The Teaching of Economics - A Radical Approach to Economics: Basis for a New Curriculum

Richard Edwards,A. Macewan

Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to outline a radical approach to economics and to suggest how several important social problems might be dealt with in that framework. Our effort to develop a new curriculum is motivated by the conviction that the orthodox approach to economics cannot deal with the important problems of modern society. Orthodox economic analysis as presented from the elementary course through the graduate seminar is based upon an acceptance of the status quo in social relations. Microanalysis presupposes the individualistic ownership and decision-making systems typical of capitalist societies, and in this narrow context the pecuniary behavior of firms and individuals is examined. In macroanalysis, when the aggregate operations of these individual units are the subject matter, attention is focused on the fiscal and monetary adjustments necessary to keep the system smoothly functioning. All in all, the curriculum of modern economics is one of philosophic marginalism: existing social relations are taken as a datum and the problem is one of administering the system by adjustments around the edges. The marginalist approach is useful only if, accepting the basic institutions of capitalism, one is primarily concerned with its administration. If one questions the virtue of capitalism as a system, then the basic social relations and the institutions of the system themselves must be subjected to analysis. A new approach is necessary. The old approach-that which accepts capitalism and is in general the basis of present economics curricula-cannot deal with the problems of modern society. All that the curricula say about the war in Vietnam is how it can be financed more efficiently. The very existence of imperialism is denied. Racism, it is taught, has its origins in personal preferences, and the poverty of blacks and others is "explained" in terms of their low productivity. The destruction of the environment enters the curricula only as an aside when the existence of "externalities" is pointed out as limiting the theory. The subjugation of women, the meaninglessness of work activities, and the alienation of workers are topics which do not enter the curricula at all. Socialist alternatives and the process of revolution are examined only in terms of the value system of a capitalist environment. It is our contention that such issues-their historical existence, causes, dynamics, and consequences-should be central to a new economics curriculum. This curriculum would reflect the motif of modern American capitalism: conflict and power. Attention would be focused upon the basic economic institutions of capitalism and the class divisions which those institutions foster. In Sections II and III we lay out a basic substantive argument for a radical approach to economics, which can be summarized as follows. We begin with an analysis of the fundamental capitalist institutions. These institutions function so as to limit the range of social outcomes available; we show how the social problems mentioned above (income inequality, alienation, imperialism, and so forth) are directly attributable to the operation of these institutions. But the basic institutions also confer power differentially, favoring those who already benefit from the * Social Sciences 125, "The Capitalist Economy: Conflict and Power," is a course offered in the General Education program of Harvard Ccllege. We requested that the course be "cross-listed" in the Department of Economics so that it could count toward concentration credit for economics majors. The Harvard Department of Economics did not grant that request. The staff has met on a weekly basis since the autumn of 1968 to work out the substance of a radical approach to economics and to form the course around that substance. The ideas put forth in this paper are the products of the group. Their expression here has been the responsibility of Richard Edwards and Arthur MacEwan. Other members of the group, which is about half faculty and half teaching fellows, are: Keith Aufhauser, Peter Bohmer, Roger Bohmer, Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, Carl Gotsch, Stephan Michelson, Ralph Pochoda, Patricia Quick, Michael Reich, and Thomas Weisskopf. We are grateful to Janice Weiss for help in editing the paper. This is an abridged version. The full text is available from the authors.