There may be various reasons for learning some economics. But why should one take the difficult subject economics as their major at undergraduate (or even higher) level? This question might not be asked 20-30 years ago as there were not many alternatives to economics, or the alternatives are still at its infancy (so not a serious rivaling subject for economics). Now, business administration, finance, or even quantitative finance, quantitative marketing, and financial engineering/technology are popular subjects for students' choice. We may need to wonder why students would still like to take economics as their majors.
I like economics and have never liked other subjects that are closely related to economics mentioned above. To me, there has never been a motivation problem for learning. What attracted me was economics in itself. This also appears to be true for many other economists. In particular, economics seemed to be a subject necessary for someone who intended to resolve certain problems at least in certain periods of time.
What problems must require economics? In my view, there were two problems that in the past occupied many talented persons' attentions so that they thought economics was a must. These two problems created two high times for economics studies.
The first problem is the Great Depression in 1930s.
Obviously, this problem is related to economics. Also, this is an economic problem that affected everyone's daily life in a most dramatic way at that time. This is not like other economic crisis (such as that in 2008) where one may not feel any pains if they have never made financial investments. Yes, normally unemployment rate will increase during crisis and so even those who haven't invested may be affected. But a 10% unemployment rate (in US during the 2008 crisis) is very different from 25% (in US during the Great Depression). When a quarter of people lost jobs, everyone could feel the pain. Even if your family was lucky to keep the job, one of your neighbours, and so your friends, couldn't. Furthermore, this is not a local issue (in US). Many other countries had similar experiences.
In fact, among the first generation of Nobel-prize economists, most were motivated to study economics, more or less, due to their experiences during Great Depression. Big names include Paul A. Samuelson, Milton Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, Ando Modigliani, etc. Reading their biographies, you can find that they were attracted to economics due to the unprecedent economic crisis.
Of course, this wave of studying fever in economics gave more motivations in macroeconomics than microeconomics. Macro is more directly relevant to solving economic crisis. At first, Keynesians took the helm. But a continuous use of Keynesian policy (fiscal stimulus) would easily generate (high) inflation when crises were over. Monetarists then got the upper hand. But Keynesians were still influential. Hot debates remained. Perhaps people like controversies. Debates could attract more people to join the camps. Economics was a very attractive subject partly because there was much for debates. And of course, what was debated was also highly relevant to normal people's livelihoods. People found these debates truly useful.
But the debates have been gradually fading over time. Around 1990s to 2000s, the mainstream macroeconomics was basically unified. Most macroeconomics accepted a technical principle where macro theory should find its foundations on microeconomics. The micro-founded macro theory is eventually represented by a technical edifice known as (Stochastic) Dynamic General Equilibrium model (DGE or SDGE). Since then, debates remain. But more are about techniques. Normal people will not have interests in these issues.
Yes, every time economic crisis (re-)appeared, some more people will be attracted to economics, but not for long. These (mini-)crises are also not unmanageable. We don't need new economics to handle them. They are not problems attractive enough to make economics a widely noticed subject.
Now, let's turn to the second problem.
The problem appeared perhaps quite early but had not become apparent until the end of the World War II: the emerging central-planning economic system and how well or worse when it was compared with market economic system.
As a result of Russian Revolution in 1917, (former) Soviet Union, covering more than today's Russia, was gradually built afterwards. It became a superpower only after the WWII. Formally using central planning for resource allocation, its economic performances were impressive for (not) a (short) while. All these were very notable issues. People may start to think: is central planning a workable or even superior alternative to market economies? Exploring the answer obviously requires economics.
While the first problem (from Great Depression) stimulates mainly macroeconomics, this second problem is more microeconomic in its nature. Perhaps today's economics students don't know that microeconomics is so much about resource allocation due to the syllabus focus change. But it was, at least until late 1980s.
In fact, some benchmarking results in microeconomics, namely the First and the Second Fundamental Theorems in Welfare Economics, were established in 1950s, the high time for the debates over central planning vs market economy due to the emerging superpower of Soviet Union. These theorems confirm the advantages of market economies in efficiency aspect and that market outcomes need not always be unfair. These theorems are still taught as a core part of microeconomic theory at graduate schools.
Of course, some hotly debated matters at that time are no longer popular today.
For example, Fredrick Hayek (Nobel-prize winner in 1974) has casted the most severe doubt on the ability for a central planner to obtain local knowledge for its resource allocation works. Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner, on the other hand, believed that a central planner may make use of the excess demand/supply data to mimic what markets under private ownership can attain (efficiency), but avoid the downside of markets (unfair outcomes).
Such a debate doesn't interest economists, and potential economics students, anymore, due to an obvious reason -- the collapse of Soviet Union around late 1980s and early 1990s.
Nonetheless, economics still appeared to be an attractive subject for a related, but not completely the same, matter -- how can an economy heavily relying on central planning turn itself into market-oriented economy? The issue actually happened as early as in early 1980s: China started to reform its economy, introducing private markets and foreign investments in it. Though this was a great issue, it was more a local issue at that time. The collapse of Soviet Union suddenly brought the issue to a global level as many East European countries needed also to move away from central planning towards market systems. Economics was desperately demanded.
But this high time has also faded. Reforms for these countries have been on track for long, or at least required no reforms as substantial as before any more. The debates over central planning vs market economy, or the way how a centrally planned economy can be transformed into market economy, is no longer an attractive issue both inside and outside the economics circle. At the end, the two welfare theorems will be remembered forever as they are now a core part of advanced micro. But the Hayek-Lange-Lerner debate was forgot by most.
Now, without these great problems, economics also become not as attractive as in the past. Of course, economics is still an attractive subject, just not as attractive as before. And interested students may also be attracted by alternative subjects, such as business studies and finance. Economics is a necessary subject that business or finance students must take, but it may not be a major subject for them.
Does it mean economics study (as a major subject) has a dim future? Of course, I don't think so. It is just that it is not as bright as in the past. As an economics teacher, I certainly want economics to be more popular among students. But things always have its high and low times. You can't have unrealistic expectation.
Meanwhile, there may also be new things that generate new questions for which only economics can answer. I am not sure if the new market relations (and the associated crises) generated by new technology will require more economics in some time in future. But there would be such instances.
No comments:
Post a Comment