Economics: Revolts from within the Citadel

Economics: Revolts from within the Citadel
or
'When might this movement begin in Indonesia?'

B. Herry-Priyono
Lecturer
Driyarkara School of Philosophy
Jakarta

An important historic event is happening right under our noses,
but it seems to have escaped the attention of the Indonesian
media. The event may not be as riotous as the 60's student
revolts around the world, but, in many respects, it may have a
long-term and significant impact on the future of our political
economy. It is a revolt from within the heart of the economics
departments at some of the most prestigious universities in the
world.

It started in France in June 2000, then spread to Cambridge
(UK), sending intellectual tremors to many economics departments
around the world before finally erupting at Harvard University
earlier this year. In brief, it has been a revolt by the future
generation of economists directed against "unreality and
dogmatism in mainstream economics".

Over 700 Harvard students and alumni signed a petition
addressed to the Harvard Economics Department, asking it to
approve a new introductory economics course proposed by Harvard
economics professor, Stephen Marglin, that would cover "a broader
spectrum of views", "examine the assumptions of economics", and
"challenge students to think critically" (The New York Times,
March 4, 2003; Boston Globe, March 9; Harvard Crimson Reports,
March 17).

Many observers expected such a revolt would, sooner or later,
erupt. Of course, the significance of it should not be overrated,
but it should not be underrated either, as what is being demanded
is nothing short of a fundamental reassessment of many basic
ideas upon which the present global political economy is founded.
Here are two crucial points in the "mission statement" of the
protesting Harvard students.

First, "we believe that Harvard, by only providing one model
of economics, fails to provide critical perspectives or
alternative models for analyzing the economy and its social
consequences". It is a revolt against both economic ideas and
approaches that do not take into account "non-economic"
implications. What sort of societal consequences are there?
Joseph Stiglitz, that giant economist, seems to have given a good
example in his Globalization and Its Discontents when he says:
"The typical central bank governor begins his day worrying about
inflation statistics, not poverty statistics; the trade minister
worries about export numbers, not pollution indices".

Second, "by falsely presenting economics as a positive science
devoid of ethical values, we believe Harvard strips students of
their intellectual agency and prevents them from being able to
make up their own minds". This protest statement simply means
that it is plainly wrong to regard economics as having nothing to
do with ethical issues, no matter how detached the science of
economics pretends to be. Everything under the sun dealing with
human activity (as is surely the case with economics) needs also
to be understood in relation to ethical evaluations.

Calling bias a fact is not simply a misnomer, but a form of
ideological deceit. This is exactly what Daniel DiMaggio, one of
the student leaders of the Harvard reform movement, meant when he
said that the existing introductory economic course "is fairly
ideological, if not completely ideological". What sort of
ideological bias is consequentially propagated at the policy
level then? Again, Stiglitz may not be too far off when he says
of the following neo-liberal vicious twist: "from serving global
economic interests to serving the interests of global finance..,
[which means] Wall Street."

It is important to see the wave of these revolts by the new
generation of economists not as an anarchic movement trying to
flatten the noble contribution that economics has given to
society. The aim is to bring the increasingly insular science of
economics back to the real "joys" and "sorrows" of ordinary
citizens, and not merely of a few financial oligarchs who have
benefited so handsomely from the autistic character of policies
founded upon such an autistic economic ideology.

Moreover, these revolts are not cloaked in the language of
"anti" anything, such as anti-capitalism, anti-globalization or
anti-market. What seems true is that the revolt from these
citadels of economics may be likened to what John Maynard Keynes
did around 70 years ago: rescuing capitalism from its own
damnation. It is worth observing that this movement has been
flourishing amid the many corporate and market scandals in the
U.S., France, the Netherlands, Britain, -- all taking place
without government help.

Indeed, as the latest survey by The Economist (June 28, 2003)
bluntly says, "the main dangers to the success of capitalism are
the very people who would consider themselves its most ardent
advocates: the bosses of companies, the owners of companies and
the politicians who tirelessly insist that they are pro-
business". Why? They are defenders who always eschew
accountability and tend to be rabid fanatics who are blind to the
ambivalent character of capitalism.

While have all these movements been progressing in earnest in
the West, many here in this country, who are merely engaged in
the marketing of their ideas, seem too busy setting up political
parties or jockeying for position in the 2004 general elections.
In this way, we always lag behind. And in our attempts to be good
students, we fanatically propagate economic ideas taught by our
professors, without realizing that these ideas have undergone
profound reassessments in other parts of the world. Indeed,
unreflective students often become fanatics.

On the other hand, societal censure often greets those who
offer alternative understandings here. This reminds me of the
lament once shared by a young economics lecturer from a prominent
university in Jakarta. As someone trained in economics yet well
versed in other social science literature, he knows only too well
that there is something not quite right about the way economics
is being taught at his university.

A standard textbook is used, but he is barred by his
supervisors from teaching his students the subject matter
discussed in certain chapters. The reason? The forbidden chapters
contain critiques of the chapters upon which the lecturing
materials are based. In his own words, "that's why, instead of
producing thinkers, our universities only produce fanatical
brokers".

When I told him about the reform movement taking place at some
of the world's foremost economics institutions, he posed a
rhetorical question: "When might this sort of movement start at
Indonesian universities?"