The Question of "Proper Economics"

The Question of "Proper Economics"

Having introduced this necessary question, we need to decide whether pluralism should be allowed to step outside of this criterion and to provide a more general view. Remember that: "the proper study of Man is man".

Points

Proper economics should also include the less formal aspects but significant detail of how the subject grew and developed.

"Proper economics' might include what you suggest but you have not suggested what it excludes except the history of economic thought. It is also not clear why this should be excluded either.

We need a better understanding of the word "proper" and its application to economics. My dictionary has: (for an adjective); own, peculiar, individual, (for a noun); denoting individual person or place, fit, suitable, strict, conforming to etiquette, decorous. All of these things or expressions are the opposite of pluralistic since they tend to narrow down the subject of interest. Thus a pluralistic economy cannot be a proper subject in itself, only as a set of separate courses being taught.

By proper economics we must include the theoretical aspects of our subject in the most general forms relating to the various branches of economics, like microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics and statistics. Regrettably the theory cannot cover such significant matters as history of economic thought that covers the development of the various schools of thought.

It is not clear David what you are suggesting in terms of criteria for accrediting master courses that take a pluralist approach to economics. It might be better if you provide a contribution to one of the existing criteria.

Back to group

This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation

Your Priorities on GitHub

Check out the Citizens Foundation website for more information