post-autistic economics documents Global Economic News Paecon Home Page The “Kansas City Proposal” PAE Newsletters Global Economic News Paecon Home Page The “Kansas City Proposal” PAE Newsletters

www.paecon.net See list of supporters at bottom of page 797 signatories 4 January 2004 Released 14 June 2001 27 PhD-students at Cambridge University support the following open letter: Opening Up Economics: A Proposal By Cambridge Students As students at Cambridge University, we wish to encourage a debate on contemporary economics. We set out below what we take to be characteristic of today's economics, what we feel needs to be debated and why: As defined by its teaching and research practices, we believe that economics is monopolised by a single approach to the explanation and analysis of economic phenomena. At the heart of this approach lies a commitment to formal modes of reasoning that must be employed for research to be considered valid. The evidence for this is not hard to come by. The contents of the discipline's major journals, of its faculties and its courses all point in this direction. In our opinion, the general applicability of this formal approach to understanding economic phenomenon is disputable. This is the debate that needs to take place. When are these formal methods the best route to generating good explanations? What makes these methods useful and consequently, what are their limitations? What other methods could be used in economics? This debate needs to take place within economics and between economists, rather than on the fringe of the subject or outside of it all together. In particular we propose the following: 1.  That the foundations of the mainstream approach be     openly debated. This requires that the bad criticisms     be rejected just as firmly as the bad defences.     Students, teachers and researchers need to know     and acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of     the mainstream approach to economics. 2.  That competing approaches to understanding     economic phenomena be subjected to the same     degree of critical debate. Where these approaches     provide significant insights into economic life, they     should be taught and their research encouraged     within economics. At the moment this is not     happening. Competing approaches have little role in     economics as it stands simply because they do not     conform to the mainstream's view of what     constitutes economics. It should be clear that such     a situation is self-enforcing. This debate is important because in our view the status quo is harmful in at least four respects. Firstly, it is harmful to students who are taught the 'tools' of mainstream economics without learning their domain of applicability. The source and evolution of these ideas is ignored, as is the existence and status of competing theories. Secondly, it disadvantages a society that ought to be benefiting from what economists can tell us about the world. Economics is a social science with enormous potential for making a difference through its impact on policy debates. In its present form its effectiveness in this arena is limited by the uncritical application of mainstream methods. Thirdly, progress towards a deeper understanding of many important aspects of economic life is being held back. By restricting research done in economics to that based on one approach only, the development of competing research programs is seriously hampered or prevented altogether. Fourth and finally, in the current situation an economist who does not do economics in the prescribed way finds it very difficult to get recognition for her research. The dominance of the mainstream approach creates a social convention in the profession that only economic knowledge production that fits the mainstream approach can be good research, and therefore other modes of economic knowledge are all too easily dismissed as simply being poor, or as not being economics. Many economists therefore face a choice between using what they consider inappropriate methods to answer economic questions, or to adopt what they consider the best methods for the question at hand knowing that their work is unlikely to receive a hearing from economists. Let us conclude by emphasizing what we are certainly not proposing: we are not arguing against the mainstream approach per se, but against the fact that its dominance is taken for granted in the profession. We are not arguing against mainstream methods, but believe in a pluralism of methods and approaches justified by debate. Pluralism as a default implies that alternative economic work is not simply tolerated, but that the material and social conditions for its flourishing are met, to the same extent as is currently the case for mainstream economics. This is what we mean when we refer to an 'opening up' of economics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The students who have written this proposal are asking for economic students and economists, wherever they are based, who wish to formally and publicly back their proposal to email them at pae_news@btinternet.com with the following: "I support the proposal of the Cambridge economics PhD students...signed" Please include university/position if you wish these to be noted. The website will be regularly updated with the full list of supporters. Other enquiries about the proposal are also welcome, to the same address. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following 797 people have signed the above proposal 4 January 2004 Aaron Pacitti, PhD economics student American University, USA Alfonso Salinas, Univ. of Cambridge, PhD Student, UK Dr. Andrew Trigg, The Open University, UK Andy A. Jobst,  Judge Institute, Cambridge University,  PhD Student, UK Asatar Bair,  Dept. of Economics, Univ. of Massachusetts, USA Bill Lucarelli, Lecturer in Economics, Univ. of Western Sydney, Australia Carlos Lopes,  Univ. of Cambridge,  PhD Student, UK Carlos Raul Gonzalez Carmen Diana Deere,  Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Professor of Economics, USA Charles K. Wilber,   Univ. of Notre Dame, Emeritus professor of Economics, USA Dr. Clive Lawson, University of Cambridge, UK David F. Ruccio, Dept. of Economics, Univ. of Notre Dame, USA David Fairris,  Dept. of Economics, Univ. of California, Riverside, USA Deirdre McCloskey, Uni. of Illinois at Chicago and Erasmusuniversiteit Rotterdam  Eugenia Perona, Univ. of Cambridge, PhD Student, Economics, UK Fadhel Kaboub,  Univ. of Missouri Kansas City,   Postgrad, USA Prof. Frederic S. Lee,  University of Missouri, USA Prof. Geoff Hodgson, University of Hertfordshire, UK Gigi Francisco, PhD Student, Miriam College, Philippines Gilles Raveaud, IDHE - Institutions et Dynamiques Historiques del'Economie, France Prof. Grazia Ietto-Gillies,  South Bank University, UK, Director Centre for International Business Studies, Professor of Applied Economics, UK Greg Fuzesi,  University College London,   Postgrad, UK Greg Zwirn, The Judge Institute, Cambridge University, PhD Student, UK Prof. Guillermo E. Gigliani,  Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires, Professor of Money, Credit and Banking, Argentina Gunnar Tómasson Ingrid Robeyns, Univ. of Cambridge, PhD Student, Economics, UK Prof. Jaime Ros, Univ. of Notre Dame, Professor of Economics, USA Prof. Jesper Jespersen,  Professor of Economics, Roskilde University, John Roche,  St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY, USA Dr. Judith Mehta, Lecturer Economics, The Open University / Univ. of East Anglia, UK Kaveri Gill,  Cambridge University,  PhD Student, Economics, UK Prof. Kimberly Christensen, Econ. & Women’s Studies, State Univ. of New York, USA Leonidas Montes,  PHD Student, Economics, Univ. of Cambridge, UK Prof. Lourdes Beneria, University of Cornell, Economics, USA Marcus Graetsch, Postgrad María Teresa Ruiz-Tagle, Univ. of Cambridge,  PhD Student, UK Marjolein van der Veen, Visiting Instructor at Uni. Of Mass, Boston, USA Marta Bekerman,  University of Bueno Aires, Professor of Economic Development, Argentina Matthew Brannan, Postgrad, Leicester University, UK Prof. Michael A. Meeropol,  Western New England College, Professor of Economics, USA Mike Biggs,  Univ. of Cambridge, PhD Student, Economics, UK Dr. Neil Buchanan,  Dept. of Economics, University of Michigan, USA Dr. Neil Costello,  Head of Economics, The Open University, UK Dr. Neva Goodwin, Co-director of Global Development and Environment Inst., Tufts Uni. USA Prof. Paul Davidson,  Univ. of Tennessee, USA Dr. Paul Downward,  Reader in Economics, Staffordshire University, UK Dr. Paulette Olson,  Wright State University Department of Economics, USA Phil Faulkner,  Univ. of Cambridge, PhD Student, Economics, UK Dr. Pritam Singh, Oxford Brookes University, Senior Lecturer in Economics, UK Rajani Kanth,  National Univ. of Singapore, Senior Fellow in Economics, Singapore Rev. Robert Williams James Cumes Sigrid Stagl Dr. Stephanie Bell,  Univ. of Missouri Kansas City, USA Prof. Stephen Cullenberg, Dept. of Economics, Univ. of California, USA Dr. Steve Keen,  Univ. of Western Sydney, Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance, Australia Ted Winslow,  York University, Canada Dr. Tony Lawson, Univ. of Cambridge, UK Brendan Sheehan, Leeds Metropolitan University,  Economics Scheme Leader, UK Prof. William Lazonick,  Univ. of Massachusetts Lowell / INSEAD, USA Tiina Vainio,  University of Art and Design Helsinki, Sweden Jessica Heynis, Uni. Of Cambridge, PhD Student, Economics, UK Ermanno Tortia,