Why economics textbooks are (sometimes) ideological

In a recent comment on Worthwhile Canadian Initiative Tom Slee shared this experience:

...{W]hen my son comes back from an Economics 101 course at an Ontario university and shows me bald statements like these from his textbook (Parkin and Bade) then I have no problem with using a broad brush to criticize the profession:... "Arguments that protection is necessary for infant industries and to prevent dumping are weak." (yes, that is the entire bullet point) and "Arguments that protection saves jobs... are flawed".

He told me that in the multiple choice section of the exam it was easy to get the right answer - just look for the most right-wing, free-market one of the options.

You can test Tom Slee's son's theory yourself:  http://www.econ100.com/ has on-line quizzes matching the Parkin and Bade text, along with solutions.

I have no opinion on the Parkin and Bade text one way or the other.

The point of this post is to give two reasons why one would expect textbooks to be ideological.

1. People write textbooks to share their view of the world.

Writing a textbook is (usually) a lousy way to make money. In terms of activities academic economists can undertake to supplement their salaries, acting as an expert witness in anti-trust or utility regulation hearings is perhaps the highest paid, along with serious (e.g. IMF, World bank) international consultancy. Writing government reports is less lucrative, but not bad either.

Textbook writing is rarely lucrative unless it is possible to achieve a significant share of a large market - as Mankiw, for example, has done for the first year market. So why would anyone do it?

Perhaps a person is utterly confident of his/her brilliance, so thinks he/she can take over a significant share of the existing market.

More likely, the person achieves intrinsic satisfaction from textbook writing. What is satisfying about writing a textbook? Not defining GDP or digging out government spending/GDP ratios.

What is satisfying about writing a textbook is explaining things your way. Opening eyes, helping people understand the world as you see it. Sometimes that particular worldview is conservative, as Tom Slee argues is the case for Parkin. Sometimes it is anything but, as in the text Economics: A tool for critically understanding society, co-authored by my friend Jean Shackelford. 

So textbooks are ideological because sharing a world view is a powerful motivation to write a textbook.

2. Ideology is a dimension along which textbooks compete for market share.

Some breakfast cereals are packed with sugar. Others are packed with fibre. Deliciousness and healthiness and two dimensions along which breakfast cereals compete for market share.

Textbooks compete too - on price (o.k., maybe not on price), on the quality of writing (o.k., maybe not on that either), on the add-ons available for instructors (ready made powerpoint slides, on-line quizzes), the attractiveness of the presentation - and on ideology.  

Greg Mankiw's text, for example, appeals to the centre-right crowd. But if it's too secular for you, there's Economics in Christian Perspective. Looking for a slightly more centre-left approach - how about Frank and Bernanke?

If the more conservative textbooks sell better - well, it could be that conservative economists write better textbooks (anything is possible) or it could be that those are the ones that appeal more to instructors.

Comments

[Adam]

Complaining that economics textbooks argue that barriers to trade harm the economy is like complaining that medical textbooks argue tgat bloodletting and exorcisms harm the patient. Don't blame the author, blame empirical data and reality.

[david (an ex-parkin student)]

Sometimes it's the textbook that's "ideological" and sometimes it's the reader.

[Adam P]

Except that anyone familliar with both theory and data know that sometimes trade restrictions are helpful.

[Frances Woolley]

Adam, like I said, I have no opinion on the Parkin book, or about trade for that matter. The point of this post is to explore incentives to write textbooks, and the dimensions along which textbooks compete.

David, or perhaps ideology is in the eye of the beholder? I've linked to several very different textbooks in this post. You and I might agree that some of the texts have substantive ideological content, but we might disagree as to which ones are more ideological.

[Min]

The question then arises, why do economics textbooks compete on ideology?

[Nick Rowe]

I'm trying to test this theory against the data. Let's just apply it to writers of first year textbooks (I think that's where it has the best chance of being true).

Are writers of first year economics texts more likely to be politically outspoken or involved than the average academic economist? For example, do they appear in newspapers or on TV etc. arguing for or against particular policies?

In Canada:

Dick Lipsey: yes, but not massively so. Led the economists' case for free trade.

Mike Parkin: maybe, but only a little more than the average economist.

In the US:

Paul Samuelson: ?

Greg Mankiw: yes. CEA for President Bush.

Who else?

An alternative explanation of the same facts would be that writers of first year texts are more articulate, and better-practiced at explaining complex things simply to people who don't know any economics, so they tend to be called on more, and more willing to accept, opportunities to enter the political arena.

My own anecdote (as having a very minor part, as Mankiw co-author for the Canadian edition): I liked the text so much (it was so short, clean, and clear) that I was determined I didn't want anyone else to screw it up, by adding lots of crud. It turned out to be surprisingly lucrative, not in total, but on a $/hour basis. But then I got very lucky. Most texts require a lot of work and sell very few copies.

[Ian Lippert]

"Except that anyone familliar with both theory and data know that sometimes trade restrictions are helpful."

The problem is that economics is not a science where things are true universally like they are in physics. If trade restrictions are harmful 4 times out of 5 what should we teach the first year student? Should we bombard them a ton of data that they are not able to understand? I think its better to teach the most common cases and maybe throw in a few counter examples while still stressing that there is a certain "statistical" nature to truth in economics. What we dont want is people labelling the 4 out 5 times simply as "right-wing" economics so that they can justify complete support for the 1 out of 5 times without them understanding that their own ideology is going to be wrong a majority of the times.

[Mike Moffatt]

"The problem is that economics is not a science where things are true universally like they are in physics. "

I think this oversells intro physics, which often assumes frictionless planes and assumes away air resistance and teaches Newtonian mechanics, which isn't true in any meaningful sense of the word - but is still incredibly useful. Not really any different than intro economics, that makes a bunch of simplifying assumptions.

[Nick Rowe]

Ian: I think that's the problem in a nutshell.

One obvious exception to the "trade restrictions are always bad" dictum: no economist I know argues for free trade in nukes. (Externality counter-argument!)

Sometimes I think it's almost better to have an economics text that is absolutely extremely orthodox and certain of its views. "It's clear enough to be wrong". With more mature students, who adopt a critical perspective, this can work well. They both grasp the economic vision, but understand that any one vision is always flawed, and can only be part of the truth. And the prof can even teach the course as a sort of running fight with the textbook. But with less mature students, this can go badly wrong. Some will believe it 100%; others will believe it 0% since they know it's not 100% true, and they can't imagine anything except 0% and 100%. And most will just say "But what do we say on the exam, professor?"

[Rick]

Teaching a student only 50%, 75% or even 90% of the material is not teaching. You have a responsibility as a teacher to work out all of the possibilities you can from first principles and whatever you can't you leave as an exercise to the students, but at the same time letting them know that you are unaware of a correct answer for all of the possible scenarios and then discuss it.

Teaching is supposed to give students a framework for understanding. When a good student from a well taught class is finished the course he or she should be able to prove what he/she knows from first principles against all contingencies as well as test any future opinions or theories they might have for consistency.

Any text that refers to a problem (such as tariffs and protection of industries) as solved without offering a proof for all contingencies is garbage. Further any teacher who teaches from that text without being able to prove what's in it is garbage.

The real problem is that there are a lot of garbage teachers teaching from a lot of garbage books. The result is a lot of garbage students who have memorized a lot of nonsense instead of learning how to solve problems themselves.

So as an answer to Ian.... you teach all 5 scenarios and how to identify and work through each one i.e. you give a complete education. If you can't do it, don't teach until you can.

[Nick Rowe]

Nick's advice to students:

1. On MC exams, give the answer you think the textbook author (or prof) thinks is right. Period.

2. On long answer exams, and essays, first give the answer you think the prof thinks is right, then, if you are a strong student, explain why you think it's wrong and what you think the answer should be.

3. If you want a good argument with the text or the prof, save it for the seminar.

[Stephen Gordon]

*All* of the possibilities? In 80-90 hours? With no math? I think you misunderstand what principles courses are supposed to do, or can be reasonably expected to do.

[Mike Moffatt]

Imagine if someone to Rick's critique to a 1st year physics course!

[Blikktheterrible]

In what exact way is the textbook incorrect here? Is the author making unjustified ideological assumptions? If so, I think that's problematic.

Is the author oversimplifying the facts? If so, I don't think it's necessarily incorrect, but an explanation of the simplifying assumptions might be helpful.

Is the author making a statement that cannot be supported (or falsified) by the facts? If so, I think that should be explicitly stated. He or she should make the point that we don't know the answer right now.

In the case of physics, authors would oversimplify things frequently, but could generally point out roughly what simplifying assumptions are being made and the fact that they are not true in general. Is the same the case with economics?

Should analysis that is not "settled" (accepted by, say, 95% of professionals) be taught in introductory courses? I could be wrong (I studied math), but I don't think it would be in any "real" sciences.

[Nick Rowe]

With the possible exception of profs in formal logic (the exception that proves the rule) none of the several dozen (sometimes excellent) profs who have taught me have come anywhere near to meeting Rick's criterion. I certainly fail.

Let me (very much tongue in cheek) offer a polar opposite view. I call it the "Lord Cardigan Theory of Teaching".

According to the LCTT, the prof's job is not to teach anything. His job is solely to lead his students to the subject, and inspire them to teach themselves.

[Phil]

How can you not be considered ideological in laying out a point of view in a controversial area?

If the Flat Earth Society were active politically, then "The world is round" would be considered an ideological statement.

[William Hayes]

Economic textbooks are (somewhat) ideological, not just “sometimes”. What Ed describes appears as indoctrination; not education. If a high school economics student teacher taught and gave his pupils a test like Ed describes I’d fail him, and perhaps disqualify him as a professional educator – though he may become a very good teacher of a rightwing perspective on economics and perhaps become a professor.

William Hayes

[20th century workforce]

Trade restrictions are good if the underlying good or service has significant underpriced externalities, like environmental, GD-inducing, health... If the resources are finite and not likely to be substituted or really less useful later. And if the society can take advantage of division of labour gains via tax rates, safety net, retraining. #3 is tricky; is why having 3rd world nations switch from sustinence farming to exporting non-edible goods is often bad.

[20th century workforce]

...a 4th counterfact is if just-in-time is fragile enough to be a weakness. Only #3 is seems beyond 80-90 hours of class. I never understood why I couldn't pick my own curriculum I paid for.

[Frances Woolley]

Min asks: The question then arises, why do economics textbooks compete on ideology?

Because, like the fibre and sugar content of breakfast cereals, it's something that matters to consumers. And it is an area where there are differences among producers - unlike in, say, the definition of GDP.

Rick - "Teaching a student only 50%, 75% or even 90% of the material is not teaching. You have a responsibility as a teacher to work out all of the possibilities you can from first principles and whatever you can't you leave as an exercise to the students, but at the same time letting them know that you are unaware of a correct answer for all of the possible scenarios and then discuss it."

A few years ago I ran into Jeremy Clark, now doing very well as an econ prof in New Zealand, who I taught public finance many years ago at UBC. Do you know the only thing he remembered from that class? That I made them chocolate chip cookies after their midterm exam.

If, some time in the course of the term, I can get my students to think differently about the world once or twice, learn one or two useful skills, and remember something other than the cookies, the class will be an overwhelming success.

Phil: "How can you not be considered ideological in laying out a point of view in a controversial area?"

What, after all, is an ideology? Is any consistent way of thinking about the world, any coherent set of ideas, an ideology? Or is an ideology a word that we reserve for talking about ways of viewing the world that are wrong/distorted?

Nick, thanks for your contributions to this post. I remember Eddie West talking about ideologies and education years ago, but don't really remember what his point was.

[tomslee]

A problem with the market share argument for textbooks is that the demand reflects the preferences of the teachers, not those who actually do the buying.

For upper year textbooks ideological texts have their place. But for first year courses your (1) may be true (people write textbooks to share their view of the world), but makes for a bad introductory textbook. There must be some obligation to present a canonical view of a subject, and some satisfaction to be gained from being able to do so well.

"What, after all, is an ideology?"

If it's a personal point of view, then every discipline has ideological textbooks and it's not a bad thing (for upper year students). In physics, the Landau and Lifschitz graduate texts are unique because Landau didn't have to recite standard proofs - he was so brilliant he just proved everything he needed as he went along. They represent a personal view of the subject, and many people (used to) use them, but usually alongside a more orthodox approach. Personally, they made my head explode.

[Blikktheterrible]

"How can you not be considered ideological in laying out a point of view in a controversial area?
If the Flat Earth Society were active politically, then "The world is round" would be considered an ideological statement."

The thing is, no one who said that the Earth is flat would be taken seriously by any sensible person, so that "controversy" shouldn't guide anyone's actions. As an educator, I think the key issue here is whether someone is portraying opinions as facts. I think that would be a big mistake.

[Robert]

As Stephen Marglin knows, the majority of the Harvard economics department has worked to activity suppress competent teaching in economics.

Economists have noted that what is taught in intro and intermediate microeconomics classes is mostly wrong. Some literature:

Frederic S. Lee and Steve Keen (2004) "The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory", Review of Social Economy, V. 62, Iss. 2: pp. 169-199.

Emmanuelle Benicourt and Bernard Guerrien (2008) "Is Anything Worth Keeping in Microeconomics", Review of Radical Political Economics, V. 40, N. 3 (Summer): pp. 317-323.

Michele I. Naples and Nahid AslanBeigui (1996) "What does determine the profit rate? The Neoclassical theories presented in introductory textbooks", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 20, N. 1 (Jan.): pp. 53-71

Then there's the whole toxic textbooks and post autistic economics movements.

Only a fool or a knave could depict acceptance or rejection of the teachings of mainstream economics as a division between those inside economics and those outside.

[Ian Lippert]

"I think this oversells intro physics, which often assumes frictionless planes and assumes away air resistance and teaches Newtonian mechanics, which isn't true in any meaningful sense of the word - but is still incredibly useful. Not really any different than intro economics, that makes a bunch of simplifying assumptions."

Although this is true to a degree, and I have used it when trying to explain why assumptions are used in economics even when they might seem unrealistic, ie certain rationality assumptions. The difference is that physics gets out of its 'simplifying assumptions' stage pretty quickly. Economics never gets out of it, the systems economists study are too complex not to make assumptions.

Are the assumptions mainstream economics make reasonably close to the truth? I'm not really sure if I could make the case either way. Sometimes I feel like they are and sometimes I feel like economics strays close to being an ideological pseudoscience. Not because people in the science arent intelligent and scientifically minded, but because there seems to be many issues where very smart people argue completely opposite points of view endlessly without any concrete conclusions.

[Rick]

For me the issue can be summed up in an anecdote. I have a friend who is a P.Eng. He is taking an M.BA. at Ivey. I talk to him about economics and all of a sudden he is against Unions. Even though he is trained in critical thinking in his undergraduate degrees and has taken enough math courses to come up with a model that is consistent in proving his beliefs, he has put aside any attempt at modeling the union situation, he has no interest in working out a cost benefit analysis to individual unions operating in different sectors (not even for Engineers) and will not rationally discuss the limitations to his view. He just recites the phrase: "people make what they deserve and Unions are bad".

What will he end up doing....? probably policy analysis, executive at a company.... or whatever. The point is that he is going to influence decisions with no understanding of their impact because he got a degree from a school with teachers who are too lazy to actually teach a course properly or fail students. Instead they just hand out textbooks and case studies and discuss the bias opinions of supply side economics.

Maybe 80-90 hours doesn't give the time to do an adequate job (I beg to differ, but understand the argument) but who is responsible for the army of dummies making bad decisions using their M.BA. (or some other business degree) as a soapbox to preach from????? Teachers? Textbooks?

[Rick]

Mike:

First year Physics courses do not offer opinions, or views that are inconsistent to the postulates of Newtonian Physics. The Framework for understanding is laid out very early.
There are 4 important quantities
Time
Position (3 coordinates)
Mass
Charge

Force is defined graphically by the second derivative of its position-time curve. The only assumptions that are ever made are that the position-time curve is smooth, continuous and differentiable so that if acceleration is known the equations of motion can be integrated using the rules of calculus.

The theories that are built from first principles define the conditions in which they are valid and are bound to be consistent with the Newtonian framework.

If the course is not taught in that manner it is a poor course, taught by a poor teacher. Its unfortunate that the same standards cannot be set for economics.

Imagine if a Finance course wasn't taught with any math, Models or proofs?

[Mike Moffatt]

"First year Physics courses do not offer opinions, or views that are inconsistent to the postulates of Newtonian Physics."

That's my entire point - that the course is taught under a framework that is, by necessity, incomplete.

[Nick Rowe]

Rick. But is that any worse than the people who say "Unions make us all richer; they stop us having to work for free; they gave us the weekend"? I think it's actually better. Most intro texts do have a simple model of monopoly unions. Within that simple model, unions are generally a Bad Thing. Of course that model is not the whole truth. I agree it's a pity though he didn't at least cite that model, and defend it.

[Nick Rowe]

Rick: "Imagine if a Finance course wasn't taught with any math, Models or proofs?"

I could imagine an intro economics course being taught in that manner. In fact, it would be a lot closer to the way (some) graduate micro is taught (and for some economics graduate students, that is their intro course). Start out with a formal proof of the existence of general equilibrium.

The critics of "Autistic economics" and our penchant for the "Ricardian vice" would loathe it. I'm against it too. It would leave so much out. You would suddenly find me switching to the Poli Sci department, calling myself a "political economist", or something.

[20th century workforce]

Why the model of an individual as a utility maximizer is wrong:
Humans have the capacity for abstract thought. Imagination. Monkeys and elephants have this somewhat too. We also alone have egos. When you combine the two you realize there are other egos out there. Is why a model of humans as utilitarian maximizers is more accurate. Behaviour is a good part weighing self and others, not merely self-interest or empathy mirror neurons (maybe for animals). You get a better economics distribution of resources by not overvaluing self-interest as a 1st principle. We have free will.

[Rick]

I think the idea is that an intro physics course is incomplete in a sense, but the framework it offers is universally applicable to all classical problems. It doesn't mislead, it humbles students and they understand that when the problems become more complicated they need more sophisticated math, but the same models still apply. I find intro business courses leave students feeling arrogant about the little they know and without a way to even start thinking about complicated models.

I have great respect for a lot of economists, but the difference between economics and physics isn't the quality of texts (the good ones anyway), the teaching, or the applicability of the field, its that too many people pass the courses without understanding the material - a product of how watered down the testing is. I've met just as many people who's "understanding" of things economic makes me sick to my stomach as those who I've enjoyed listening to. That's true of economics, psychology, sociology and philosophy. Economics is the one that doesn't belong there.

[Stephen Gordon]

I haven't taught principles for years, but it seems to me as though the aim of that sort of course isn't to instruct students on the nature of Truth so much as provide some of the rudimentary analytical skills required to address some basic questions.

If you want to answer more interesting, complicated questions, well, that's the topic for a specialised, upper-year course.

[Rick]

And Nick ...
Just for the record though, I'm not blindly pro union. Those people bother me just the same. My issue is that if you can't design a model or account for the scenario where your views are no longer true (or become logically inconsistent) then you shouldn't have those views. I just wish people who couldn't prove the things they "know" would be prevented from getting diplomas. I thought that's supposed to be your job (I know it's not, but I wish it was -- Nick Rowe defender of academic economic integrity :) ).... I'd much rather hear someone complain about why their economics teacher was an a##hole for failing them than listen to people say that tax cuts lead to economic growth no questions asked and justify there opinion because they passed an economics class getting 60 on a MC final.

And just for the record, I remember Stephen talking to an economist at the Fraser institute who didn't understand sampling bias..... he probably got a 90 in economics; And that guy influences decisions ..... How does that happen?!!!!!

Actually I know that happens in every field where the most vocal is the least apt, but it just seems to happen more often in economics. Then again I do remember a video where 50% of a graduating engineering class at Harvard couldn't light a bulb with a battery and a metal wire. Maybe I'm being too hard....

[Josh]

Just to chime in briefly...

That's my entire point - that the course is taught under a framework that is, by necessity, incomplete.

The difference, I think, is that first-year physics students are not unaware that it's incomplete, and will not go on to apply their misunderstandings to other spheres of life. Even if they do go on to work at the Fraser Institute or - worse - as a Conservative Party staffer, they won't likely publish "studies" or make media pronouncements about the significance of conclusions from free-body problems applied to statistical mechanics.

[Blikktheterrible]

What do you folks think of my suggestion that textbooks and educators explain when statements are not established beyond reasonable dispute and explain roughly what simplifying assumptions are being made? Would that be practical/helpful?

[William Hayes]

Regarding introductory textbooks: anyone still use or ever use Kenneth Boulding’s Economics as a Science? He did a series of seminars for high school teachers in the late sixties. Still highly relevant I believe. Still have my copy from the 70s. Besides chapters on Economics as a Mathematical and Social Science, he has chapters on Economics as a Behavioral Science, Political Science, Moral Science, and Ecological Science. I see on Amazon that a new edition came out in 2002 (and has 5 stars). And, it only costs $45!

[20th century workforce]

Rick at 01:03 and Josh aren't joshing us. A contempt for gov and stats is good for market salary thx to Koch, Murdoch families and inbred like, but bad for health:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/117/abstract

"increased isolation of symptomatic individuals in their household"

I don't see how this is possible without the bedroom # and person # questions. With stats you could plan some makeshift clinics or add extra antivirals or adjuvents, or surgical masks, or whetever. But by undercounting poor people CPC will make all of us sick this century. At least Rick convinced me is sometimes willful ignorance and not lies and baby tears.

[Alex Plante]

I grew up in the 70's, when we had the Oil Crisis and Stagflation, then came of age in the early 80's when we had the worst recession since the Great Depression, even worse than the current recession. At the age of 18, in spite of winning a scholarship to study Physics at Waterloo, I instead decided to become an economist , mainly because I wanted to understand and help solve some the economic mess the world seemed to be in at the time.

Here I was, an eager beaver young student wanting to save the world, and the overwhelming message from my professors was laissez-faire, that any "intervention" is bad, that you cannot do anything to solve any of the obvious problems in the world. I think the most depressing thing was the way they would even deny the existance of problems, or blame them on the attempted solutions.

After 3 years, I was deeply depressed, dropped out of economics and became a civil engineer instead.

I know this post is rather pointless, but I think the history of the past 30 years has shown that the neo-conservative libertarian economists may have won the war in the classrooms, but lost the war out there in the real world.