Economists and Liberal Education

By

 In my previous post, I provided some thoughts about the ability of the institutional university to supply the holistic educational experience necessary for what it provides to be called a liberal education. That post was an attempt to think institutionally about the points made by Alex regarding liberal education. I am going to continue that form of inquiry by looking at an institutional equivalent of economics: the economist. While it is possible for economics to be liberal, what does it mean for economists to be liberal?

Let us return briefly to Cardinal John Henry Newman’s conception of liberal education. For education to be liberal, it must be holistic. The student must gain insight into the interconnectedness and necessity of all the disciplines and not just the major object of their studies. While a liberal education does not guarantee a virtuous person, it does provide the opportunity for a mature person: one that has (some) grasp on the world and society. Therefore, the chief duty of university faculty is to provide students with the skillsets necessary to think critically. Through (hopefully) critical thought students will make choices and act in and upon the world. Of course, all of this is inherent with the term “art.” Anne M. Carpenter summarizes for us thusly: “In Latin, these meanings are present in a single word: ars means both ‘power/craft’ and ‘skill/art.’ An artist is one who has the power to act skillfully. One who achieves ‘art’ is one who has mastered a skill, so much so that the doing is more art than the finished work is.” It is through the university that faculty train students to become artists and it is through thought that is both free and freeing that students may become liberal artists.

It has been noted that political economy is both an art and a science. However, as political economy dissected and moved from its origins as part of moral philosophy to what it is today, the discipline of economics had to redefine what it meant for itself to be an art. This reconsideration moved the focus of the discipline from the romantic to the practical. Dr. Peter Boettke summarizes: “John Neville Keynes (1852-1949), the father of John Maynard Keynes, famously divided economics into positive economics (study of what is), normative economics (study of what should be) and the ‘art of economics’ (applied economics where the lessons of positive economics are utilized to address normative economics).  It is in the ‘art’ that J. N. Keynes (and Marshall and Pigou) thought that the science of economics will bear fruit.” The students of social complexities became or at least attempted to become the masters. Claims to the illiberality of economists relative to political economy suddenly have credibility.

For economics and economists to be considered liberal, it is necessary for both the subject and its practitioners to find their place again within the university. It is only within the context of other disciplines and with their cooperation that any singular study may find its role. One may consider the contributions of James Buchanan and the Virginia School of Political Economy in this light. (For an account of the emergence and purpose of VPE, please see Levy and Peart's Towards an Economics of Natural Equals:A Documentary History of the Early Virginia School.) Buchanan’s goal and that of the Thomas Jefferson Center was “to carry on the honorable tradition of ‘political economy’—the study of what makes for a ‘good society.’ Political economists stress the technical economic principles that one must understand in order to assess alternative arrangements for promoting peaceful cooperation and productive specialization among free men. Yet political economists go further and frankly try to bring out into the open the philosophical issues that necessarily underlie all discussions of the appropriate functions of government and all proposed economic policy measures. They examine philosophical values for consistency among themselves and with the ideal of human freedom.” An economist who thinks and works like a political economist takes into account that there is more to the discipline than optimization and that there is more to life than economics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Liberal Economics?

By
Economics is a liberal discipline.  This is my argument, expressed as concisely as possible.  I do not have in mind political or social liberalism.  The historical connections between economics and the various European liberalisms have been well-established by intellectual historians.  Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , published in 1776, was a watershed moment for economics and liberalism.  The rise of Manchesterism, with its advocacy of free markets both domestically and abroad, was another.  Similar examples exist for France, Italy, and Germany, even if they proved less definitive than in England and Scotland.  This is neither new nor controversial.  Instead, my interest is the relationship between economics and a liberal outlook, or worldview—and, as an essentially related matter, a liberal education.  Although it is seldom appreciated, economics is liberal in this sense, too.  At first glance...
Read more

"Nothing Human is Alien to Me": The Liberality of Rational Choice

By
What makes economics a liberal discipline?   It is time to tackle this question head-on.   As it turns out, what many detractors of economics point to as evidencing its illiberality is actually the key to its liberality.   I am speaking about the rationality postulate : the fundamental assumption economics makes with respect to human behavior, and how it can be made intelligible. First, we need to make clear what rationality is not .   Rationality does not mean that people never make mistakes.   And it does not mean they are “lightning calculators of pleasure and pain.”   These careless accusations are strawmen.   Admittedly, economists bear some of the blame for this misunderstanding.   Graduate textbooks of microeconomic theory present a set of conditions for rationality that are as unlikely to obtain as they are irrelevant to human decision-making. Rationality is actually very simple.   When economics assumes people are rational, it i...
Read more

Romancing the Economist

By
My previous contributions to this blog were about the possibility of the institutional aspects of academic economics being liberal. But there is more to philosophy, politics, and economics than liberalism. Now, I want to ask if academic economics is romantic. I want to begin this reflection with what seems to me to be an obvious observation: contemporary society has given romanticism a bad name. The diminishment of the term has come with its association with foolhardy love stories whose protagonists have lost the ability to think critically in the presence of their paramours. However, romance means much more than what we may find on the Hallmark Channel (even if its ultimate expression may indeed be a Christmas miracle).   An unsatisfactory description of Romanticism is that it was a movement that emerged in the 19 th century as a reaction to the perceived reductionism associated with the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The Romantics sensed that Enlightenment rati...
Read more