Category: Economics Education/Teaching

Foucault and Economics

This post is more of a suggestion than an explanation. There has been hardly any scholarly work done with respect to applying Michel Foucault’s ideas and approaches to political economy or economics. On searching the internet, all I could find was a conference conducted in 2005 titled ‘Rethinking Foucault, Rethinking Political Economy’ at University of Leicester, UK and a PhD thesis submitted by Iara Vigo de Lima at the University of Stirling in 2006. This post is a result of my reading of certain sections of Dr. Lima’s thesis and the sadness associated with the knowledge that economists have not studied/read/understood Foucault.

I find it difficult to believe that nobody has tried to think/rethink the methodology and historiography of Economics by applying Foucauldian themes. To do justice to this area of research, it is necessary that I quote certain sentences from Dr. Lima’s thesis, as my knowledge of Foucault is limited.

‘Foucault followed Nietzsche’s genealogical approach aiming not ‘simply to gain access to the unfamiliar past’, but mainly ‘to articulate and illuminate the familiar present’, and ‘the past, then, becomes a means to access the present’.’ [p. 16]

‘For Foucault, concepts, notions, theoretical frameworks, methods, etc., are bounded by time and culture.’ [p. 21]

‘Michel Foucault’s particular insight, especially his way of thinking about history – which he preferred to call ‘history of systems of thought’ – does offer elements that let us think about this question, and specifically in economics (given that he applied it to the history of economic thought). According to him, every age has its way of producing ‘the truth’, which can be uncovered as we think about history.’ [p. 24]

‘… one of his objectives in OT: to find out how political economy established itself as a discipline (discourse) at the end of the 18th century.’ [p. 29]

Very often economics is taught (in India) as if the present day economics is what has evolved out of the previous economic theories. Therefore, the multiple paradigms that prevail in economics are seldom expressed clearly. It is not uncommon to learn the theories of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, etc under Classical theories. Then, they are forgotten. They are mentioned as the initial thinkers. No more are they mentioned nor their relevance. For, neo-Smithians, neo-Rocardians, neo-Malthusians, etc are very much present. And, they do come out with better theories than the neoclassical economists.

This post suggests that one ought to know that there are ‘other’ truths (heterodox economic theories) apart from the truth that we are taught ‘ neoclassical economics. And in this aspect, a reading of Foucault will prove to be immensely insightful.

On the ‘Invisible’ Adam Smith

This post mainly deals with the common misconception about Adam Smith, whose name is known to all students and professors of Economics; the misconception being the notion that he advocated laissez-faire. Sadly, his works are not as known. (Though the names of his two major works are widely known) So, this post tries to makes visible what is commonly invisible regarding Smith.

In the Indian Schools, textbooks in Economics associate him with the ‘wealth definition’. In Frank ISC Economics, which is authored by D K Sethi and U Andrews, Adam Smith is supposed to have defined Economics as ‘A science which enquires into the nature and causes of wealth of nations.’ Definition is ‘a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol’. [Dictionary.com] Adam Smith has never defined Economics is the afore mentioned way. Is it ‘right’ to teach such ideas’ Isn’t it against the ethics of academics’ A large number of students are programmed in such a way in school, whereby their notion of economics is constituted only by neoclassical economics. Plurality in economics has been totally done away with. Teachers teach what is printed in the textbooks. No questions are asked.

Also, it is not surprising to see classical economists (Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, etc) being seen as ‘classical’ or rather irrelevant, because of either their naive assumptions or their bad theories.

The primary focus of this blog post is to argue that Adam Smith never advocated Laissez-faire. Let me put forth two instances where such a misconception has been put forth.

The following paragraph was published in The Hindu Young World, a widely read Indian Newspaper.

Adam Smith’s fundamental proposition was that a free market is a self-regulating mechanism and tends to produce the most desirable types and quantities of goods.

The second instance is from Economy professor, an online dictionary of economics.

Adam Smith’s fundamental argument was that individuals should be allowed to pursue their own private economic interests as much as possible and so long as they do not violate basic principles of justice.

Smith called this the invisible hand of the market – although everyone is acting in their own self-interest, they are led to achieve the good of all as if by an invisible hand of economic forces. Therefore, outside interference will inevitably lead to disaster. This became known as laissez-faire economic policy.

Instances like these are numerous. One reason could be that, the only paragraph(s) that such people read by Smith is this (are these):

Every individual…generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

-The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter II

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.

-The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter II

In fact, there is very little evidence to state that Smith advocated ‘free markets’ through stating the importance of self-interested behaviour. Also, he viewed individuals as a part of the society and not like an individual that is cut off from the society-the Homo economicus. Sen rightly points out that ‘it is precisely the narrowing of broad Smithian view of human beings, in modern economies, that can be seen as one of the major deficiencies of contemporary economic theory.’ [Sen 1987]

To conclude, Adam Smith tried to understand his society and also tried to prescribe ways by which the society could grow-morally and economically through his two masterpieces. In short, he was a great scholar, who ideas are still prevalent; despite what school textbooks and some academicians posit.

References

Sen, A.K. 1987: Economic Behaviour and Moral Sentiments. On Ethics and Economics. OUP.

Further Reading

Prof. Gavin Kennedy’s Blog-a must read for those who want to ‘know’ Adam Smith.

The Prospects of Homo economicus-a scientific American piece which uses behavioural economics.

Myth and Fact about Homo economicus

On Malthusian Theory of Population

This post revisits ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ written by Thomas Malthus in 1798. In my last post I briefly touched upon his population theory. Unfortunately, mainstream economics textbooks mention Malthus only for his ‘bad’ population theory. His other significant contributions like Differential Theory of Rent, his theory of money, his questions about the validity of Say’s law, etc are conveniently suppressed.

First, I would like to discuss why his theory is ‘good’ and then I would like to show how Malthus is viewed, interpreted and treated by various economists and students of economics.

Economics as viewed earlier and as viewed now (by a few) was a discipline which tried to understand the society (now known an economy) and also to come up with solutions for the problems that persist. His Essay ‘was the first serious economic study of the welfare of the lower classes‘ during his times. He was also a clergyman who wanted to make the society perfect.

His two postulates were that ‘food is necessary to man’ and that ‘the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state’. [Malthus 1798] Now we know that the first is a true premise and the second one is believed to be a law of nature. So, there are no issues with both his postulates. He also refers to these postulates as ‘laws of nature’.

Ceteris paribus, population growth will outstrip food growth. He also gives additional insights as to how population growth will necessarily be checked. His thought experiment based on the ‘true’ premises is therefore valid. At this juncture, one needs to understand the underlying assumption of diminishing returns to agriculture. Once this is understood, there is no reason to call his theory ‘bad’.

How can such a theory be useful to the society’ It brings to the fore the need for improvements in agriculture through technological advances, so that food production can be increased. (Assuming increased food production implies lesser hunger, but Amartya Sen proved otherwise. But it is necessary to have sufficient ‘food’ to feed society) Family planning is undertaken so that no child goes hungry apart from other reasons. Such checks are welcomed by all. Also, they indirectly draw from Malthus- the need for all people to consume food. However, checks like the Chinese one child policy create social problems on a massive scale.

It is amazing that even when his theory is viewed in isolation (from his other works), it still holds good! With progress in education (school children get introduced to a lot of theories and facts at an early age) theories like Malthus’ seem obvious and hence pointless. This also reflects the way theories are taught in schools and colleges. Very often, the context of the theory is left out. Corn Laws, the then predominant Ricardian theories, etc are very often not mentioned or discussed.

Now, I shall put forth two different views on Malthus, the economist.

1)

In this famous work, Malthus posited his hypothesis that (unchecked) population growth always exceeds the growth of means of subsistence. Actual (checked) population growth is kept in line with food supply growth by “positive checks” (starvation, disease and the like, elevating the death rate) and “preventive checks” (i.e. postponement of marriage, etc. that keep down the birth rate), both of which are characterized by “misery and vice”. [Source] (Note the mention of (unchecked))

2)

Malthus believed that population would increase at a geometric rate and the food supply at an arithmetic rate.

Malthusian population theory was eventually dismissed for its pessimism and failure to take into account technological advances in agriculture and food production. [Source]

Conclusion

How should theories be taught’ By this post, I only intend to question the current teaching and understanding of Malthus’ theories. Also, I wish to stress the importance of understanding and studying the ‘context’ (historical, political, social, cultural,etc) of a theory.

Now, economists (positive economics) are busy using scientific methods so as to universalise theories rather than provide solutions to hunger, poverty, unemployment and other socio-economic problems.

To sum up, Malthus stressed on the need to keep population and food production in such a way that everyone would be fed. I believe that this still holds true across the globe as one of the main concerns of economics.

Further Reading

1) 1) 1) Darwin and Malthus

2) 2) 2) Is India falling into the Malthusian trap’, C. J. Punnathara, The Hindu Business Line, April 9, 2008.

3) 3) 3) Malthus, the false prophet, May 15th 2008, The Economist.

4) 4) 4) The International Society of Malthus (further links from the society)

5) On GM Food and GM Mosquitoes

Economics Education: The Indian Context

Economics is viewed in most schools, colleges (Management institutes as well) and universities as a monolithic enterprise. It comprises mainly Microeconomics and Macroeconomics and uses Econometrics and Mathematical Economics as tools to understand the economy. Interestingly, tools like philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology lie forgotten. Or probably they are not viewed as tools anymore. Or they are not scientific enough!

This post deals with the dominant perception of Economics within India and how these perceptions adversely affect the spirit of economics in particular and of scientific inquiry in general.

Courses like History of Economic Thought are extended to include Classical Political Economy, Marxian Economics, etc. They are taught as outdated ideas and not as relevant approaches in understanding the economy. This is visible from the responses of students when works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx etc are mentioned. I shall discuss Malthus in this post and in the next post, I shall discuss some of the theories of Marx.

Unfortunately, Malthus is known only for his ‘bad’ population theory. Interestingly enough, all that Malthus [1798] said was ‘that population, when unchecked, increased in a geometrical ratio, and subsistence for man in an arithmetical ratio.

Let us examine whether this position be just. I think it will be allowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have any account of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means of subsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to early marriages, among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing well for their families, or among the higher classes, from a fear of lowering their condition in life. Consequently in no state that we have yet known has the power of population been left to exert itself with perfect freedom.‘ (Italics added)

Such an argument is what philosophers of science classify as a ‘thought experiment’. But mainstream economists classify this as a theory which has provided wrong predictions.

Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. And in our own time, the creation of quantum mechanics and relativity are almost unthinkable without the crucial role played by thought experiments. [Brown 2007] If one were to discredit and disregard Malthus’ theory, then there is no reason why the theory of perfect competition should be considered in Economics at all. The issue is that, there is hardly any work being done in methodological issues pertaining to economics and on the structure of a good economic theory, therefore one definitely needs to consider each and every theory in its own context. By context I refer to the historical background and the general argument that is being put forth.

Philosophical debates within Economics are very essential for the growth of both the disciplines, but more significant for economics. Methodological and epistemological issues are not commonly discussed in economics. This is very necessary because economics, economists and economies are ever growing in importance. Their policies have far reaching effects. And if they are not constructed in the right spirit, the objectives of the policy might not be fulfilled at all. The Indian budget 2008-09 is one such example. None of the Indian universities have a course pertaining to the Philosophy of Economics in its Masters’ courses. This shows the importance it has received vis-a-vis econometrics and game theory.

Also, economics claims to be a science and Professor Peter Englund, Secretary of the Economics (Nobel) Prize Committee thinks so as well when he says ‘In all relevant respects the committee understands and treats economics as a field of science.’ I see it as a shirking away of economics from questioning itself- its methodology and its knowledge.

It is primarily this attainment of a scientific nature by mainstream neoclassical economics that is bringing doom to the people constituting the economy. The present analysis in mainstream economics is not only ahistorical but also asocial. Economics needs to understand its origins and its epistemology. It ought to be a pluralistic enterprise. And let theoretical anarchism prevail because ‘it is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress.’ [Feyerabend 1975]