WHAT TO TEACH? The
Nature and Purpose of Economics as a Subject.
What IS economics?
It’s an odd starting point, but crucially important! As
Backhouse and Medema (2009) explore in their interesting article on the
definition of economics, “economists are far from unanimous about the
definition of their subject”. So, step one involves deciding in some form what
in fact is the subject you are trying to teach!
My own conclusion to this question is that economics is the
subject in which we study how groups of individuals allocate resources. Whilst
I do allude in my teaching to the fact that societies could use all manner of
methods to allocate resources (strength, intelligence, need etc.), in reality,
the primary field of study is exploring the degree of use societies make of a
free market system to do this versus a system of government invention.
What truth are we
seeking?
A popular idea in curriculum thinking is that of ‘truth’.
What ‘truth’ are we seeking in economics? At the core, we are ultimately seeking
how to best allocate resources. This is the true purpose of humanity
with regards to economics in a sense – how can we as people make the best use
of the scarce resources we have. Economic thinking can help us to pursue this.
However, within a school context, we are often really
exploring a slightly narrower version of this truth as we seek how to best
understand and explain how societies allocate resources. The distinction is
subtle. We are often not learning about or trying to actually allocate
resources better in our classrooms, we are not making resource allocation
decisions, we are studying how others are doing this. We succeed in school and
academic contexts when we can accurately understand and explain what is
happening. We do not necessarily expect to alter the existing reality at this
stage.
What is economics
FOR?
We can explore this subtle distinction further in
considering the purpose of the subject. For many students of the subject, their
economic understanding will aid them in using existing economic ideas in
their occupation. This may for example be use as a business leader or a civil
servant. Developing excellent knowledge and understanding of the existing body
of economic thought is required in order to accurately apply this in making
business or policy decisions, and in thoroughly understanding, explaining and
being able to manage the impact of factors which might affect such decisions
and policies. The ‘best’ economics is the ‘best’ application of and explanation
of existing thought.
This thinking therefore enables conceptualisation and
classification of types of knowledge within the subject. Substantive knowledge
is thus seen as the ‘canon’ of existing economic theories and thinking, and
their standard use, explanation and application. Much of the content that would
typically be included is fairly well-established and agreed upon, for example
understanding of the model of the price mechanism, theory of the firm, law of
comparative advantage etc. Teachers would find lists of much of such content in
exam board specifications and development of this in textbooks and other
subject resource materials. There is some debate around the edges as to what
school students should learn about (kinked demand curve or not, quantity theory
of money or not etc), but the number of areas where this is debateable are
relatively small compared to other subjects such as English, art or history
where the exact content of the curriculum can vary hugely.
The disciplinary knowledge here will therefore relate to how
the ‘users’ of existing economic thinking go about using it. In order to
participate in the discipline as ‘an economist’ for a business or government,
students would need to be able to develop an ability to analyse theory in a
detailed manner, to apply it appropriately to a certain context and to be able
to evaluate this analysis and evaluation in a real context. The exam board
assessment objectives are in fact rather helpful in the subject in directing attention
to the disciplinary knowledge that we want students to develop. They are not
some disconnected ideas, but rather it is the case that, when considered
properly, pursuit of these will in fact enable a student to progress to a
position where they can independently select an existing economic theory, and
then apply, analyse and evaluate it in a real context. They will be able to
function (at least on some level) as an economist or economic adviser.
But there is also a broader aspect of the discipline to
consider, the development of new economic thought. This is the work of
some in academia and those we would consider ‘economic theorists’, rather than
practising ‘economists’. These people are creating new ways to better
understand and explain how societies allocate resources. Or they may even
be seeking the ultimate goal of trying to better allocate resources.
This presents an interesting dilemma therefore with regards
to how to present what we have classified above as ‘substantive knowledge’. In
developing the would-be theorist, we should probably continue to present such
existing economic thinking, but we must be careful to distinguish this
knowledge from ‘fact’ or ‘truth’. Economics as a subject is not ‘done’. What we
have so far is the best that we have, but we must not settle in assuming that
these ways of understanding and explaining the allocation of resources are the
best ways or that these ways are right and perfect, because they are not. Flaws
exist, and we must continue to work to better understand, to better explain.
The disciplinary knowledge required to enter the realm of
the economics academic, or the economic theorist, is knowing how to criticise
theory, to challenge existing assumptions, to posit new ideas. Yet, as with
school teaching of traditional science subjects, we are in fact very unlikely
to be actually developing new economic thought in our classrooms, but we must
ensure we shine a light on this path. In order to facilitate our students
becoming the thinkers and theorists of the future we must empower them to believe
that existing thinking can, must and will be challenged, and that they can be
the challengers. The school curriculum must therefore tell the stories of how
Keynes, Nash, Kahneman and others have challenged the dominant thinking of
their day and developed new thought that has moved the field forward. Students
must develop awareness of the ways in which such people generate and test their
new thinking, and how this is accepted, or not (see SR Phillips Curve!), by
others and over time.
Opposite Direction of
Seeking Truth & Developing Knowledge in the Dual Fields of Production
Oddly, there are therefore dual ‘fields of production’ from
which the subject discipline draws. On the one hand we can see that civil
servants, politicians, business leaders and consultants take existing thinking
and initially seek the optimal application and use of such existing thought.
But interestingly, they are often those within the real world who are in fact
making significant resource allocation decisions. So they begin by using
theory and exacting their existing ideas, but as they progress in trying to be
best business or be the best government, they can then end up creating new
knowledge in the field by designing new ways of allocating resources. These
then feed back into what is studied in academic contexts and schools. Examples
would include schemes and policies such as car scrappage, furlough and
quantitative easing, or the dynamic pricing and strategy of Uber and other
disruptors. This is knowledge borne of original thought (or at least original development
of existing thought) in practical contexts.
Economic theorists on the other hand could in a sense start
with very little acceptance of the existing thinking (or arguably even very
little knowledge of the existing thinking, especially, when considering
economists in history, as it maybe didn’t even exist at the time of their
thinking!). The production of knowledge here starts with the new – a new idea,
an innovative perception or a novel realisation. This is then explored and
crafted into an explanation which can be tested in a real context and then
drawn into the body of what we regard to be ‘existing’ thought. The theorist
moves from ‘the new and the abstract’ into ‘the practical and existing’.
So, should we teach students all of the existing thinking,
and then have them develop the field though their novel application and
subsequent creation of new policy, theory or action? Or, should we teach them
nothing of existing thought and try instead to teach them to how to question,
to create new thinking, to theorise? It seems we have needed to settle on the
former. We teach our students about the giants of the existing world of
economic thought and then they can build on the shoulders of these giants. This
approach is supported when considering the backgrounds of those such as Keynes
and Nash who develop new thought because they understand the thinking of their
predecessors and thus can build upon it. It is also difficult to see how
students could generate original thought in abstraction.
But I do sometimes wonder whether indoctrinating students in
the paths and codes of existing thought will ultimately serve to constrain
their thinking and that this constraint might ultimately prevent the
development of truly innovative new thought that falls entirely outside the
boundaries of existing thinking. That is probably somewhat outside my remit
here to be honest though, but somewhere along the line (in considering the
entire school curriculum) we must give due consideration to this. Are we are
educating students to think in a way that permits them to go on to develop
original thought, or are we unintentionally educating robots who take on a
message that they must simply acquire and apply existing knowledge and ultimately
leave us stuck in fixed position as a species? Clearly we all have a duty to
ensure we open eyes and minds to new possibilities.
Practical Conclusions
for the School Teacher
1.
Allude to the debates mentioned above with
regards to the nature and purpose of the subject.
2.
Focus primarily of teaching the well-established
canon of existing ‘substantive’ knowledge, but take care not to present this as
‘fact’, ‘truth’ or the end of the story.
3.
Focus on development of disciplinary knowledge
with regards to development of the skills of application, analysis and
evaluation (and relevant vocabulary) to enable students to be able to access
the field as ‘users’ of existing economic thought in business and government
contexts.
4. Ensure you include multiple references to how original economic thinking has been and could be developed in order to keep the door open to the fields of academic research and theorising.
References
Backhouse, R. & S. Medema (2009). Retrospectives: On the
definition of economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 23, Number
1—Winter 2009—Pages 221–233. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.221
Further Reading & Contacts: Curriculum
Ashbee, R.
(2021) Curriculum: Theory, Culture and the Subject Specialisms.
Twitter: @Ruth_Ashbee
Counsell, C. (2018).
https://thedignityofthethingblog.wordpress.com/
Twitter: @Counsell_C
Myatt, M.
(2018) The Curriculum: Gallimaufry to Coherence.
Twitter:
@MaryMyatt
Sealy, C.
(2020) The researchEd Guide to the Curriculum.
Twitter:
@ClareSealy
Comments
Post a Comment