I recently read The Making of an Economist, which provides insight into the world of PhD economist. The authors, Arjo Klamer and David Colander, surveyed a few hundred students from teh top economics PhD programs in the country. Their findings were disappointing, and I hope to post some more on the current state of the economics profession, as Colander has supplemented the 1987 book with an updated analysis and an updated book.

This post will focus on some of the methodological problems of economics, which I felt Colander clearly presented in the last chapter of the book. To start it is necessary to clearly express some of the differences between what most people think of as economics and the professional academic world. To most economics is supply and demand and maybe some marginal analysis, its concepts, general theorems and ideas described in models and logic. Yet in the professional academic world its more akin to physics, utilizing highly mathematical models to test hypothesis. The questions are no longer formed by inquiry into the world but rather focus on the mathematical models ability to be used. The models prescribe the inquiry rather than inquiry itself.

In the book, Colander makes a distinction between positivism, where the focus is on knowledge gaining is a result of empirically testing well-specified hypothesis, and a sociological approach to methodology. To quote Colander,

a sociological approach does not assume that scientist are searching for truth. Truth is one of their goals, but only one; professional advancement, recognition, and wealth are other of perhaps equal or more importance.

The interviewees described this as part of their graduate studies, that they choose their dissertation on not what interests them but what will most likely get them a job at a top research school. So they are taught these mathematical models, feel its necessary to use them to do their dissertation, to get a job to teach the same mathematical models.

Colander,

Positivism says science ends with formal empirical testing; if formal empirical testing is impossible, no science is possible. A sociological approach says that science does not end with formal empirical testing-that there are reasonable ways of processing information upon which people can agree.

So that’s one of the problems of the discipline’s methodology-the focus on the things that are empirically testable through well-specified hypothesis. Unfortunately some of the most interesting questions of life aren’t easily well-specified. The graduate students interviewed expressed interest in the pursuit of truth, but felt limited and dis-empowered by spending so much time mastering constrained optimization and econometric modeling which give them tools that can only be used for certain questions. They should have the opportunity to learn how to go about the search for truth with as many reasonable tools as possible.

Colander position of utilizing a sociological approach to methodology makes sense in fact its in line with economist’s own views of others,

Positivism assumes individuals search for the truth, even if it is not in their self-interest. The sociological approach that I use, paradoxically, assumes scientist are the same type of rational beings that neoclassical economics assumes all people are. to be a neoclassical economist whose methodology is positivism is to be inconsistent.

The up-side is that there are plenty of economist who understand the limitations of positivism. The discipline continues to evolve and change. I think the next step is for it to better appreciate a more multi-discipline approach with a sociological approach to methodology.

There’s much more to share about The Becoming of an Economist, but it must be returned to the library. I hope to read the redux soon.