An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014

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

Page 1 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014

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 of multiplicity 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 in Economics1. 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.
1

Freeman, Alan. The Economists of Tomorrow: The Case for a Pluralist Subject Benchmark Statement for Economics. Association for Heterodox Economics, London. 2 Literature 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 Economics by 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. 3 Teachers/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 classroom teaching sessions, such interested professionals can contact this author as per the details given in the last section of this paper.

Page 2 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 Index 1 2 3 4 Preface Introductory note Theoretical Illustrations: Law of Demand and Theory of Wage determination under perfect Labour markets Views of some Economists on this issue4 Mark Blaug Karl Marx Paul Sweezy Ludwig von Mises Robert Murphy A note on G.S.E.B.s syllabus of Economics in XIth and XIIth std.5 What is Economics? A controversial question Neo-classical and Keynesian Economics: Is that what Economics is all about? An abstraction-exercise: Tree and Economics How to study Economics- both Textbook and Non-textbook? Anticipated criticisms Conclusion References & About the Author

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

The 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 -Pluralistic character 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.

Page 3 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 to Economics. 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 viceversa. This is incorrect. Our young students, who represent this nations Epistemological: Means that which is related to future, deserve to know the truth about the Epistemology. sheer diversity and controversy in . Economics. They must know that Epistemology: It is the science of Knowledge. It is a Economics has never been a subject of branch of Western Philosophy. broad consensus and clearly defined Questions such as How meanings. None of the social sciences Knowledge is produced? How do we know things? Can we have been. Introducing the students of really know anything? Etc. higher secondary to Economics requires a very different approach. This approach Ontological: It is the study of Ontology. has to explain the inherently controversial nature of this subject. A set of principles, Ontology: A branch of called the principles of Economics are Western Philosophy. It studies Philosophical issues related to presented to fresh learners as the our existence, our being. Why principles of Economics. Their role then is do we exist? What does it to learn those principles, understand them, mean to exist? What is reality? Etc. and reproduce them in the exams which they are subjected to. Such an approach represents 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.

6 7

Freeman, A. and Kliman, A. Beyond Talking the Talk, (2008). A 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 a thorough knowledge about the diversity in Economics which a mere History of Economics course cannot provide with.

Page 4 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 Truth: In Philosophy, this is understood as a fact or belief relative- that there has never been and that is accepted as true. 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 of looking in Economics are considered outside the mainstream. To a great extent, these approaches are discriminated against too.

Page 5 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 to now9:

Development of Economics Absolute Relative

Absolutist History of Economics means a History of the scientific principles of Defined as economics. These are independent of the Universal: something/some event present or social, economic, political, cultural, etc. occurring everywhere; existent or operative everywhere or under all aspects of our lives. These are Universal conditions. principles of Economics that can be applied to any economic problem or any Economic system- 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 non8

Meek, 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. 9 Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory Retrospect, 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. 10 There are fierce debates between the proponents of alternative political/economic systems. This paper doesnt aim to survey that, hence ignores that literature.

Page 6 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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.].

Page 7 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 3. Theoretical Illustrations A. Example 1: The Law of Demand.

The Law of Demand

1200 1000 Demand[Kg.] 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 Price[Rs.] 400 500 600

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 is not 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
11

Ceteris 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 of consumers, Population of Consumers, supply-side factors, etc. are assumed constant. 12 th Stigler, George. The Theory of Price. 4 Ed. Chapter 3- Consumer Behaviour. Pg. 22, 23.

Page 8 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 exists wherein things are produced not for self-consumption, but for exchange on markets. Hence the Law of Demand requires production 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.

Theory of Wage determination

Labour Demand; Labour Supply 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Wage rate[Rs.]

[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.}]

Page 9 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 would consider 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 solution to 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 wordlabour 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 up perceiving 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?

Page 10 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 Theory Retrospect. 1984. Introduction section of this work talks about this approach. 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.

Page 11 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014

Let us make some observations based on above quotes: Mark Blaug, considers Economics as a scientific study. He disagrees 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 [emphasis added]. 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. These are 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 commodityform 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
14

Marx, 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

Page 12 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 neoclassical Economics], aims at finding/proposing/producing Universal laws. This means that an Absolute view about Economics is adopted. Here, the specific conditions under which
15

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

Page 13 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 Economics as such. IV. David Gordon on Ludwig von Mises [a well-known Austrian Economist] 16

The method of economics differed fundamentally from that of physics and 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
16

Gordon, David. The Philosophical Contributions of Ludwig von Mises. The Review of Austrian Economics Vo1.7, No. 1(1994): Pg. 95-106.

Page 14 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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.

Page 15 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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.]

Page 16 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 at the 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 subdivisions 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 of traditional 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 neoclassical 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.

Page 17 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 subdivisions. 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 the pluralistic nature of this subject.

Page 18 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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-classical Economics. 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 Basu18 and 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.

Keyniesian Macroeconomics Economics as in XIth and XIIth std. Microeconomics Neo-classical

Neo-classical

18

Basu, 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- The Chemistry of Groups. One must refer this work for an enlightening and more scholarly discussion on some of the themes developed in this paper.

Page 19 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 Always bear in mind that you have studied and will always study a very particular type of economics, not Economics as 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.

Page 20 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 8. An abstraction-exercise: Tree and Economics. Let us do a mental exercise. Follow these steps:

1 2

Relax for a moment. Imagine a 'Tree'.

Are you sure it was indeed a 'Tree'?

You can never imagine a Tree! Tree is just a linguistic-tool for representing all the diverse types of trees under one single heading for simplicity in communication. But those who believe this is merely a semantic issue must think twice. Lets learn 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.

Page 21 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 Neoclassical 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.

Page 22 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 9. How to study Economics?

Textbook Economics

Economics
NonTextbook Economics

Further explanation of this division can be as follow:

Textbook Economics Nontextbook

Neoclassical Keynesian Heterodox

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.

Page 23 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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:

Diagrams [Geometry of Economics] Economic Theory Mathematics and Statistics

Textbook Economics

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].

Page 24 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 the presentation 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']

Page 25 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 are the 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 above throughout 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 to promote 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.

19

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

Page 26 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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 these young 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 raised above. 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]

Page 27 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014

Epistemological fact

'Economics' as a General term

Ontological fact 'Economics' as a real world subject irrespective of its specific form and type
These are some of the questions that we reach based on our above inquiry. Students must deliberate on this. Talk with your teachers in school, coaching institute or other people in this discipline. If you do not find satisfactory answers to these questions elsewhere, you can contact this author.

Page 28 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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. Advanced students 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 3 4 5 6 7 Freeman, A. and Kliman. A. Beyond Talking the Talk. 2008. Meek, Ronald. Studies in the Labour theory of Value. 1973. Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory Retrospect. 1984. Stigler, George. The Theory of Price. 4th Ed. Marx, Karl. Capital, Vol. I. MIA edition. Sweezy, Paul. The Theory of Capitalist Development. 1962.

8 Gordon, David. The Philosophical Contributions of Ludwig von Mises. 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.

Page 29 of 30

An Introduction to Multiplicity in Economics, Bhagirath Baria 2014 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: bhagirathbaria@hotmail.com marxmeup@outlook.com E. Economics by Bhagirath Baria: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Economics-by-BhagirathBaria/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.

Page 30 of 30