Economics: Revolts from within the Citadel
\nor
\n'When might this movement begin in Indonesia?'<\/p>\n
B. Herry-Priyono
\nLecturer
\nDriyarkara School of Philosophy
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
An important historic event is happening right under our noses,
\nbut it seems to have escaped the attention of the Indonesian
\nmedia. The event may not be as riotous as the 60's student
\nrevolts around the world, but, in many respects, it may have a
\nlong-term and significant impact on the future of our political
\neconomy. It is a revolt from within the heart of the economics
\ndepartments at some of the most prestigious universities in the
\nworld.<\/p>\n
It started in France in June 2000, then spread to Cambridge
\n(UK), sending intellectual tremors to many economics departments
\naround the world before finally erupting at Harvard University
\nearlier this year. In brief, it has been a revolt by the future
\ngeneration of economists directed against "unreality and
\ndogmatism in mainstream economics".<\/p>\n
Over 700 Harvard students and alumni signed a petition
\naddressed to the Harvard Economics Department, asking it to
\napprove a new introductory economics course proposed by Harvard
\neconomics professor, Stephen Marglin, that would cover "a broader
\nspectrum of views", "examine the assumptions of economics", and
\n"challenge students to think critically" (The New York Times,
\nMarch 4, 2003; Boston Globe, March 9; Harvard Crimson Reports,
\nMarch 17).<\/p>\n
Many observers expected such a revolt would, sooner or later,
\nerupt. Of course, the significance of it should not be overrated,
\nbut it should not be underrated either, as what is being demanded
\nis nothing short of a fundamental reassessment of many basic
\nideas upon which the present global political economy is founded.
\nHere are two crucial points in the "mission statement" of the
\nprotesting Harvard students.<\/p>\n
First, "we believe that Harvard, by only providing one model
\nof economics, fails to provide critical perspectives or
\nalternative models for analyzing the economy and its social
\nconsequences". It is a revolt against both economic ideas and
\napproaches that do not take into account "non-economic"
\nimplications. What sort of societal consequences are there?
\nJoseph Stiglitz, that giant economist, seems to have given a good
\nexample in his Globalization and Its Discontents when he says:
\n"The typical central bank governor begins his day worrying about
\ninflation statistics, not poverty statistics; the trade minister
\nworries about export numbers, not pollution indices".<\/p>\n
Second, "by falsely presenting economics as a positive science
\ndevoid of ethical values, we believe Harvard strips students of
\ntheir intellectual agency and prevents them from being able to
\nmake up their own minds". This protest statement simply means
\nthat it is plainly wrong to regard economics as having nothing to
\ndo with ethical issues, no matter how detached the science of
\neconomics pretends to be. Everything under the sun dealing with
\nhuman activity (as is surely the case with economics) needs also
\nto be understood in relation to ethical evaluations.<\/p>\n
Calling bias a fact is not simply a misnomer, but a form of
\nideological deceit. This is exactly what Daniel DiMaggio, one of
\nthe student leaders of the Harvard reform movement, meant when he
\nsaid that the existing introductory economic course "is fairly
\nideological, if not completely ideological". What sort of
\nideological bias is consequentially propagated at the policy
\nlevel then? Again, Stiglitz may not be too far off when he says
\nof the following neo-liberal vicious twist: "from serving global
\neconomic interests to serving the interests of global finance..,
\n[which means] Wall Street."<\/p>\n
It is important to see the wave of these revolts by the new
\ngeneration of economists not as an anarchic movement trying to
\nflatten the noble contribution that economics has given to
\nsociety. The aim is to bring the increasingly insular science of
\neconomics back to the real "joys" and "sorrows" of ordinary
\ncitizens, and not merely of a few financial oligarchs who have
\nbenefited so handsomely from the autistic character of policies
\nfounded upon such an autistic economic ideology.<\/p>\n
Moreover, these revolts are not cloaked in the language of
\n"anti" anything, such as anti-capitalism, anti-globalization or
\nanti-market. What seems true is that the revolt from these
\ncitadels of economics may be likened to what John Maynard Keynes
\ndid around 70 years ago: rescuing capitalism from its own
\ndamnation. It is worth observing that this movement has been
\nflourishing amid the many corporate and market scandals in the
\nU.S., France, the Netherlands, Britain, -- all taking place
\nwithout government help.<\/p>\n
Indeed, as the latest survey by The Economist (June 28, 2003)
\nbluntly says, "the main dangers to the success of capitalism are
\nthe very people who would consider themselves its most ardent
\nadvocates: the bosses of companies, the owners of companies and
\nthe politicians who tirelessly insist that they are pro-
\nbusiness". Why? They are defenders who always eschew
\naccountability and tend to be rabid fanatics who are blind to the
\nambivalent character of capitalism.<\/p>\n
While have all these movements been progressing in earnest in
\nthe West, many here in this country, who are merely engaged in
\nthe marketing of their ideas, seem too busy setting up political
\nparties or jockeying for position in the 2004 general elections.
\nIn this way, we always lag behind. And in our attempts to be good
\nstudents, we fanatically propagate economic ideas taught by our
\nprofessors, without realizing that these ideas have undergone
\nprofound reassessments in other parts of the world. Indeed,
\nunreflective students often become fanatics.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, societal censure often greets those who
\noffer alternative understandings here. This reminds me of the
\nlament once shared by a young economics lecturer from a prominent
\nuniversity in Jakarta. As someone trained in economics yet well
\nversed in other social science literature, he knows only too well
\nthat there is something not quite right about the way economics
\nis being taught at his university.<\/p>\n
A standard textbook is used, but he is barred by his
\nsupervisors from teaching his students the subject matter
\ndiscussed in certain chapters. The reason? The forbidden chapters
\ncontain critiques of the chapters upon which the lecturing
\nmaterials are based. In his own words, "that's why, instead of
\nproducing thinkers, our universities only produce fanatical
\nbrokers".<\/p>\n
When I told him about the reform movement taking place at some
\nof the world's foremost economics institutions, he posed a
\nrhetorical question: "When might this sort of movement start at
\nIndonesian universities?"<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/economics-revolts-from-within-the-citadel-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}