Economics as it is currently taught in the majority of universities worldwide is the object of controversy. Various groups of students and lecturers are questioning the economics education being given by universities and colleges. The criticism being made has intensified in the wake of the crisis, but a number of different protests were also springing up earlier to this. The system is cyclical and crises are inevitable, not a thing of the past as per the belief spread by the dominant school of thought in economics. Because of its inexstricable attachment to equilibrium models, neoclassical economics is incapable of understanding the dynamic processes in the economy, making it insufficient not only because of its inability to predict crises, but also because of its inability to provide the tools needed to understand the workings of the economy.
Neoclassical economics should not be the only theory currently in force. This does not mean the IS–LM model should not be studied, but its limitations and restrictions must be highlighted; as an equilibrium model it does not correspond to what happens in reality, which is disequilibrium and vulnerability. It is thus necessary to take into account other ideas, such as Marxist, Keynesian, Schumpeterian, institutional and post-Keynesian theories.
In this interview Elisenda Paluzie analyses the origins of the so-called Post Crash movement in Catalonia and the effects on a renowned institution such as the one she heads: the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Barcelona (UB). Paluzie believes this critical movement, which began following the recent economic crisis, is principally rooted in a lack of plurality in teaching, which can be based on three elements: theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. She comments on how these three factors are treated in her faculty and ends on the need for the teaching of economics to evolve. In this regard she highlights ‘The core Project’, an initiative with a goal to reset the approach to economics teaching with new coursebooks, in the belief that the materials currently holding sway continue to approach matters as if during the last 20 years nothing had occurred.
Economics as an academic discipline is unique inasmuch as ever-increasing numbers of students are rebelling against the content offered by universities. Our intention with this paper is to expose the scope of the problem lying behind this discontent, addressing some of its aspects in close detail. First, the economics discipline is defined in its current state as a monoculture based on the three axiomatic principles of neoclassical economics, and through epistemic discourse, the monoculture problem is discussed in depth. Second, the lack of pluralism in current study programmes is highlighted, with the results from analyses conducted by a variety of groups focusing on universities in the United Kingdom, France and Spain. Third, the pluralism of theories, disciplines and methodologies is presented as a strategy to break with the neoclassical monoculture and to improve the education of students of economics. The paper concludes by bringing into sharp focus how pluralism in the teaching of economics is necessary not only for economics students, but for the academic world, the business world and society in general.
This article examines how the advent of the third industrial revolution (the knowledge economy) transforms the scientific paradigm of the economy and, therefore, purposes new challenges for the economic analysis and teaching. Linking to the history of economic thought, the paper obtains two main conclusions. First, there is a need to articulate new behavior and new performance metrics of the economy. In particular, it suggests the need to move from individual behavior towards the collective behavior, from the monetary transaction towards the knowledge exchange, from oligopolistic competition to the business networks, from the economic firm towards the social firm, and from the national, international and world economy to the global economy. Secondly, it also suggests new approaches for teaching economics. In particular, recover all branches of economic thought (beyond neoclassical economics), and reconfigure the organization of teaching towards an interdisciplinary and transversal knowledge network to solve economic and social problems.
This article reflects on the history of the loss of plurality in economics, from an autobiographical perspective and with regard to some of the key moments in the discipline. To do so the article embarks on an exploration of economics learning in three cities at three different periods, telling five stories.