When the global economy crashed in 2008, the list of culprits was long, including dozy regulators, greedy bankers and feckless subprime borrowers. Now the dismal science itself is in the dock, with much soul-searching over why economists failed to predict the financial crisis. One of the outcomes of this debate is that economics students are demanding the reform of a curriculum they think sustains a selfish strain of capitalism and is dominated by abstract mathematics. It looks like the students will get their way. A new curriculum, designed at the University of Oxford, is being tried out. This is good news.
Defenders of the status quo have pushed back, pointing to a rich hinterland of heterodox economics thinkers. Dig deep and you can find plenty of academic treatises on bank runs, unstable credit cycles and irrational markets. That people are selfish and that businesses pursue profit is not the fault of economics but of human nature. Accurately predicting the future is an unrealistic test of any academic discipline, particularly one that encompasses limitless human interactions.
But the fundamental point made by the critics is right. For a subject so engaged with studying worldly behaviour, there is too much timeless abstraction and too little scrutiny of real-world events. The typical economics course starts with the study of how rational agents interact in frictionless markets, producing an outcome that is best for everyone. Only later does it cover those wrinkles and perversities that characterise real economic behaviour, such as anti-competitive practices or unstable financial markets. As students advance, there is a growing bias towards mathematical elegance. When the uglier real world intrudes, it only prompts the question: this is all very well in practice but how does it work in theory?