What do you think?
Rate this book
The Econocracy: On the Perils of Leaving Economics to the Experts
'Our democracy has gone profoundly wrong. Economists have failed us. Politicians have lied to us. Things must change. This fearless new book will help make it happen' Owen Jones'An explosive call for change ... packed with original research ... a case study for the question we should all be asking since the how have the elites - in Westminster, in the City, in economics - stayed in charge?' Aditya Chakrabortty, Guardian 'Utterly compelling and sobering' Ha-Joon ChangA century ago, the idea of 'the economy' didn't exist. Now economics is the supreme ideology of our time, with its own rules and language. The trouble is, most of us can't speak it.This is damaging democracy. Dangerous agendas are hidden inside mathematical wrappers; controversial policies are presented as 'proven' by the models of economic 'science'. Government is being turned over to a publicly unaccountable technocratic elite.The Econocracy reveals that economics is too important to be left to the economists - and shows us what we can do about it.'A rousing wake-up call from a collective of dissident graduate students ... technically assured, well-argued and informative' Robert Skidelsky'If war is too important to be left to the generals, so is the economy too important to be left to narrowly trained economists ... thought-provoking' Martin Wolf'An interesting and highly pertinent book' Noam Chomsky
ebook
First published January 1, 2017
52 people are currently reading
925 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
June 29, 2018
Such an important book and movement. It belongs on every economist and policymaker and academic's shelf. Along with James Kwak's Economism and Dani Rodrick's Economic Rules (though I know the authors don't think he goes far enough), Kate Raworth Doughnut Economics, David Graeber's Debt, Christine Desan's Making Money. There are a few really great movements out there (some of which I am a part of) trying to redefine the finance and econ dogma and this book was super valuable in diagnosing the problem in econ departments and offering solutions.
September 3, 2017
It's not often that an economics text just stops me in my tracks. This one did. It was a real eye opener about the state of professional economics and how it is currently being taught, and finished as a plea for change. We need to heed that plea if we are to enjoy a prosperous future.
The book starts from the simple premise that the economics profession failed to foresee the crash of 2007, failed to understand it once it occurred, and has failed to navigate a way out of the mess in which we now find ourselves. We are served by a policy of muddling through, which is not exactly the same as a policy of finding a way to prosperity. It is not unfair to say that the economics profession has failed a generation, and there is no end in sight to this malaise.
However, it is best to start at the beginning. How has this situation come about? The authors ascribe it to the capture of the economics profession by the neo-classicists. This is a fair argument. That state of affairs has come about because neo-classical economics is cheap to teach, cheap to research, and provides a modicum of authority behind the façade of mathematical models. In the race to the bottom, this is what you get.
Economics no longer describes the real world, and it doesn't even pretend to. What is pernicious is that the economics profession then expects the real world to change to fit the economic model rather than the economic model fitting the real world. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! And yet this doctrinaire approach rests upon a fairly narrow political view of the world and acts as not much more than - what we would now call - neo-liberal indoctrination. It is this world that came crashing down in 2007.
The response after 2007 was more of the same. This is reflected in the teaching of economics at university, where one size seems to fit all. I was surprised and dismayed to learn that the teaching of economics is no longer a pluralist approach. Dissenting voices are marginalised or simply not hired to begin with. It is possible to go through a while economics degree with absolutely no exposure to the rich history of the subject, and to never sample the breadth of the heritage we all enjoy. This is why the economics profession failed society - it is creating professionals of only one dimension.
The answer, according to the authors, would be to adopt a more pluralistic approach to the teaching of economics. I think that they are right. What's more, they also argue for the democratisation of economics on the grounds that it affects everybody, everybody ought to have a say, and that the high priests of economics ought not to hide their nonsense behind impenetrable mathematical models. I largely agree with this.
The book is a manifesto for change. It is a call for action. I was motivated enough to join the Rethinking Economics network after reading the book, and I would encourage everyone else to do so as well. However, on one cautionary note, I see that there are only two RE groups listed in the United States. This is a shame because this is where the need for change is the greatest.
The book starts from the simple premise that the economics profession failed to foresee the crash of 2007, failed to understand it once it occurred, and has failed to navigate a way out of the mess in which we now find ourselves. We are served by a policy of muddling through, which is not exactly the same as a policy of finding a way to prosperity. It is not unfair to say that the economics profession has failed a generation, and there is no end in sight to this malaise.
However, it is best to start at the beginning. How has this situation come about? The authors ascribe it to the capture of the economics profession by the neo-classicists. This is a fair argument. That state of affairs has come about because neo-classical economics is cheap to teach, cheap to research, and provides a modicum of authority behind the façade of mathematical models. In the race to the bottom, this is what you get.
Economics no longer describes the real world, and it doesn't even pretend to. What is pernicious is that the economics profession then expects the real world to change to fit the economic model rather than the economic model fitting the real world. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! And yet this doctrinaire approach rests upon a fairly narrow political view of the world and acts as not much more than - what we would now call - neo-liberal indoctrination. It is this world that came crashing down in 2007.
The response after 2007 was more of the same. This is reflected in the teaching of economics at university, where one size seems to fit all. I was surprised and dismayed to learn that the teaching of economics is no longer a pluralist approach. Dissenting voices are marginalised or simply not hired to begin with. It is possible to go through a while economics degree with absolutely no exposure to the rich history of the subject, and to never sample the breadth of the heritage we all enjoy. This is why the economics profession failed society - it is creating professionals of only one dimension.
The answer, according to the authors, would be to adopt a more pluralistic approach to the teaching of economics. I think that they are right. What's more, they also argue for the democratisation of economics on the grounds that it affects everybody, everybody ought to have a say, and that the high priests of economics ought not to hide their nonsense behind impenetrable mathematical models. I largely agree with this.
The book is a manifesto for change. It is a call for action. I was motivated enough to join the Rethinking Economics network after reading the book, and I would encourage everyone else to do so as well. However, on one cautionary note, I see that there are only two RE groups listed in the United States. This is a shame because this is where the need for change is the greatest.
February 9, 2017
Though sometimes written in a somewhat clunky manner, this book is an excellent articulation of the grievances I have with my economics course. The issues surrounding a lack of any critical thinking or broader social analysis are extended by the authors, three recent undergraduate students, to critique the primacy of economic discourse in contemporary politics.
May 16, 2017
I often found myself skimming over sections because it became rather predictable what the authors were going to say. And not being a U.K. citizen, some of the sections on that were not especially of interest to me.
That being said, the basic argument is one economists everywhere need to hear, particularly those who teach intro courses. And in that respect, the authors are to be applauded for their contribution and substantive efforts to reform a profoundly broken system.
That being said, the basic argument is one economists everywhere need to hear, particularly those who teach intro courses. And in that respect, the authors are to be applauded for their contribution and substantive efforts to reform a profoundly broken system.
August 1, 2017
The book points out to an important problem in economics education. Most economics undergraduate education focuses on problem solving skills which are next to useless for non-academic economists. The issue is more grave for microeconomics and econometrics. In my experience, most intermediate level microeconomics courses can be summarized to taking derivatives and equating to zero which does not really give economic insight.
Another important issue the book raises is that introductory level economics courses do not much get into market imperfections, asymmetric information, moral hazard etc. Then, an engineer who takes only intro level courses will have a misleading understanding of economics. Most people think economists view markets as efficient, the truth can't be far from that. However, we give that false impression in intro level courses.
On the other hand, the book misses the most important development that happened to economics in the past decade. With the availability of vast amounts of data and computing power, economics have become much more data oriented. Nowadays, you can't see two economists arguing about theories anymore. One important corollary of this development is that concepts like Neo-Classical economics lost its meaning.
The book wants students to be taught different economic theories. I don't think this is such a good idea. Economics education must be firmly based on data. Students must be taught to interpret and analyze data.
Another important issue the book raises is that introductory level economics courses do not much get into market imperfections, asymmetric information, moral hazard etc. Then, an engineer who takes only intro level courses will have a misleading understanding of economics. Most people think economists view markets as efficient, the truth can't be far from that. However, we give that false impression in intro level courses.
On the other hand, the book misses the most important development that happened to economics in the past decade. With the availability of vast amounts of data and computing power, economics have become much more data oriented. Nowadays, you can't see two economists arguing about theories anymore. One important corollary of this development is that concepts like Neo-Classical economics lost its meaning.
The book wants students to be taught different economic theories. I don't think this is such a good idea. Economics education must be firmly based on data. Students must be taught to interpret and analyze data.
February 12, 2022
This was dope. Way more education based than expected. Fascinating case studies into economic education in the UK system and how it feeds into a loop of closed off field of study. Huge brain. Also the empowering of citizens?? Clear link between these issues and how it effects democracies??? So hot.
February 4, 2017
Excellent book. Clearly explains the current huge problems in the discipline and why it is so important for everyone. Economists are taught to think too narrowly but also that their methods are the only ones to use. We all pay the price for this through crap policy.
July 26, 2017
Finally, first book that also mentions my own idea I have thought about last year that inflation is an instrument to redistribute wealth (from slaves to masters). OK, exact quote from book is rather better (quoting it freely): "QE was created to boost prices, but inflation returns are skewed towards the already wealthy." How is so? Because, most often, we are ruled by imbeciles* who are so far from reality of people that they never would understand them.
* "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Laurence J. Peter "The Peter Principle"
OK, this book is about RE? I'm not sere, but rethinking economics is on the rise. I often read Evonomics which provides a lot of new ideas.
What I think, economics can explain everything, but I;m not the idiot to make the religion out of it, like "economists" have done. I remember several books where totally crazy ideas were constantly repeated, like "with free healthcare people tend to overuse it". WTF that means, I don't know, probably they forgot about incentives they have talked few pages ago of their books, deliberately "forgetting" incentives create the over-usage, most probably from the top, and not the bottom.
So, the idea that economics can explain everything doesn't mean we forgot probabilistic thinking and the real tools of such explanations - data in distributions. Having that in mind, you'll be amazed how much you can discover, and I'm not even some scientist or economist.
This "idiots with diplomas" problem goes back to psychology (like I call it - "life's economics"). People (established economists included) tend to simplify things, because it saves brain energy.
It is not the problem when you keep the assumption in mind that every simplification (model) is wrong, it is always not the reality, like a map is always not the territory.
Realities more appropriately can be expressed in distributions, and the problem with that, no one can clearly say where something IS or IS NOT on that distribution.
This probabilistic thinking can erase all wars and conflicts which arise from the oversimplified OR-OR statements, assuming someone can dig with a finger and say - this point n the distribution is the only value for everyone. For averages representing the reality it is true, but often variability and complexity not represented with distributions is forgotten. This soon becomes problem, when someone has incentive to be "the man" with "the answers". In more broader sense, economics can be OK if not the hairless apes with their hierarchies.
To simplify everything said, some apes will always find easier to become "alpha" masters stating they know "answers" and now will be your gods and "saviors" and "father figures", when reality is much more complex that just "one sentence answers" or fast jumps to conclusions. Well, like someone said, we reached peak bullshit.
This is also posted to my blog
* "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." Laurence J. Peter "The Peter Principle"
OK, this book is about RE? I'm not sere, but rethinking economics is on the rise. I often read Evonomics which provides a lot of new ideas.
What I think, economics can explain everything, but I;m not the idiot to make the religion out of it, like "economists" have done. I remember several books where totally crazy ideas were constantly repeated, like "with free healthcare people tend to overuse it". WTF that means, I don't know, probably they forgot about incentives they have talked few pages ago of their books, deliberately "forgetting" incentives create the over-usage, most probably from the top, and not the bottom.
So, the idea that economics can explain everything doesn't mean we forgot probabilistic thinking and the real tools of such explanations - data in distributions. Having that in mind, you'll be amazed how much you can discover, and I'm not even some scientist or economist.
This "idiots with diplomas" problem goes back to psychology (like I call it - "life's economics"). People (established economists included) tend to simplify things, because it saves brain energy.
It is not the problem when you keep the assumption in mind that every simplification (model) is wrong, it is always not the reality, like a map is always not the territory.
Realities more appropriately can be expressed in distributions, and the problem with that, no one can clearly say where something IS or IS NOT on that distribution.
This probabilistic thinking can erase all wars and conflicts which arise from the oversimplified OR-OR statements, assuming someone can dig with a finger and say - this point n the distribution is the only value for everyone. For averages representing the reality it is true, but often variability and complexity not represented with distributions is forgotten. This soon becomes problem, when someone has incentive to be "the man" with "the answers". In more broader sense, economics can be OK if not the hairless apes with their hierarchies.
To simplify everything said, some apes will always find easier to become "alpha" masters stating they know "answers" and now will be your gods and "saviors" and "father figures", when reality is much more complex that just "one sentence answers" or fast jumps to conclusions. Well, like someone said, we reached peak bullshit.
This is also posted to my blog
November 26, 2017
An inspiring treatise that puts economics, the economy* and economists under a bright spotlight. With a UK-focus, but an international outlook, the book describes how something as prosaic as a research-assessment process can wind up critique-cleansing an entire discipline to the extent that "dissecting opinion cannot even be considered."
The "false precision" offered by an econocracy provides cover in periods of economic growth but, rather like so much corporate strategy, when the tide goes out we find its champions deficient in the swimming costume department. The authors neatly paraphrase Hayek in observing that "today's economic experts, like yesterday's socialist planners, govern a system that is unable to take into account the diverse preferences that make up society." This knowledge and accountability "vacuum" may help explain the recent rise in populist political movements which seem to leverage citizens lack of control over their economic reality.
Proposing the rescue of education from employability, the book outlines a series of suggestions to escape the perils of technocratic leadership. The authors maintain that, although difficult, integrating pluralism into syllabuses is essential. They suggest experiments with problem-based learning and peer-to-peer provision could be supplemented by requirements to communicate economic ideas to local lay audiences in the hope of amplifying a public culture of economics.
* recall Bill Hicks decrying the economy as "fake" decades ago.
The "false precision" offered by an econocracy provides cover in periods of economic growth but, rather like so much corporate strategy, when the tide goes out we find its champions deficient in the swimming costume department. The authors neatly paraphrase Hayek in observing that "today's economic experts, like yesterday's socialist planners, govern a system that is unable to take into account the diverse preferences that make up society." This knowledge and accountability "vacuum" may help explain the recent rise in populist political movements which seem to leverage citizens lack of control over their economic reality.
Proposing the rescue of education from employability, the book outlines a series of suggestions to escape the perils of technocratic leadership. The authors maintain that, although difficult, integrating pluralism into syllabuses is essential. They suggest experiments with problem-based learning and peer-to-peer provision could be supplemented by requirements to communicate economic ideas to local lay audiences in the hope of amplifying a public culture of economics.
* recall Bill Hicks decrying the economy as "fake" decades ago.
August 5, 2017
Is this really how economy students think? It's not on the curriculum therefore it doesn't exist? None of what I do at my job was on my CS course, how could it have been? You learn that on your own. Maybe you're not really interested in the subject if the extent of your interest is your coursework. We had a Windows admin class on my course, we all laughed at it, passed it and promptly ignored it. It was there because Microsoft was sponsoring the lab. It's a sad situation but no one was claiming it corrupted the students' minds. I guess you'd form a student protest movement but we were pragmatic about it. Maybe it's a generational thing.
That aside, this book is poorly written, paragraphs are not very coherent as if each author took turns alternating at every other sentence or there was a lot of effort to trim the text at the end and some sentences got yanked. Points are repeatedly made and there is no structure to the book - it's like a long rambling speech where the speaker loops round a couple of times because his pages get mixed up during the reading. It claims to set out to do so much yet it mostly complains about how conservative adults are and how the students' liberal views are being disregarded. I know you guys are young but come on, do you need this explained?
That aside, this book is poorly written, paragraphs are not very coherent as if each author took turns alternating at every other sentence or there was a lot of effort to trim the text at the end and some sentences got yanked. Points are repeatedly made and there is no structure to the book - it's like a long rambling speech where the speaker loops round a couple of times because his pages get mixed up during the reading. It claims to set out to do so much yet it mostly complains about how conservative adults are and how the students' liberal views are being disregarded. I know you guys are young but come on, do you need this explained?
June 27, 2017
‘The Econocracy’ is basically a modern-day re-telling of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, in which the shortcomings of economics – or rather neo-classical economics – are laid bare.
The book’s three authors - Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins - all studied economics at the same time at Manchester University and all fell out of love with their course, coming to view it as “narrow, uncritical and disconnected from the real world”.
This led, in their second year, to their setting up the Post-Crash Economics Society for curricular reform, which ultimately evolved into an international network called Rethinking Economics (with 40 groups in 13 countries), dedicated to reforming economic education and democratising economics by transforming the subject “from a technical discipline into a public dialogue”.
The authors define ‘econocracy’ as an economics-based technocracy or a society “in which political goals are defined in terms of their effects on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it”, and ‘The Econocracy’ represents not only their analysis of what’s gone wrong but also how this problem should be addressed.
This enterprise exhibits two paradoxes.
Firstly, it is claimed that the teaching of economics in UK universities represents a form of indoctrination, which militates against independent, critical thought. But if this is really so, then how were our three authors (and their counterparts in others institutions of higher education) able to escape that fate?
The answer seems to lie in what economists would refer to as ‘exogenous shock’: not only did they all come of age in the 2008 global financial crisis and embark upon Economics degrees in the vain hope that their studies would shed light on this phenomenon but when the Eurozone crisis occurred it wasn’t even mentioned in lectures, confirming their growing realisation that what they were taught was only tenuously, if at all, related to the economics of the real world.
Secondly, although Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins present the language of economics as impenetrably technical to the layman, they succeed in making their own economic arguments wonderfully lucid.
They certainly make out a good case that there are serious issues concerning how economics is taught and what is taught, with neo-classical theory exhibiting severe shortcomings in addressing issues such macroeconomic stability, environmental change and inequality.
I would, however, have liked the critique to have been even more wide-ranging and better informed historically (although in their defence one of their complaints is the way in which economics is usually studied without reference to history, politics and ethics).
Thus whilst Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins are correct in arguing that the economy as “an abstract concept … is a relatively recent invention” and that World War Two played a pivotal role in making economists indispensable experts, technocracy and the associated belief that the world is “characterised by knowable, predictable forces” stretches back to at least the late seventeenth-century Enlightenment and the roots of liberalism as an ideology.
Given the depth of these roots, it is difficult to be quite as sanguine as Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins regarding the prospects for uprooting the econocracy.
The book’s three authors - Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins - all studied economics at the same time at Manchester University and all fell out of love with their course, coming to view it as “narrow, uncritical and disconnected from the real world”.
This led, in their second year, to their setting up the Post-Crash Economics Society for curricular reform, which ultimately evolved into an international network called Rethinking Economics (with 40 groups in 13 countries), dedicated to reforming economic education and democratising economics by transforming the subject “from a technical discipline into a public dialogue”.
The authors define ‘econocracy’ as an economics-based technocracy or a society “in which political goals are defined in terms of their effects on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it”, and ‘The Econocracy’ represents not only their analysis of what’s gone wrong but also how this problem should be addressed.
This enterprise exhibits two paradoxes.
Firstly, it is claimed that the teaching of economics in UK universities represents a form of indoctrination, which militates against independent, critical thought. But if this is really so, then how were our three authors (and their counterparts in others institutions of higher education) able to escape that fate?
The answer seems to lie in what economists would refer to as ‘exogenous shock’: not only did they all come of age in the 2008 global financial crisis and embark upon Economics degrees in the vain hope that their studies would shed light on this phenomenon but when the Eurozone crisis occurred it wasn’t even mentioned in lectures, confirming their growing realisation that what they were taught was only tenuously, if at all, related to the economics of the real world.
Secondly, although Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins present the language of economics as impenetrably technical to the layman, they succeed in making their own economic arguments wonderfully lucid.
They certainly make out a good case that there are serious issues concerning how economics is taught and what is taught, with neo-classical theory exhibiting severe shortcomings in addressing issues such macroeconomic stability, environmental change and inequality.
I would, however, have liked the critique to have been even more wide-ranging and better informed historically (although in their defence one of their complaints is the way in which economics is usually studied without reference to history, politics and ethics).
Thus whilst Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins are correct in arguing that the economy as “an abstract concept … is a relatively recent invention” and that World War Two played a pivotal role in making economists indispensable experts, technocracy and the associated belief that the world is “characterised by knowable, predictable forces” stretches back to at least the late seventeenth-century Enlightenment and the roots of liberalism as an ideology.
Given the depth of these roots, it is difficult to be quite as sanguine as Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins regarding the prospects for uprooting the econocracy.
February 7, 2021
This is an excellent book written by a group of smart, courageous and passionate students who really care about economics. It was an eye-opener on the problems of economics' teaching at universities and how the latter became machines of producing identical orthodox calibers that are unable to serve their societies in meaningful and relevant ways. It also demonstrates the dire state of the profession in terms of depth and diversity of tools and views and its disconnect from reality. It articulated some basic ideas and impressions that I had about economics in a smart and knowledgeable way. Definitely a must-read for economics students, business journalists and economists of course.
April 12, 2018
Solid look at a shifting “science”. How much we need to know about it, and how much respect to show the experts. Looks at some flaws in the ways economics is taught, thought about, and engaged as it shapes public policy and action. Touches on the history of “the dismal science” and the many ways that it can be looked at and rethought- and probably should be - the trigger point being large groups of concerned students whose chosen speciality has missed the crisis of 2008 (and others).
May 23, 2020
There were some good chapters but then others were awful:{
November 4, 2019
This is a very arresting attempt by a group of involved economic practitioners and students to bring the 'dismal science' back to the people. Currently, as argued passionately by the authors, the real of Economics has been showcased and stereotyped as being the exclusive preserve, privilege and preoccupation of a select few 'experts' whose claim to such expertise stems from a qualification that has at its uncompromising edifice the airtight and straitjacketed principles of neo liberal and neo classical economics. Upon an innovative exercise of an in depth curricula review conducted by the authors, that has as its subjects, seven Russell Group Universities (Cambridge, Cardiff, Exeter, London School of Economics, Manchester, Queen’s University Belfast and Sheffield), the startling fact that an indoctrination into the neo classical mould of economics formed the very spine and substance of more than 174 course modules prompted an urgent relook and rethink on the part of an agitated and concerned student community. “There are diverse and even conflicting theories within neoclassical economics but they all share three key theoretical ‘prongs’ which taken together form its core:
• Individualism;
• Optimisation; and
• Equilibrium
This aspect of divorcing economics from the sphere of public policy and societal reach has led to what the authors term a situation of ‘econocracy’. Econocracy is defined to mean “a society in which political goals are defined in terms of their effect on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it”.
After identifying the curse of stereotype plaguing the current academia, political institutions and public offices in so far as the profession of economics is concerned, Joe Earle and his fellow authors proceed to issue a clarion call for an injection of pluralism in the field of Economics. Rooting for “qualitative tools such as surveys, interviews, case studies, ethnographies and analysis of written documents” that are “almost completely absent from the economics curricula”, Earle and his team advocate a move away from an education that lays emphasis on memorizing and regurgitating neoclassical economic theory. Reiterating that “pluralism is a necessary feature of economics education because it teaches students to realize that there is more than one way of thinking about the economy”, the authors illustrate their contention by referring to three most topical and controversial economic concepts defining and redefining our time: micro economic stability; environment and climate change and inequality. Only a pluralistic bent, the authors stress will lead to a concrete mitigation of risks posed by these three invidious issues and an inflexible attraction to ivory tower solutions offered by neo classical economics will not line up all the ducks in either a systematic or systemic manner.
The authors conclude by hoping to succeed in their endeavour of creating a new class of “citizen economists”, in the form of “individuals having the basic knowledge, confidence and interest to engage critically with economic discourse in politics, the news and their local communities.” Towards this end conceptualization of online and web based classes (such as www.ecnmy.org) to supplement classroom teaching and also to induct a whole new interested category of enlightened citizenry denote a few initiatives undertaken by a reinvigorated band of economic practitioners, teachers and students.
The authors take refuge in a famous albeit cynical quote of Joan Robinson, “the purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.”
“The Econocracy” represents the first bold steps taken to prevent such a deception.
• Individualism;
• Optimisation; and
• Equilibrium
This aspect of divorcing economics from the sphere of public policy and societal reach has led to what the authors term a situation of ‘econocracy’. Econocracy is defined to mean “a society in which political goals are defined in terms of their effect on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it”.
After identifying the curse of stereotype plaguing the current academia, political institutions and public offices in so far as the profession of economics is concerned, Joe Earle and his fellow authors proceed to issue a clarion call for an injection of pluralism in the field of Economics. Rooting for “qualitative tools such as surveys, interviews, case studies, ethnographies and analysis of written documents” that are “almost completely absent from the economics curricula”, Earle and his team advocate a move away from an education that lays emphasis on memorizing and regurgitating neoclassical economic theory. Reiterating that “pluralism is a necessary feature of economics education because it teaches students to realize that there is more than one way of thinking about the economy”, the authors illustrate their contention by referring to three most topical and controversial economic concepts defining and redefining our time: micro economic stability; environment and climate change and inequality. Only a pluralistic bent, the authors stress will lead to a concrete mitigation of risks posed by these three invidious issues and an inflexible attraction to ivory tower solutions offered by neo classical economics will not line up all the ducks in either a systematic or systemic manner.
The authors conclude by hoping to succeed in their endeavour of creating a new class of “citizen economists”, in the form of “individuals having the basic knowledge, confidence and interest to engage critically with economic discourse in politics, the news and their local communities.” Towards this end conceptualization of online and web based classes (such as www.ecnmy.org) to supplement classroom teaching and also to induct a whole new interested category of enlightened citizenry denote a few initiatives undertaken by a reinvigorated band of economic practitioners, teachers and students.
The authors take refuge in a famous albeit cynical quote of Joan Robinson, “the purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.”
“The Econocracy” represents the first bold steps taken to prevent such a deception.
March 27, 2021
“If economics is affecting so many in society in so many different ways, it may have a particular and peculiar responsibility to be clear and intelligible to all those it serves.”
How’s that for straight talking logic, the kind that terrifies politicians and leaders. In “The Econocracy”, they argue the case for economic pluralism. They mention how most of the world is governed by what is called Neoclassical economics, the three prongs of which include, Individualism, Optimisation and Equilibrium. This is driven by the idea of so called knowable, predictable forces. Almost everything that falls outside this narrow field of vision tends to be disregarded and most worrying at all is rarely if ever taught in British universities. All in these guys studied the economic programmes at seven reputable British universities, including Cambridge and the LSE and discovered plenty of troubling trends and gaps within their teaching.
“In the space of seventy or eighty years the idea of ‘the economy’ went from non-existent to occupying a central place in our world.”
They highlight the lack of room for critical thinking within studying economics, instead people are given diagrammatical and mathematical models as if all economic problems are only mechanical ones, simplified into right or wrong answers. Students aren’t required or given the opportunity to question these rigid models, this regardless of how far many of the existing ones are from the reality of day to day life for most people. “The near total absence of the real world in the classroom.”
“The UK is the ninth-richest country in the world, but nine out of ten of the poorest regions in north-western Europe are in the UK, even though London itself is the single richest region in north-western Europe.”
We also see how starting from the 1970s a succession of governments have intervened so that increasingly so that education becomes more and more commodified and a source of debt, and not only that, but students are effectively paying for less than those in previous generations were getting for free. In 1945 British universities were independent institutions, but now they fall under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
“Between 1976 and 1995 funding per student fell by 40% and this was a major contributing factor to the average staff-student ratio more than doubling from 1:8 in 1950 to 1:18 by 2000.”
In 2014 thanks to a European statute, the British government was obliged to add drug dealing and sex work to the audit of measurements of GDP. This added around £10 billion to the UK’s annual GDP (O.7%) and so the media then reported this as the fastest growth since 2007. Just one of the many examples that show how economists in cahoots with politicians lie, cheat and deceive in pursuit of their goals.
“Currently they are trained (not educated) to speak a language no one else can understand and to slot in unquestioningly to a system in which they have considerable authority while citizens do not.”
Time and time again we see how economists are granted disproportionate amounts of power and control, like in the desperate cases seen in Greece and Italy in 2011. The Italians appointed Mario Monti, who had never served in government, came to power without an election after pressure from technocrats, but he was an economist, and in Greece the former Vice-President of the ECB, Luca Papademos was installed as the temporary Prime Minister, also without being elected, but it was deemed more important that he had experience in economics.
Increasingly we see the terrifying disconnect between economics and the environment, these people who are granted all this power and authority in spite of overwhelming evidence that illustrates just how unfit they are for such responsibilities. After all these are people who view the environment as a collection of natural resources to exploit and profit from, not as the living, breathing ecosystem it is. Climate change is just too complex and uncertain to be measured by neoclassical models, but that doesn’t stop many economists doing so. It boils down to when your only tool is a hammer all of your problems look like nails.
The more I read about economics and the more economists I listen to the more I see the worrying similarities between economists and astrologers. I recently heard one on the radio who laughed as he boasted that he hadn’t made a correct prediction since 2007. He is far from alone.
So we get a good insight into many of the systemic problems and the unwillingness and inability of people in power to consider approaching a system that repeatedly fails for most in a new way. Of course we all know why this is, it really is as simple as those in power have a vested interest in keeping that way. Why would they change a system that enriches them so readily, and at the same time keeps the vast majority of the public ignorant about what they are doing and how they are doing it?...We already know that we cannot rely or trust the economists, but we will be waiting a long time if we think the politicians and leaders have any interest in solving the problem without outside pressure. They are part of the problem, because the two are inextricably linked and neither is as clever or imaginative as we need them to be.
Ultimately the authors are making the very reasonable and much overdue call for democratising economics insisting on more regulation and transparency. They come up with so many great points. The political obsession with “the economy” and GDP, like most political gimmicks they try and over simplify very complex and deep ideas into something to suit their personal aims.
Unsurprisingly the economic “experts” in the US have been blatantly undermining public trust for decades, not least, “During 96 testimonies to Congress by 82 academic economists – under oath- one third failed to disclose that they were being paid for consulting by companies that would be regulated under Dodd-Frank.”
For far too long economists have been placed upon a pedestal and granted far more power and respect than their skill set can justify, and just like the clergy of yesteryear as we grow more aware and enlightened about the facts and reflect how often they have betrayed and/or lied to the rest of us, the more we realise that this deeply flawed and untrustworthy system has to be meaningfully challenged, improved and overhauled, and the authors in here have presented a highly compelling case.
This is one of the most lucid and reasoned books on politics I have ever read, and along with the likes of work by John Lanchester, Joseph Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang and Yanis Varoufakis this scores high in readability, accessibility and reasoned insight for those who, like me do not have a degree in Economics.
July 24, 2017
The book comes from a great student initiative to reinvent the way economics is taught in universities across the UK, which is not far from the norms in the rest of the world nowadays. It is indeed a wake-up call for teachers and students themselves to realise the shortcomings in the education they are giving, receiving and then passing on. I appreciate how well the arguments are structured and supported by researches and evidences. However, the writing tone of campaigners as well as attempts to explain basic economic theories may be not the best features of this book. That led me to lose my interest half way through. Considering myself with some established economic knowledge, I still recommend this book to current students of economics and anyone who is simply interested in the subject.
September 7, 2017
Great book for anyone studying economics. There's a revolution going on in economics and this book provides a window into it.
March 27, 2024
3.5 🌟
Agree with the points mentioned in the book, but the whole idea and discussion can be summarised in a 30 page book rather than 150.
Agree with the points mentioned in the book, but the whole idea and discussion can be summarised in a 30 page book rather than 150.
October 11, 2025
Britain is a technocracy.
Elected officials defer many of their democratic responsibilities to Experts.
The Econocracy depicts a society where political choices are ranked according to their effect on the economy. In the eyes of those officials, the economy is a distinct system which requires Experts to administer it.
This state of affairs is best demonstrated by referring to the Bank of England Act 1998, chiefly responsible for devolving operational independence to the BoE in controlling UK Monetary policy.
Each of the Authors suffered through an Economics education, and conveyed a number of arguments which surfaced subconscious feelings of my own experiences studying the subject.
Economics education involves the teaching of a narrow discipline of Neoclassical theory. Students are taught to accept the abstract assumptions and mathematical models as factual, issues are framed as mechanical problems which can be resolved through the re-arranging of a quadratic function or through differentiating algebraic expressions. Very rarely do we apply these models to empirical data.
The consequences of the inadequacies of modern education in conjunction with a technocratic political system are visible today.
The UK is beholden to the advice, behaviours and policy decisions of Economists who received an inadequate education which left them insufficiently prepared to manage the many(!!) issues inflicting upon society.
Additionally, these economists, employed at the Bank of England, are permitted to make policy decisions with no public accountability for the consequences of those decisions.
Such policies, take Quantitative Easing (which was enacted in 2008 and again in 2020), are conducted with the ostensible objective of controlling inflation and employment through re-purchasing bonds. What is not conveyed by the economists which you can find in the small print, is that by design, QE creates Asset price inflation. This wealth accrues disproportionately to those wealthy enough to own said Assets. In short, QE is a distributional policy affected by unelected "experts" who are free from the repercussions & any sort of democratic accountability.
Economics, despite its best attempts to postulate Neoclassical theory as a scientific consensus, is not and can never represent a science.
The social world, from which Economics seeks to study and draw empirical data from, is complex and ever changing. From this volatile nature, economics aren't fully able to rely on controlled experiments to support their hypothesis. Therefore, no theory is robust enough for actual data to fully reflect the assumptions that theory expounds.
The UK needs to escape from its economic straitjacket, a necessary condition for this is to reform Economics education. Perhaps this can be achieved through what the book calls "Economic pluralism".
That is, the embrace of multiple schools of thought in education, to train students to address real issues without deferring to an abstract model or far-fetched set of assumptions.
July 22, 2024
Overall I really did enjoy this book, it was very relatable as I am studying an economics based course and my university was mentioned several times. It was good at demonstrating how the general public cannot understand the jargon that economists use and as a result this is almost affecting democracy and fairness because the majority of decisions now a days are in some way related to economics. Furthermore, this can be troublesome because we give economists the power to make decisions and the public fails to understand and thus accurately react to said decisions. This is made worse when considering the education that these economists have undergone, whether at top universities or not, the system is plagued with lack of depth and understanding (through too many MCQ and lack of 'evaluate') etc, as well as a very singular understanding of economics: neoclassical. Ignoring the plethora of other interpretations such as feminist, post Keynesians etc. This is because non-neoclassical economists have been systematically excluded from economics departments across the UK. Research Excellence Framework (REF), this is a system and about once every 5 years each uni submits two pieces of work which are ranked 1-4, 4 being the best, internationally recognised. Work was judged by a panel of judges, problem is, they mainly had a neoclassical background therefore to get higher scores uni's have and still do dedicate more resources to neoclassical economics research. Ultimately, they aim to achieve broader democracy-I though the solutions were kind of weak and ones which sound better in theory e.g. Public Interest Economists: someone who scrutinises government decisions and help citizens understand the discipline and facilitate public discussion. To conclude, very interesting to read about- loved how applicable and tangible this issue was and I absolutely agree with the premise however I think a crucial oversight was how motivated people are. People are chronically lazy and doing additional work in uni to understand economics more rather than memorise and being a student advocate etc. requires someone who is truly dedicated to the art of economics and unfortunately, this is incredibly rare. Thus implying these issues are more systemic, students are learning incorrectly from a very young age- for most, its about getting it done than have a full and thorough hand on the subject, although upsetting the entire argument rests on this assumption.
November 29, 2020
I am generally sceptical of most fundamental critiques of economics as a discipline. I think 90% of the backlash to the subject stems from the tendency of introductory courses to emphasise theoretical foundations over practical applications, leaving sociology students and future journalists with the false impression of a discipline out of touch with reality. Apart from that, most of the so-called failures of economics are really failures of policymaking – bureaucrats deluding themselves that general understandings of theoretical relationships can substitute for real skin in the game.
So it’s not damning with faint praise when I say that while I was not ultimately convinced by The Econocracy, the core argument is made with compelling passion and rigour. Written by founding figures of the Rethinking Economics movement, this book is probably the best of the critiques of economics you are likely to find – it’s clear that the authors have been refining and revising their argument for years. Indeed, a large part of why I am more optimistic about the flexibility of economics lies in precisely the dynamism of the discipline’s response to the Rethinking Economics movement.
In particular, the book moves beyond broad gesturing at unpopular policies and an overemphasis on mathematics, opting instead for a rich history of the economics discipline, its tense relationship with policymakers, and reflections on patterns of immanent critique and adaptation.
As one text in an ongoing conversation, The Econocracy is a welcome contribution.
So it’s not damning with faint praise when I say that while I was not ultimately convinced by The Econocracy, the core argument is made with compelling passion and rigour. Written by founding figures of the Rethinking Economics movement, this book is probably the best of the critiques of economics you are likely to find – it’s clear that the authors have been refining and revising their argument for years. Indeed, a large part of why I am more optimistic about the flexibility of economics lies in precisely the dynamism of the discipline’s response to the Rethinking Economics movement.
In particular, the book moves beyond broad gesturing at unpopular policies and an overemphasis on mathematics, opting instead for a rich history of the economics discipline, its tense relationship with policymakers, and reflections on patterns of immanent critique and adaptation.
As one text in an ongoing conversation, The Econocracy is a welcome contribution.
August 26, 2019
Little gawky at times but a solid case for pluralism in economics education. When I was in my first sem of undergrad economics, I remember how my friends from Political Science or Philosophy or Sociology had amazing introductory courses which detailed the history of the field and a survey of different schools of thought. Even the sciences had the courtesy to talk about how their theories originated. Meanwhile, economics had one single textbook which put in place its theories and models as if they were just human nature, or were just describing a common knowledge. It is oblivious to historical context and the philosophical underpinnings, and they have very real consequences. One example that should have been mentioned in this book was that of Comparative Advantage. Economists assume that developed countries have capital and 'developing' countries specialise in labour, and this forms the relationship. However, this conveniently erases the fact that the capital of the developed countries is plundered wealth and the labour of the developing countries were enslaved and impoverished. A policy maker with this context in knowledge would design policies that will build the local/domestic economy rather than assuming it specialises in cheap labour.
Economics is the religion of our times. Economists are the priests. But they have gotten too orthodox in knowledge and regressive to their subjects. History shows what follows next.
Economics is the religion of our times. Economists are the priests. But they have gotten too orthodox in knowledge and regressive to their subjects. History shows what follows next.
November 19, 2017
Excellent book, deals with the exclusion and elitist approach applied all the time in adjudication of government policies translated to economic problems, that are more often than not opaque to the general public, thereby excluding them from the decision making!! This is the central problem of experts that stifle democratic participation.
The rhetorics by imbecilic media is all about leaving the experts alone( Raghuram Rajan’s expulsion being a case in point) without understanding that central planning suffers from informational asymmetry.
The next section deal with the issues of economics education and the neoclassical approach! The malignant desire to make economics a science is by creating abstract mathematical modelling that has little or no bearing to the real world!! I have personally encountered the false pride , of so called economists, about their mathematical prowess notwithstanding the fact that its not even relevant ( this is beside the fact that even graduate level economists use juvenile mathematics, not impressive to any maths graduate!). That economic study is all about society and its complexities is largely missed by these boisterous economic experts!
The rhetorics by imbecilic media is all about leaving the experts alone( Raghuram Rajan’s expulsion being a case in point) without understanding that central planning suffers from informational asymmetry.
The next section deal with the issues of economics education and the neoclassical approach! The malignant desire to make economics a science is by creating abstract mathematical modelling that has little or no bearing to the real world!! I have personally encountered the false pride , of so called economists, about their mathematical prowess notwithstanding the fact that its not even relevant ( this is beside the fact that even graduate level economists use juvenile mathematics, not impressive to any maths graduate!). That economic study is all about society and its complexities is largely missed by these boisterous economic experts!
January 7, 2024
A lot of ink has been spilled in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis on the shortcomings of economics as an academic subject. One of the reasons this books jumps out from that wave of writing and commentary is that it is written by a number of economics students who were dissatisfied with their experience during their respective degrees and organised themselves and raised their voices. Good for them. However, this could be one of the reasons I didn't think the book contains a lot of new or unexpected points of criticism (another reason could be that the book is almost 7 years old by now and that I have heard/read most points multiple times elsewhere by now). It's also very a much a negative approach: it describes (again and again) what is wrong with the field of economics but is a bit light on what direction it would need to go in to improve. Economics is too mathematic-y and needs to be more pluralist. Sure. But when asked what kind of new directions etc to be explored more it's the usual collection of marxist and feminist economics etc and it is never really convincingly explained what kind of refreshing insights these (currently indeed fairly niche) fields would provide us with (behavioural economics doesn't get mentioned until the appendix).
March 26, 2022
While I am not convinced by (1) the definition of what a political and what an economic question could be, where those boundaries are (2) the inherent assumption of democracy as an end point (which is undermined by econocracy) (3) the manner of analysis of the UK universities' education pedagogy and exams, this is a good starting point in the call for pluralism. Recognising that the students are limited in professional or academic experience, this was a good effort and there is enough to further work on.
Even if you aren't in an econocracy which these students have identified (USA, UK), you know you live in one. This book concretises and provides descriptors of those nagging feelings in the back of your chest.
Even if you aren't in an econocracy which these students have identified (USA, UK), you know you live in one. This book concretises and provides descriptors of those nagging feelings in the back of your chest.
September 19, 2020
This was excellent. They examined the syllabuses of university economics courses at a number of the top institutions and their exam papers and found an almost universal, play with the model, do lots of maths on it, don't think about the real world or criticise it in any way. Then you can get a good job and befuddle the world with phony forecasts. My education, 50 years ago, was on the cusp of moving into the quants and still had papers on economic institutions and development economics. I have thought it rather superseded but clearly not, in a valuable way. I'm now moving on to Skidelsky's book on Money and then the new one on Economics.
August 23, 2017
Although the authors' primary focus is on economics education in British universities, the problems they highlight are universal. As a US university student I loathed economics courses for their stuffy neoclassical obsession. Being a political science student, I found economics far more interesting when it was part of political science classes that were more open to critically thinking about economic theories. The authors' conclusions about reforming economics education as well as making the subject more accessible to the general public were very interesting.
September 29, 2019
Making the argument that homogenous neoclassical economics education, as exists in British Higher education today, prevents leading economists (so influential in politics) from understanding their own biases and prediction inaccuracies when advising the public and governments. Suggesting that the government and education bodies should promote better economic literacy in the populace so people have more control and insight into the policies that affect them, and can challenge the professional economists who have many times steered the country wrong.
March 19, 2018
Listened on Audiobook: I didn't study economics, but I heart one of the authors talking on a podcast and found their diagnosis of how economics is taught having implications on our democracy really interesting. The book doesn't disappoint – while it slides into inside baseball at times, how they discuss university education rings true, and their proposed solutions – while bold – are worth considering.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews