web stats

INSIDE, vol. 2, no. 7

With the overriding goal to instill in its students the capacity for critical inquiry into economic issues, a small liberal arts school located in Salem, Oregon, conducted a self-study of its presentation in curriculum. The results emphasized pluralism and the history of economic thought. The Willamette (pronounced “wil-LAM-mit” as in “gah-DAM-mit”) self-study is a model for how to take apart a curriculum and put it back together with specific goals in mind. The 50-page report on the entire process is available as a PDF here. Below are edited excerpts of some of the key elements.

The exercise of critical inquiry involves “problem-solving, analytical reasoning and the application of reflective judgement to reach defensible conclusions about questions for which there is no definitive answer. These fundamental skills transcend the discipline of economic.” The hope is to encourage an ability to recognize economic theories as arguments, to understand the arguments, to assess them, to be able to construct them, and finally, of course, to be able to communicate them as arguments.

The Willamette self-study recognized that different learning frameworks and career paths need different approaches to economics. (Perhaps unfortunately, the study projected a bias toward mathematics for those interested in pursuing post-graduate work in economics.) It ruthlessly deconstructed the extant curriculum by course and content and by comparison to other universities. Among its findings was a remarkable uniformity in subject matter and in presentation between universities.

Areas for Improvement
Recognition of economic theory as argument. Students often “confuse the message with the messenger.” Traditional presentation of economic theory introduces a large number of frameworks, tools, and analytic concepts (e.g., production functions, cost curves, supply curves, utility functions, demand curves), as a means to facilitate the rigorous development of particular arguments. But students are asked first to master the apparatus itself by learning to define and manipulate the components, and in the process often lose sight of the overarching argument, which these tools are intended to expose. They can come to see mastery of the tools as the goal of their learning, losing sight of economic theory as an argument (the message) and come to see theory as a more or less discrete collection of tools (the messenger). 

Ability to apply economic theory to analyze a novel question. Students were found to achieve mastery of (Neoclassical) economic theory by some measures. Within the context of a particular course, students were able to define concepts, replicate arguments, and solve problems that required manipulating the frameworks, and many were able to apply or extend the arguments to analyze novel questions, as they might be asked to do on an exam, for example. But when asked to do so outside this narrow context, it was common for students to struggle. This manifested in writing the senior thesis and in the senior essay exam. Most students demonstrated successful use of theory by the final draft, but this success often came only with significant input from the faculty advisor. Results from the senior essay exams were more problematic. Many students struggled to apply (especially) microeconomic theory in this independent and time-limited exercise. Thus, while students were achieving some mastery of theory and successfully applied it in a highly structured context, they were found to be less able to work with these tools independently. 

Ability to assess economic arguments. Economic theory is based on a set of assumptions and that evaluations of economic outcomes (efficient vs inefficient) are rooted in a particular ethical framework. The assumptions entail specific ethical tenets. Within the context of a particular course, students demonstrated some understanding of these issues. In homework assignments and on exams, they were able to identify assumptions and discuss their importance in particular theoretical predictions. Likewise they were able to talk about limits of concepts like efficiency. However, they were found to be less successful in applying these critical skills in the context of the senior thesis or the senior essay exams, where theory is sometimes applied uncritically. In their review of literature, students often simply reported results without sufficient discussion, interpretation, or evaluation. Thus, again students were achieving some success in highly structured situations, while achieving less success when working independently. 

Ability to synthesize and analyze economic literature. Our review of theses also revealed that while most students demonstrated the ability to understand individual papers from a literature, they often struggled to effectively discuss the relationship between them. For example, the fact that some papers support or augment one another, while other papers may challenge them, was found often not to be communicated, nor the reasons for differences explored in much depth. 

One way of connecting these observations is to note that all of them address critical thinking. We have achieved some success in helping student master and apply economic theory, but we would like to help them develop the skills to engage in more independent, critically reflective analysis. 

Backward design 
The senior seminar is the culmination of the Economics major. The senior seminar offers students the opportunity to integrate and use economic tools and concepts they have acquired throughout the major. The course requires students to undertake a directed research project, produce a thesis paper, and orally present the research. The analysis in the study reaffirmed the value of this “capstone” project, and indicated the new curriculum should prepare students for success in this undertaking.

Developing a senior thesis requires several integrated skills, including the ability to: (1) identify and formulate a central question to be investigated; (2) identify, master, and apply relevant economic theory; (3) locate and review appropriate primary and secondary economic literature; (4) synthesize and analyze this literature to draw a conclusion about the central question; and (5) clearly communicate an argument orally and in writing to the appropriate audience. 

The senior seminar should not be the first time that a student is exposed to any of these capabilities. Each of these capabilities must have a home in the curriculum prior to the senior seminar, ideally more than one home. The Advanced Topics course is a strength of the current curriculum in this regard. We have extended the approach taken in designing that course to redesign the entire program.

Modeling economic inquiry 
Our overarching goal is to prepare students for independent, critical inquiry into economic issues. Inquiry begins with a question or puzzle, and then produces an answer supported by an analysis/argument. A weakness found in the previous approach (which predominates in economics education more broadly) is that in most classes, the process is reversed. That is, we begin with the exposition of theory by developing frameworks and models, and then proceed to applications that demonstrate the value of these tools.

The use of relatable examples undoubtedly brings these abstract concepts alive, but there are two problems. First developing models first prepares students poorly to formulate a question, because it creates the impression that to perform economics is to pick up a hammer and search for a nail. That is, it creates the impression that economic inquiry is not about seeking answers to particular questions but about finding the right examples to which to apply a given set of tools. Second, it may discourage students from believing that critical analysis of theory is a part of economic analysis. Criticism of this sort is relegated to other disciplines. Where assumptions underlying a model are not (at least approximately) appropriate, then it is not amenable to economic analysis. The economist does not search for an alternative understanding, but searches for something else to analyze.

It is critical that the curriculum be designed to better model the inquiry process in order to develop the capacity for independent, critical inquiry. We will create or redesign courses so that they begin with economic issues that motivate questions, and develop/apply theory to address those questions. Moreover, we will increase the number of opportunities throughout the curriculum for students to formulate and explore their own questions. 

Incorporating history of thought
In most economics programs, including the curriculum at Willamette, the study of the history of economic thought was found to be relegated to a single elective course, or not included at all. The alternative proposed is to incorporate the history of thought throughout, beginning with the introductory course.  Such an emphasis is one way to better model the process of inquiry for our students. In textbooks, and thus in most courses, (Neoclassical) economic theory is presented in a collection of principles that, over the course of time, have come to be accepted as the core of theory. These ideas are often devoid of context. Little reference is made to the thinkers with whom ideas originated, to the circumstances in which they lived, or to the particular questions they addressed in their work. 

A contrasting approach using the history of thought would include the missing context. It would help students see that economic theory began first with a question, and the theory provided an answer. A history of thought approach also connects ideas to particular people engaged in particular projects. This would help students see economic theories as arguments. By connecting ideas to people and times, the  history of thought tends to illuminate how each theory is built on assumptions and embodies particular ethical precepts. 

Embodying pluralism 
“… Our curriculum should be explicitly pluralist. By pluralism, we mean the side-by-side development of multiple explanations of ways of understanding economic phenomena. Economics as a discipline is unusual in the extent to which it is dominated by an orthodox perspective.” 

Most economics programs focus almost exclusively on developing Neoclassical economic theory in exclusion of other schools of thought that exist and continue to develop (1). This creates a false impression of homogeneity in economic analysis. By contrast, pluralism “embeds the principle of controversy in the definition of economic theory (2).” 

Although only a handful of schools in the United States have adopted a pluralist curriculum, there is a vibrant literature that expounds the virtues of this approach (3). Among the arguments that we find most compelling are the following:

Improved recognition of economic theory as argument. Confronted with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, students can investigate what leads to different conclusions. This should help them see economic theory as argument by emphasizing for them the significance of different values, assumptions and even questions, leading to different conclusions. 

Improved understanding of economic arguments. Even if we believed that Neoclassical theory were in all ways superior to other economic analysis, variation learning theory suggests that by offering contrast, students will come to understand Neoclassical economic arguments better. Aside from this, the Neoclassical school is not the only contributor to public discussion, particularly in policy circles, so exposing a broader range of economic theory to students will better prepare them to engage the public discourse after they graduate. 

Improved critical thinking. Again, confronted with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, students will be invited “to identify, select, adapt, and critically interrogate the range of theories relevant to each concrete problem (4).” Thus, they will naturally be encouraged to move beyond mastery and application of theory to the exercise of judgment. 

The commitment to introduce pluralism into curriculum creates a challenge: How do you conceive of and present pluralism, which implies developing multiple approaches to economic analysis?

There are far too many economic schools of thought to envision an undergraduate program that effectively develops them all. So, in mounting a pluralist curriculum it is necessary either to select particular schools of thought or to group schools together somehow. Neither approach comes without important drawbacks, but either could be used to help generate the benefits listed above. We have chosen to group schools of thought. From amongst the various possibilities (5) we will design our curriculum around the organization put forward in E. K. Hunt’s History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective. 

In his text, Hunt identifies two grand traditions both of which have their roots in the writings of Adam Smith. One tradition views analysis of production, labor, and class conflict to be fundamental concepts in understanding capitalism, while the other tradition places exchange, utility, and social harmony at the center of its analysis. This approach should not preclude discussion of particular schools of thought. But rather provide a framework within which to better understand the relationship between schools. 

Finally, an additional decision must be made: Should multiple perspectives be developed in each course (integrated model)? Or should different perspectives be developed in separate courses (parallel model) and then integrated in later courses? After much discussion, we have chosen to pursue the integrated model. Since many students take only a single economics course during their careers, an advantage of this approach is that such students will still be exposed to the range of economic theory.

  1. Barone, Charles. 1991. “Contending Perspectives: Curricular Reform in Economics,” The Journal of Economic Education. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 15-26.
  2. Freeman, Alan. 2009. “The Economists of Tomorrow: the Case for a Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics,” International Review of Economics Education. Vol. 8, No. 2. 
  3. In addition to the papers already cited, see for example: Groenewegen, John (ed.), Teaching Pluralism in Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, 2007; Reardon, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Pluralist Economics Education. Advances in Heterodox Economics, Routledge Press: London, UK and New York, 2009; and Reardon, Jack. “A radical reformation of economics education: educating real world economists,” Real-World Economics Review, issue no. 62
  4. Freeman, Alan. 2009. “The Economists of Tomorrow: the Case for a Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics,” International Review of Economics Education. Vol. 8, No. 2. 
  5. See for example: Chapter 2 from Clark, Berry. Political Economy: A Comparative Approach. Praeger: Westport, Connecticut or O’Hara, Phillip Anthony. “Principles of Institutional-Evolutionary Political Economy – Converging Themes from the Schools of Heterodoxy” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XLI No. 1 March 2007