Everything involves trade-offs. Economics is much more data-driven than it was a few decades ago. What are the most important or least discussed trade-offs in the increased emphasis on math in the study and teaching of economics?
I would state that there are two trade-offs that we need to be aware. First, mathematics allow us to make axiomatic statements. A demand function merely expresses mathematically the axiom that, all else being equal, we demand less of something if the price increases. All axioms are inherently true. The problem is that while true, an axiom can be irrelevant in a particular context or setting. Relevance is asserted only through the use of data and econometrics. A good economist is one who does both as they are complements to the production of valuable research and teaching. It is for this reason that I specialize in economic history as I am forced to dive in theory and use applied methods to assess the relevance of economic theories to explain the past (i.e. our database of observations). Second, economists forget that data matters. I have very often seen economists simply "chuck" the data in Stata and not ask any questions about their construction. Are they suited for the question being asked? How were they built? What is the most modest but valid case I can make with this data? I think that the work of Morten Jerven on African economies is a good example here. He used different databases of GDP per capita for African countries and found that, for the same year, they had dramatic differences in the ranking of these economies. Why such differences? How much does it affect the results just to use another source? These are basic questions which economists tend to ignore. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find an explanation that convinces me as to why economists sometime act in such a careless way with regards to data (especially given the technocratic tendency taken by the profession in the last forty years).
Is being really interested in economics a good enough reason to major in economics?
Hell yes! For the last ten years of my life, I have been going and leaving bed thinking about economics (and social sciences more broadly). During my undergraduate days, I spent all my days reading about economics. When unsatisfied with my learned tools, I would simply go online and seek every resource possible to help me learn more. This was only heightened when I discovered that economic history was a subfield of economics. Passion about a field and dedication to its study is necessary and sufficient even if you are not a stellar student. I often point out that I was an ordinary student at the University of Montreal where I did my undergraduate degree. However, when I became a graduate student, the passion allowed me to surge ahead, write and read every day. If you are able to muddle through the classes while being passionate and hard-working, you can be a great economist! Obviously, being smart just makes the whole thing easier (but I will caution against the arrogance that sometimes comes with that).
No comments:
Post a Comment