an introduction to multiplicity in economics by bhagirath baria

8/12/2019 An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics by Bhagirath Baria

1/30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014

Page 1 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics

For the students of XIth & XIIth Std., G.S.E.B, C.B.S.E &

I.C.S.E. as well as more advanced readers in

Economics and Philosophy of Economics.

Bhagirath. P. Baria

www.rathandeconomics.blogspot.in

March 2014


2/30


Page 2 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics

For the students of XIth & XIIth Std., G.S.E.B, C.B.S.E & I.C.S.E. as well as more

advanced readers in Economics and Philosophy of Economics.

Abstract

This short introductory paper is meant as an introduction, to the

diversified and multiple nature of Economics, for higher secondary

students. No concept in Economics in general has a common

consensus. There are at least two views on any given Economic issue or

theory [at times more than two]. Controversy is at the heart of this

discipline. This paper shall explain the young students studying in any

Educational board [C.B.S.E., G.S.E.B., I.C.S.E., etc.], the existence ofmultiplicity and controversy in Economics. The belief that there can be

something like Economics per se is fundamentally incorrect. There are

many different kinds of Economic theories, only particular theories are

taught to students at Higher secondary level- which is the primary

building block as far as the subject of Economics is concerned. Students

of commerce deal with this subject for the first time here. This isnt to

imply any sort of conspiracy theory, but rather a lack of understanding

and desire to communicate what Freeman calls Pluralism inEconomics1. The theme explained in this paper has been a prime point

made by this author in his classes in Economics.

This is an introduction, not a full-fledge discourse on the topic touched

which is vast by its very nature and scope2. More advanced students

and academicians may consider this as a brief introduction to an

alternative epistemology in Economics that they can include in their

class-room teaching3. For them, this can be an alternative epistemic

method- indeed with the danger of oversimplification.

1Freeman, Alan. The Economists of Tomorrow: The Case for a Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for

Economics. Association for Heterodox Economics, London.2Literature on Plurality in Economics is substantial. A reliable entry point in this methodology can be the

research paper The Economists of Tomorrow: The Case for a Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for

Economicsby Alan Freeman, Association for Heterodox Economics, London. His papers can be found online at:

http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pfr102.htm.Various writers, both Marxists and non-Marxists have written

on this subject. For more details, contact this papers author.3Teachers/Tutors should modify what has been explained here as per the needs of their students. Local

conditions have to be kept in mind while explaining such ideas. For more material to incorporate in their class-room teaching sessions, such interested professionals can contact this author as per the details given in the

last section of this paper.
http://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pfr102.htmhttp://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pfr102.htmhttp://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pfr102.htm


3/30


Page 3 of 30

Index

1 Preface

2 Introductory note

3 Theoretical Illustrations: Law of Demand and Theory of Wagedetermination under perfect Labour markets

4 Views of some Economists on this issue4Mark BlaugKarl MarxPaul Sweezy Ludwig von MisesRobert Murphy

5 A note on G.S.E.B.s syllabus of Economics in XIth and XIIth std.5

6 What is Economics? A controversial question

7 Neo-classical and Keynesian Economics: Is that what Economics isall about?

8 An abstraction-exercise: Tree and Economics

9 How to study Economics- both Textbook and Non-textbook?

10 Anticipated criticisms

11 Conclusion

12 References & About the Author

4The choice of these social theorists/Economists must be explained briefly. These authors have explicitly

written on this issue in a very accessible manner. A theorist will have to make a subjective starting point at

some point in his/her enquiry. These Economists have provided such an analysis that was found suitable to the

topic under discussion here.5

This is a very brief survey on G.S.E.B.s syllabus structure in Economics, its approach and the anti-Pluralisticcharacter of its textbook. Other issues such as factual error, theoretical errors, poor presentation of the study

material in textbook, etc. have not been touched upon.


4/30


Page 4 of 30

1. Preface

Young students, approaching Economics for the first time in their school

years, have to enter the discipline of Economics through a set of

theories that are put in a textbook and presented as an introduction toEconomics. What happens here is that those students and their tutors

end up confusing an abstraction as a reality. For more advanced

readers, this means an epistemological fact becomes an ontological

fact. Or, in other words what should be understood ontologically is

understood epistemologically and vice-

versa. This is incorrect. Our young

students, who represent this nations

future, deserve to know the truth about thesheer diversity and controversy in

Economics. They must know that

Economics has never been a subject of

broad consensus and clearly defined

meanings. None of the social sciences

have been. Introducing the students of

higher secondary to Economics requires

a very different approach. This approachhas to explain the inherently controversial

nature of this subject. A set of principles,

called the principles of Economics are

presented to fresh learners as the

principles of Economics. Their role then is

to learn those principles, understand them,

and reproduce them in the exams which

they are subjected to. Such an approachrepresents a monotonous method- a

monotheoretic* view6. It is high time to introduce the pluralist7 view to

Economics, the view that fully recognizes controversy and differences as

a part of Economics development and existence.

6Freeman, A. and Kliman, A. Beyond Talking the Talk, (2008).

7A Pluralist view on the other hand accepts the multiple and controversial nature of Economics and attempts

to communicate that with the students learning Economics, especially for the first time. This would ensure athorough knowledge about the diversity in Economics which a mere History of Economics course cannot

provide with.

Epistemological: Means thatwhich is related to

Epistemology..Epistemology: It is thescience of Knowledge. It is abranch of Western Philosophy.Questions such as HowKnowledge is produced? Howdo we know things? Can wereally know anything? Etc.

Ontological: It is the study ofOntology.

Ontology: A branch ofWestern Philosophy. It studiesPhilosophical issues related toour existence, our being. Whydo we exist? What does itmean to exist? What is reality?Etc.


5/30


Page 5 of 30

Only teachers, in schools and probably in colleges, cannot solely be

pinpointed for this fact. It is the very educational system that makes it

compulsory for a tutor to pass on the knowledge that some

board/authority [through its formal bodies] prepares, to be taught to the

students falling under its purview. But still, a teachers fundamental role

is to enlighten her students about the

subject she teaches. And the onus is upon

her to defend the truth- no matter how

relative- that there has never been and

can never be any discipline such as

Economics. There can only be a specific

type of Economics which is taught to students.Alternatives always exist.

And the alternative you adopt shall strongly affect the conclusions you

reach.The facts open to all. One only needs to explain it to the young

learners.

* A monotheoretic view can be compared with a Monist view. Such a view about things believes in existence

of a single true theory. In religion, for example, we have Monotheists who believe in the existence of one

single God. Religions that originate from Judaism present such a view. In Economics, this means only one or a

group of some particular theories is considered the correct theory/most scientific theory. Rest of the ways oflooking in Economics are considered outside the mainstream. To a great extent, these approaches are

discriminated against too.

Truth:In Philosophy, this isunderstood as a fact or belief

that is accepted as true.


6/30


Page 6 of 30

2. Introductory note

Economics has had all types of meanings associated with it. We have

accounts of existence of theories of just price since antiquity8. There

are two broad ways of looking at how Economics has developed up tonow9:

Absolutist History of Economics means a

History of the scientific principles of

economics. These are independent of the

social, economic, political, cultural, etc.

aspects of our lives. These are Universal

principles of Economics that can be applied

to any economic problem or any Economicsystem- be it Communist, Capitalist or an anarchist economy10. At least

that is what such a set of principles would be expected to do. Such an

approach to Economics has its own advantages. It focuses on the non-8Meek, Ronald. Studies in the Labour theory of Value.1973. Chapter 1- Value Theory before Adam Smith.

Here Meek talks about the existence of the concept of just price even in antiquity. He cites Thomas Aquinas

Summa Theologica.9Blaug, Mark. Economic TheoryRetrospect,1984. Introduction section of this work talks about this approach.

This work delves in the theme developed by Blaug. He uses the terms absolutist and relativist while we use

the terms absolute and relative too. Both types of terms are used interchangeably in this paper.10There are fierce debates between the proponents of alternative political/economic systems. This paper

doesnt aim to survey that, hence ignores that literature.

Developmentof Economics

Absolute Relative

Universal: Defined assomething/some event present oroccurring everywhere; existent oroperative everywhere or under allconditions.


7/30


Page 7 of 30

ideological aspects of the Economy. Knowledge is pure here. It is free

from disturbing forces of emotions, culture, politics, etc. It develops a

corpus of ideas and principles that are independent of the time and

place that theory is applied to.

Relativist History of Economics means a History that understands every

Economic theory in relation to the particular time and place it is applied

to. It is with reference to the cultural, political, social, religious, etc.

factors under which a theory is applied.

Let us discuss two basic examples to illustrate the above mentioned

points. You have already studied this in you XIth std.s syllabus of

Economics [G.S.E.B.] or XIIth std.s syllabus of Economics [C.B.S.E.].


8/30


Page 8 of 30

3. Theoretical Illustrations

A. Example 1: The Law of Demand.

Law of Demand states the inverse functional relationship between Price

of a commodity and its quantity demanded for a given time and place,

ceteris paribus11. This is one of the most accepted empirical facts in

Economics.

George Stigler notes, How can we convince a skeptic that this law of

demand is really true of all consumers, all times, all commodities? . . .

Perhaps as persuasive a proof as is readily summarized is this: if an

economist were to demonstrate its failure in a particular market at a

particular time, he would be assured of immortality, professionally

speaking, and rapid promotion. Since most economists would not dislike

either reward, we may assume that the total absence of exceptions isnot from lack of trying to find them.12

Absolute view: The absolute view of looking at Economics is precisely

explained in the above quote of G. Stigler. This law is of Universal

importance and can be applied anywhere. Its a Law, hence must be

applicable anywhere given the assumptions stated are satisfied. This

11Ceteris Paribus means all other factors remaining constant. Here well treat all the non-price determinants

of Demand as constant. Slope of the demand curve is assumed to be constant too. Preferences, Income ofconsumers, Population of Consumers, supply-side factors, etc. are assumed constant.12

Stigler, George. The Theory of Price. 4th

Ed. Chapter 3- Consumer Behaviour. Pg. 22, 23.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Demand[Kg.]

Price[Rs.]

The Law of Demand


9/30


Page 9 of 30

law is thus a tool for studying and understanding the economy. It is also

useful in solving economic and business problems.

Relative view: Demand can play such an important role, only when a

particular type of Economy and a particular type of society existswherein things are produced not for self-consumption, but for exchange

on markets. Hence the Law of Demand requiresproduction for market,

laws that protect such markets, Division of labour, etc. Only if these

conditions can be satisfied, will such a law play any role in the economy.

Demand didnt always play such an important role in human history.

Previously in other societies such as slave-society or feudal society,

there was no production for market and hence no concern for Market

Demand and Market Supply.

B. Example 2: Theory of Wage determination; Pricing of Factors of

Production.

[Note: Darker curve [downward falling linear line] represents Labour

Demand curve {in million nos.}; Lighter curve [upward rising linear line]

represents Labour Supply curve {in million nos.}]

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

LabourDemand;LabourSupply

Wage rate[Rs.]

Theory of Wage determination


10/30


Page 10 of 30

You have studied this theory in Microeconomics, in the chapter on

Pricing of Factors of Production.

Absolute view: Such a view of looking at Economics would understand

this as the correct theory based on which a labourer must earn. It wouldconsider such a theory as the result of years of development of

Economic ideas and its culmination into this theory. Indeed, such a

theory is applicable to a market economy, and absolutist theorists would

accept that, but this sort of determination of wages would be considered

a natural fact of the economy we live in, independent of the social,

cultural, political factors that make such a way of deciding wages

possible. This theory makes possible the most efficient and just

determination of wages. No other theory can provide as good a solutionto this economic issue as this theory does.

Relative view: Such a view of looking at Economic would view this as a

particular way, amongst various other ways,of deciding who should earn

how much. It would consider its sociological basis, the conditions that

would be required to apply such a theory in real economy around us. For

e.g. without labourers selling their labour [or the more correct word-

labour power]. In other words many conditions in the real world must be

satisfied to actually have such a way of deciding wages. It is only under

a particular type of economy that such a method of wage determination

shall be useful and applicable. For e.g. in an economy with a very limited

Labour Market wont find this theory much useful.

What the above examples show is that how we view the history of

Economics affects how we look at Economics. If we consider the

present-day theories as the only theories that can be called Economics

based on some criterion such as efficiency or applicability, well end upperceiving Economics as a scientific subject, that can produce principles

and tools that have Universal validity- just like Physics or Biology does.

Such a view is unwarranted for many reasons. One of them is that

Economics is not a science. Let us look at what some Economists have

to say about the scope of Economics as science. They answer the

question- Can Economics use scientific methods to study the Economy

and Economic actors? In other words, is Economics an absolute or a

relative subject?


11/30


Page 11 of 30

4. Views of some Economists on this issue

This section will survey what some of the finest Economists and social

analysts have said on this topic- diverse nature of Economics and

multiplicity in it.

I. Mark Blaug13

13

Blaug, Mark. Economic TheoryRetrospect. 1984. Introduction section of this work talks about thisapproach. All the above quotes have been cited from the said section of this work. This is perhaps one of the

finest Histories of Economic thought. Refer foot note 9.


12/30


Page 12 of 30

Let us make some observations based on above quotes:

Mark Blaug, considers Economics as a scientific study. Hedisagrees with those who think that Economic ideas correspond to

or can be better understood only relatively, i.e. in relation to the

prevailing conditions. For him, ideas have a momentum of their

own[emphasisadded].

Hence Economists can be classified and ranked as per their error

or truth. What exists today becomes the result of hundreds of

years of past development in Economics. So a teacher can tell her

students, Youre going to study principles of Economics. Theseare the most scientific and modern tools/rules/concepts/theories

that we have.

II. Karl Marx14

Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are

the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover,

neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of

abstraction must replace both. But in bourgeois society, the commodity-

form of the product of labour or value-form of the commodity is the

economic cell-form. To the superficial observer, the analysis of these

forms seems to turn upon minutiae. It does in fact deal with minutiae, but

they are of the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy.

Marx stresses the need to abstract. We Economists cannot be one

hundred percent sure about our researches. And modern

14Marx, Karl. Capital, Vol. I. MIA edition. Preface to the first German Edition. Available for free at:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdfhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdfhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf


13/30


Page 13 of 30

Economics isnt. Disciplines such as Econometrics, EconPhysics,

etc. take this inherent randomness in Economics into

consideration.

The laboratory for an Economist/Social-analyst is the society at

large. We cannot have Economic experiments like Biologists can

on mice or monkeys. We must observe and abstract. Well learn

more about it below.

III. Paul Sweezy15

After stating how Lionel Robbins defines Economics, Sweezy goes on to

make some observations regarding this definition of L. Robbins, as

below:

We learn that neo-classical Economics [Prof. Robins was a neo-

classical Economics], aims at finding/proposing/producing

Universal laws. This means that an Absolute view about

Economics is adopted. Here, the specific conditions under which

15Sweezy, Paul. The Theory of Capitalist Development.1962. Introduction. Pg. 3, 4.


14/30


Page 14 of 30

such a law is produced and applicable is disregarded. An

Economic law/principle is judged based solely upon its scientific

value- its applicability, its fulfilment of the scientific criteria- such as

being logically correct, applicable to all forms of economies[what

Prof. Sweezy calls above all forms of society].

XIth and XIIth std.s textbooks too provide such a view of

Economics, dont they? Law of Demand, Macroeconomic

equilibrium theory, Theory of Income Distribution [explained in

chapters on National Income, Factor Pricing, etc.], Marginal utility

theory of Value [studied in Microeconomics- Product Pricing

theory], etc. Instead of presenting these theories as specific to a

very specific set of conditions, specific to a very particular type of

Economy, these laws and theories are stated as Universal laws.

All this could be avoided, simply by admitting that only particular

types of Economic theories are taught to Higher Secondary

students, not Economicsas such.

IV. David Gordon on Ludwig von Mises [a well-known Austrian

Economist]16

The method of economics differed fundamentally from that of physicsand biology, the sources of the other classes of natural law. A sound

theory of knowledge thus must place proper stress on deductive inquiry

into human action, the method of economics. A sound theory of

knowledge thus must place proper stress on deductive inquiry into

human action, the method of economics. The place of economics in

ethical theory is less direct; but here too, the results of economic

analysis closely circumscribe the available options in value theory

Ive avoided Ludwig von Misess original quotes as the targeted

students might find them difficult.

As Gordon says above, Ludwig von Mises considered Economics

as distinct from pure sciences. He rejected the scientific method of

inquiry and stressed on the purely reasoning-based method of

inquiry- the deductive method. We have studied something called

inductive logic and deductive logic in microeconomics during out

16Gordon, David.The Philosophical Contributions of Ludwig von Mises. The Review of Austrian Economics

Vo1.7, No. 1(1994):Pg. 95-106.


15/30


Page 15 of 30

classes in your XIth std. Remember? You even wrote their

meanings in your class-notes. Find it out in your chapters in

Microeconomics and your coaching class notes dictated during

the classes. [Hint: It has something to do with a Cone and an

inverted Cone]

V. Robert Murphy17

One important reason for this gulf between the success and prestige of

the natural sciences on the one hand, versus the mediocre results and

hostility to the social sciences on the other, is that the objects of study in

the natural sciences are fairly simple, and their behaviour seems to be

governed by a concise set of rules. Consequently, the hard sciences can(typically) rely on controlled experiments to evaluate their theories.....

Physical theories make predictions about objects in the material world. It

would be very difficult for a newfangled yet ultimately inferior theory to

sweep the profession in a hard science (such as physics), because its

inferiority would be demonstrated repeatedly in experiments.

Robert Murphy, also an Austrian Economist, considers Economics

as incapable of having controlled experiments. Many before and

after him have stressed this point. But this quote is clear and

simple, hence has been included.

Lack of experiments is not an impossible problem. Something

called Behavioural Economics makes it possible to experiment,

though not as in pure sciences.

What do we learn from the above quotes? [Dont bother if you do

not understand these quotes. Just try to get some touch of what is

being discussed. You can also contact me for further clarification.]

Some think Economics is scientific. It can be evaluated based on

its merits and demerits. Various theorists can be ranked and what

exists today is the best possible, most efficient outcome of the

past. Mark Blaug, J.M. Keynes, Vilfredo Pareto, etc. fall in this

camp.

Some think Economics is not scientific. It can never be. Marx,

Sweezy etc. fall in this camp. Mises and Austrians in general

17

Murphy, Robert. Lessons for Young Economists. 2010*, available at:http://mises.org/books/lessons_for_the_young_economist_murphy.pdf

*- I am not sure about its year of publication, hence took its copyright as that of publication.
http://mises.org/books/lessons_for_the_young_economist_murphy.pdfhttp://mises.org/books/lessons_for_the_young_economist_murphy.pdfhttp://mises.org/books/lessons_for_the_young_economist_murphy.pdf


16/30


Page 16 of 30

cannot be classified here as they do believe in Universality of their

economic theories and principles.

Still, their views on the approach to Economics is interesting and

useful here, hence they have been included. But Marxists believe

that Economics can be scientific and relative, both at the same

time. This is different than Blaugs understanding. Mark Blaug

considers Economics as scientific only when its evolution and

approach can be understood as Absolutist. Theres a lot to say on

this. One single paper cannot talk about all this.

[Note: Do not confuse the above points with the debate on whether

Economics is a Science is an Art. Thats a very different issue.]


17/30


Page 17 of 30

5. Note on G.S.E.B.s syllabus of Economics.

XIth std.: G.S.E.B.s textbook on Economics has been divided into two

parts; 1) Microeconomics; 2) Macroeconomics. Though the textbook

does not clearly state this, this can be easily understood by looking atthe index. The problem with this is that it presents Economics as having

these two divisions only.

One might argue that this is an elementary textbook and cant deal with

the complexity of Economics at the beginning. But that arguments is

invalid because the textbooks deal with some demanding and

complex[at least at this level] concepts- e.g. Marginal Efficiency of

Capital, Theory of equilibrium of firms under perfect competition,

Multipliers, etc. If the textbook makers find such neoclassical Economics

as teachable to students studying Economics proper for the first time,

citing the elementary nature of the subject at this level cannot be

considered as a sufficient condition for not introducing diverse sub-

divisions of Economics properly.

Further, G.S.E.Bs syllabus of XIth and XIIth std.s Economics

represents the absolutist way of looking at Economics and its History. In

XIIth theres a subject called Indian Economy which is a part oftraditional Macroeconomics course. The name of the textbook [in XIth] is

Economics. Later well see why such a title is problematic.

For now, we can say that Economics is not a singular entity. It has a

tremendous amount of controversy and differing interpretations. The

textbook should have included that. Instead, it presents only the neo-

classical and Keynesian economics to students as if that were the only

Economics out there.

Similar argument applies to the textbook of the C.B.S.E. Including

accounts of various schools of thought on various theories in Economics

would better explain students as to what Economics is really about. Not

just that. These textbooks have no note or a clear statement that

students shall be taught a particular type of Economics- neoclassical

and Keynesian.They simply present it as the Economic principles that

students ought to learn. As if theres nothing more to Economics than

Microeconomics or Macroeconomics or Indian Economy.


18/30


Page 18 of 30

6. What is Economics? A controversial question.

Is Economics a defined subject? Does it have a consensus on what it

means to be Economic? A brief look at the current diversity in Economic

schools of thought tears apart any such belief that theres consensus.

[Source courtesy: Social Democracy for 21st century blog,

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.in/2011/01/overview-of-major-schools-of-economics.html]

The above diagram is not exhaustive but gives a brief overview of the

schools of thought. In each school of thought we again have sub-

divisions. E.g. in Marxist Economics we have

- Analytics

- Value-form theorists

- Temporalists

- Leninists

- Trotskyists

- Underconsumptionists

- Over-accumulationists

- Neo-Marxists, and many others

Hence theres a tremendous multiplicity of views even within various

schools of thought in Economics. Each of the school above has a

different answer as to what Economics is.Still, it is taught as if theres a

broad consensus on these issues and students hardly get a gist of thepluralistic nature of this subject.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.in/2011/01/overview-of-major-schools-of-economics.htmlhttp://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.in/2011/01/overview-of-major-schools-of-economics.htmlhttp://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.in/2011/01/overview-of-major-schools-of-economics.html


19/30


Page 19 of 30

7. Neo-classical and Keynesian Economics: Is that what

Economics is all about?

The specific type of Economics that is taught to higher secondary

students in any of the boards nation-wide is called Neo-classicalEconomics. Microeconomics is a neo-classical product. It is one way of

looking at Economy. It excessively depends on methodological

individualism. Well-read writers such as Kaushik Basu18and others have

repeatedly stressed the need to overcome such an outlook of the

economy. On a brief survey of the literature of these textbooks, one

would hardly find a mentioning of this fact.

Macroeconomics as taught at the said level [XIth and XIIth- G.S.E.B.,

C.B.S.E., etc.] is Keynesian Economics, associated with J.M. Keynes. It

is a macroeconomic/aggregate application of neo-classical economics

itself. Keynes continued the neo-classical tradition, albeit at a greater

level of generality. He doesnt propose a methodology that differs to

neoclassical method, but brings in changes that could make it applicable

to economy as a whole. Indeed, in this process he disagreed with many

important principles of what is today called neo-classical economics- e.g.

J. B. Says famous and little understood Law of Market, the laissez faire

belief of minimum state activity, etc. Fundamental principles remain the

same. Theres controversy surrounding this too. But lets be brief for

now.

18Basu, Kaushik. Beyond the Invisible Hand: A Groundwork for a New Economics. Princeton university Press:

2010. In this work, Mr. Basu points out the limitations of methodological individualism in chapter 6- TheChemistry of Groups. One must refer this work for an enlightening and more scholarly discussion on some of

the themes developed in this paper.

Economics as inXIth and XIIth

std.

Macroeconomics

Keyniesian

Neo-classical

Microeconomics Neo-classical


20/30


Page 20 of 30

Always bear in mind that you have studied and will always study a very

particular type of economics, not Economicsas such. Remembering this

shall keep you aware about the fact that there exist various alternative

schools in this discipline. As also it would provide you openness to

newer methodologies and ideologies in Economics.


21/30


Page 21 of 30

8. An abstraction-exercise: Tree and Economics.

Let us do a mental exercise. Follow these steps:

You can never imagine a Tree! Tree is just a linguistic-tool for

representing all the diverse types of trees under one single heading forsimplicity in communication. But those who believe this is merely a

semantic issue must think twice. Letslearn why?

Try no matter how hard, you shall always end up imagining a particular

type of tree, with specific colour, shape, leaves, structure, location, etc.

There can be no Tree in general. This brings us to another important

aspect. Can there be something like Economics?

Just like above, you can never imagine Economics in general. Those

who do say that they have learnt Economics or teach Economics or

know Economics are simply unaware. It can be used as a

conceptual/linguistic tool to put together all types of economics, but the

world Economics can never represent just Economics. It will always

represent a specific type of Economics because only specifics and

particulars exist in real world. Words such as Fruit, Tree, Happiness,

etc. are abstract categories. They can only be experienced in particular,

as a specific fruit, as a specific tree as a specific form of happiness.

1 Relax for a moment.

2 Imagine a 'Tree'.

3 Are you sure it was indeed a 'Tree'?


22/30


Page 22 of 30

What do we learn here?

Textbooks saying Introduction to Economics or just Economics will

explain only a specific type of Economic theory. In this context it is Neo-

classical and Keynesian Economics.

If you end up equating the term Economics with above mentioned

schools, youll be committing a fallacy. As discussed above, a

knowledge-related fact will be converted into a reality-related fact. What

is just a language-tool will be converted into representing something

real.

Economics Neoclassical and Keynesian Econ.

Always bear this fact in your mind. You always study a specific type of

Economics. In you XIth and XIIth std. You studied above mentioned

schools. Not Economics in general.


23/30


Page 23 of 30

9. How to study Economics?

Further explanation of this division can be as follow:

You must study two types of Economic schools as above:

1) Textbook Economics, also called Mainstream Economics.

2) Non-Textbook Economics, also called Heterodox Economics.

Textbook

Economics

Non-Textbook

Economics

Economics

Economics

Textbook

Neo-

classical

Keynesian

Non-textbook

Heterodox


24/30


Page 24 of 30

What books to study? How to go on learning such different types of

Economic theories? Which are the best sources to learn these? What

are the career opportunities in non-Textbook Economics? You can

contact this papers author [Bhagirath Baria] for more details on such

questions. You can also contact him through social-media.

To study Textbook/Mainstream Economics, you must focus on three

ingredients:

What to study in each of these components is again a very lengthy

question. Please contact this author for further details [contact details

given at the end of this paper].

TextbookEconomics

EconomicTheory

Diagrams[Geometry ofEconomics]

Mathematicsand Statistics


25/30


Page 25 of 30

10. Anticipated Criticism

I assume that some criticisms might be raised; Ill try to address them

here:

1) This is a mere semantic issue.

Such a view fails to look at the term Economics as a linguistic tool

meant to signify some meaning with that them & the term Economics as

a conceptual tool that students would use to remember and interpret

what Economics is.

As a semantic tool, one may call any particular theory as Economic

theory. Thats up to the person.

But using that very term as a conceptual category that signifies

something real in the world [an economic ideology/school of thought

such as Keynesian Economics] is problematic and results in various

problems are was explained briefly above. Thats the aim of this paper. It

doesnt object to the usage of the term Economics for a particular

theory, but objects thepresentation of this general term as representing

a specific concept/theory.

General term

['Economics']

Directy represents without

explicitly stating

A specific concept of real-world

['Neoclassical Economics']


26/30


Page 26 of 30

2) Theres no diversity in Economics, what exists today in Economics

is the truth.

Thats a typical Whiggish19 view of Economic history and Economic

reality. Such a view believes that whatever theories are there today arethe ultimate results of all past developments and

theories/debates/criticisms in Economics. This means whatever is taught

today is the latest and most modern set of ideas which are a result of

hundreds of years of development of this subject. This paper is not

meant as a full-fledged response to such a view about Economic

History. Still, it may be noted that a typical Whig history of economic

history shall inevitably result into what we have called an Absolute view

of Economics. The problems associated with it were discussed abovethroughout this paper. Hence, wont be repeated here again.

3) This is an issue of History of Economics.

Not at all. The question here is not supplementing a history of

Economics with the same idea- Economics now means whatever is

taught to you in your textbooks. A History of Economics given with an

Absolutist view [we called it Absolute for simplicitys sake], shall reinforce

a linear development path of Economics. What this paper aims is topromote a Relative understanding of Economics, the belief that every

Economic theory can and must be understood in respect to the

conditions under which it is composed and applied. History of

Economics can be taught even while maintaining the status quo.

19Kliman A. Reclaiming Marxs Capital: A Refutation of the Myth of inconsistency. Chapter 1. Pg. 9.


27/30


Page 27 of 30

11. Conclusion

This paper was meant to focus on a very unique and specific aspect of

the subject of Economics as students of XIth and XIIth face in their

schools and coaching institutes. It pertains to the introduction of theseyoung minds to something called Economics. As we saw, it can never

be simply Economics. In the end, it will always be a particular school of

thought, a particular set of ideas. G.S.E.B., I.C.S.E., I.B. and C.B.S.E.

all teach Neoclassical and Keynesian economics.

What these are? How to understand them? Why are only these

types/schools of Economics taught? Is it a large-scale brainwashing?

What are the consequences of teaching a particular type under a

general name [Economics]? Should the textbooks make it clear what

type of Economics theyre going to explain? How should students deal

with this fact? Is it really important to stress on this fact? Can Economic

theories be right or wrong? Can there be better Economics that what is

taught in school-curricula? Why this authors talking about this issue

only? Is everybody conformist? What is the way out? What are the

various schools of thought? What to study if not textbook economics?

This paper doesnt wish to provide any solution to the problems raisedabove. It only aims to bring such a problem to students and teachers

attention.

To conclude, for more advanced readers especially, we can summarize

the fallacy that is committed based on the above discussion as below:

[Refer the next page]


28/30


Page 28 of 30

These are some of the questions that we reach based on our above

inquiry. Students must deliberate on this. Talk with your teachers inschool, coaching institute or other people in this discipline. If you do not

find satisfactory answers to these questions elsewhere, you can contact

this author.

Epistemological fact

'Economics' as a Generalterm

Ontological fact'Economics' as a real worldsubject irrespective of its

specific form and type


29/30


Page 29 of 30

12. References

Following works were used as primary references for this paper. This

paper is not this authors final view on the issue, but was kept

deliberately simple to be accessible to the targeted students. Advancedstudents and readers can contact the author personally though social

media or other mediums. [In order of citations throughout this paper]

1 Freeman, Alan. The Economists of Tomorrow: The Case for a

Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics. Association for

Heterodox Economics, London.

2 Freeman, A. and Kliman.A. Beyond Talking the Talk.2008.

3 Meek, Ronald. Studies in the Labour theory of Value.1973.

4 Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory Retrospect.1984.

5 Stigler, George. The Theory of Price.4th Ed.

6 Marx, Karl. Capital, Vol. I.MIA edition.

7 Sweezy, Paul. The Theory of Capitalist Development.1962.

8 Gordon, David. The Philosophical Contributions of Ludwig vonMises.The Review of Austrian Economics Vo1.7, No. 1: 1994.

9 Murphy, Robert. Lessons for Young Economists.2010.

10 Basu, Kaushik. Beyond the Invisible Hand: Groundwork for a New

Economics.Princeton University: 2010.

11 Kliman, A. Reclaiming Marxs Capital: A Refutation of the Myth of

Inconsistency.2007. Chapter 1, Pg. 9.


30/30


About this papers author

Kindly utilize the following links to know more about Mr. Bhagirath. P.

Baria.

A. Blog:

www.rathandeconomics.blogspot.in

B. LinkedIn Profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhagirathbaria

C. Contact numbers:

9824323934

8866249667

D. E-mail id:

[email protected]

[email protected]

E. Economics by Bhagirath Baria:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-Bhagirath-

Baria/495989447135348

F. Higher Learning Commerce Institutes facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/higherlearningclasses?fref=ts

G. Academia.edu profile/page:

https://independent.academia.edu/BhagirathBaria

To download this paper visit:

https://www.academia.edu/6451729/An_Introduction_to_Multiplicit

y_in_Economics[Link might be updated occasionally]

-Note: Many more papers including this one are soon going to be

uploaded on my academia.edu account. Those will be freely

available for interested readers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concluded.
http://www.rathandeconomics.blogspot.in/http://www.rathandeconomics.blogspot.in/http://www.linkedin.com/in/bhagirathbariahttp://www.linkedin.com/in/bhagirathbariamailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-Bhagirath-Baria/495989447135348https://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-Bhagirath-Baria/495989447135348https://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-Bhagirath-Baria/495989447135348https://www.facebook.com/higherlearningclasses?fref=tshttps://www.facebook.com/higherlearningclasses?fref=tshttps://independent.academia.edu/BhagirathBariahttps://independent.academia.edu/BhagirathBariahttps://www.academia.edu/6451729/An_Introduction_to_Multiplicity_in_Economicshttps://www.academia.edu/6451729/An_Introduction_to_Multiplicity_in_Economicshttps://www.academia.edu/6451729/An_Introduction_to_Multiplicity_in_Economicshttps://www.academia.edu/6451729/An_Introduction_to_Multiplicity_in_Economicshttps://www.academia.edu/6451729/An_Introduction_to_Multiplicity_in_Economicshttps://independent.academia.edu/BhagirathBariahttps://www.facebook.com/higherlearningclasses?fref=tshttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-Bhagirath-Baria/495989447135348https://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-Bhagirath-Baria/495989447135348mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.linkedin.com/in/bhagirathbariahttp://www.rathandeconomics.blogspot.in/

an introduction to multiplicity in economics by bhagirath baria

Documents