are introduced to the discipline of economics. The dominant economic school of thought is ‘neoclassical economics’, which is taught at introductory microeconomics courses as if it were the foundation of all economics. This narrows down a student’s experience of economics as simply models of rational agents following the invisible hand of the market, where if something is not priced, it may as well not exist.
This contrasts with economic history, where gift economies, not markets, used to dominate smaller societies, built on the basis of good will towards one’s neighbour. Pricing anything and everything also reduces the complexity of analysing social, cultural and environmental impacts of policies, making them seem ‘cheap’ compared to people’s experiences or even scientific reality. As the neoclassical school aggregates micro into macro, these biases continue throughout economics degrees, creating and perpetuating the assumption that economics only has one method of thinking.
In contrast, the report recommends that “economics departments restructure undergraduate economics education by introducing new models that replace the overarching binary of microeconomics-macroeconomics in the first year of study”. The University of Sydney, for instance, runs courses in Political Economy, where the introductory module ‘Economics as a Social Science’ examines multiple schools of economic thought, their assumptions, and their broader contributions to economics, without separating micro from macro so rigidly. More broadly, they recommend that economics education engage students in debate and discussion on inequality, the environment, and power relations. Critical thinking will be the priority here, rather than solving model equations ad nauseam.
Secondly, the report calls for the decarbonisation, decolonisation and diversification of economics learning. ‘Decarbonisation’ is teaching that economic systems are fundamentally embedded in ecological realities, making the environment matter beyond negative externalities in a market. ‘Decolonising’ is recognising that there are historical and contemporary inequalities perpetuated by colonialism, where the Global North has economically benefitted from imperial relationships with the Global South. Finally, ‘Diversification’ is moving away from hegemony (the dominance of one school of thought in a discipline) and moving towards pluralism (the consideration of multiple schools of thought), so that students can learn, discuss and critically assess ecological, feminist, decolonial, Marxist, institutional and post-Keynesian schools of thought, alongside the neoclassical school.
Thirdly, the report recommends changing economics assessment to be far less dependent on mathematics exams and the regurgitation of information, but rather to “prioritise critical thinking, collaborative work and individual research projects”. Referring to academics outside the economics discipline to teach differing perspectives and considerations is also encouraged, and the report particularly praises the approach of the LSE100 module to foster interdisciplinary thinking and discourse.
Finally, the report recommends democratising economics by better consultation with students on how to change economics curriculums for progress on the above goals. It also advocates for economics students having more options outside their primary subject, as it will “[help] dispel the myth currently conveyed to students that economics is apolitical”. Interdisciplinary teaching would also reduce the ‘arrogance’ associated with economics being a ‘superior social science’.
For instance, economists Jennifer Doleac, Anita Mukherjee, and Molly Schnell conducted a study that argued against harm reduction (substituting opioid consumption for safe heroin injections to reduce the risk of addicts contracting HIV) despite the World Health Organisation and the wider health community supporting it. These economists, who “[did not] appear not to read anything that’s not published by an economist”, refused to accept any criticism from medical professionals, claiming that the latter had “little understanding of rigorous research methods”. Democratisation of economics also includes better consultation with students on how to change economics curriculums for progress.
How does LSE stack up?
The report places LSE as a university that “need[s] a wake up call”. In particular, it highlights that mainstream economic theories dominate the BSc Economics course, which “comes at the expense of learning real-world economics.” One notable exception is the LSE100 programme, which engages in interdisciplinary approaches to project research, including ecological economics for the climate futures option.
The BSc Economics course heavily prioritises quantitative methods and their thorough examination, particularly in third year modules. Wealth and inequality are covered by six out of nineteen modules, but critical questions of historical slavery, colonialism and neocolonialism are only discussed in one module. The environment is covered in three modules, where one includes ecological economics.
Overall, LSE seems to do well compared to most universities, but its major focus on the neoclassical school, particularly in compulsory modules, risks causing students to think that economics is an objective, straightforward ‘science’ that operates by solving models to the world’s end. This contrasts with the truly rich variety of perspectives that exist in economics, particularly in heterodox schools. The disengagement and boredom of students in economics classes is noticeable, as economics teaching expects them to solve maths puzzles without much critical thinking or creativity. ‘Mentioning and forgetting’ assumptions causes students to accept them, despite their lack of basis in the real economy based on regular people’s lived experiences.
As many LSE economics graduates go on to control vast sums of assets and financial resources, it would perhaps benefit them and the world to understand and critically assess multiple perspectives on how those resources are allocated, rather than be intellectually deprived with our current, singular thought curriculum.
