I have written a post on reading economics books. The main point of that post is that many books said to be about economics is not actually about economics. It is simply about business. These books may be about the economy, but not about economics. Economics is a scientific study with its own methods but studying the economy or economic behaviours may use various types of other methods. Sociologists or psychologists can also study them, without using economics. Thus, if students want to read some books to understand more about economics, many books may not suit them. In conclusion, I suggest students, if they truly want to understand economics, should read books written by economics teachers at the economics department in universities.
In the present post, I want to discuss another problem of reading economics books. Again I assume the readers, especially students, want to read some books to understand economics. Again I find certain books are not suitable for reading with this purpose in mind.
What are these books? In fact, in the past few years, certain very motivated students told me that they were reading some classics in economics, like Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and J.M. Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interests and Income. Some even read Fredrick Hayek's The Road to Selfdom, etc.
Without doubts, these are books written by economists. My original principle used to discourage students to read them can't work in the present case. I can't say they aren't books written by economists such that economics students needn't read them.
The point is, however, that reading these books will not help them to learn economics as they would learn in economics department in university, or even in high school. Reading them may even be counter-productive.
The point is that modern economics as taught in schools today is no longer the same as classical economics, like Adam Smith's economics, while Hayek's economic thinking is important but the book cited above is closer to a social and political philosophy book than an economics book (Hayek has other books that are certainly economics books).
Meanwhile, Keynes' economics is the origin of modern macroeconomics, and his economics is still taught, at least mentioned, in economics class in universities and high schools. Why should students not read them? The point is: unless you want to become a specialist in studying Keynes' thoughts, it is better to learn his economics by reading the assigned readings, normally just a textbook chapter. Reading Keynes on your own is counter-productive in learning Keynes' economics.
Why counter-productive? The point is: Keynes as an original writer uses his own jargons. Some (or even most) of them have now not been used anymore. Reading Keynes' own works require you to learn many new jargons created by him. This is labourious. Why don't you simply read the textbooks that use your familiar jargons to learn the same things? More importantly, when we learn a theory in economics, from Keynes or from others, we have to understand its position in modern economics as used by economists today. If a theory is considered to important, it will be integrated into the whole framework of modern economics. If you read Keynes' book, you can only learn the theory on a standalone basis. You don't know how it is used or integrated into a broader theory.
So, yes, you can read Keynes. But you will find it is a labourious job and it is extremely not cost-effective to get useful messages from the book. You will be confused and frustrated. You may even lose interests in economics by reading books not suitable for your purpose. Of course, you may not have all these problems above. But, to avoid this risk, I won't recommend economics learners to read these classics.
Perhaps you still have suspicions. You don't think that's the right way to study a subject seriously. Reading textbooks is okay if you are not serious enough in a subject. But if you are serious enough, you think you must read some classics. That's your experience in studying other subjects, such as philosophy, sociology, etc.
Then, why can't we study economics in the same way? I would say: it all depends on the nature of the subject.
If a subject emphasizes formal models or theories, reading the original works (papers or books) may not be necessary. The situation is same as that in physics. You don't need to read Newton's, not even Einstein's original writing. I doubt how many physics students can understand Newton's original writing today. The language and jargons used by him are so different from today's scientific terminologies. It will be extremely counter-productive to read Newton. It is good enough to read textbook to understand Newton's theory.
Of course, if you want to study Newton's thoughts, not his physics theory, you should still read his original writing. But that's not what normal physics students are supposed to do.
The situation is similar for Einstein's original writing except that it is perhaps easier for undergraduates of modern physics to read Einstein's than Newton's original writing (at least Einstein uses more modern terminologies).
The point is: economics as a modern social science emphasizes formal models or theories. It can't do as good as physics but it does take the same route. How important a theory is depends crucially on how far it can be expressed as formal models. If it can't be expressed as a formal model, it is only an idea, which may be good or bad. But a mere idea can't be taken as a part of the whole scientific body of the subject, at least not now, at least not before it is formalized.
Hence, if what we want is to learn modern economics as a science subject, our foremost task is to understand its formal models, not how it was introduced in the original classics.
I want to emphasize that I haven't undermined the value of studying economics thoughts. It is a valuable subject and I personally also like it. My point is: studying economics thoughts and studying modern economics as a science subject are two different things and require different types of readings.
At this point, you may wonder: if reading classics is not an effective way to learn economics, what is the appropriate reading?
In fact, the answer is extremely straightforward, though not highbrow: read economics textbooks, good textbooks. Journal papers are sometimes also useful but often not suitable as they may be too difficult or mathematical. A good textbook often presents the models from papers in a much more concise and user-friendly way. That's often sufficient unless you want to deepen your understanding and go beyond the points as presented in textbooks already.
Hence, my answer is textbooks, or textbook chapters. If you can appreciate the joy of reading textbooks, compare different textbooks, think seriously about points raised from them, you have already done very well. You don't need to try the classics.
Of course, what I said is for motivated students or learners only. As far as I know, nowadays, many economics students don't even read textbooks.
No comments:
Post a Comment