Teaching Economics As Though Values Matter

That’s the title of a paper published recently in the The Journal of Applied Public Economics. Here is the abstract:

Economics is permeated with value judgements, and removing them would be neither possible nor desirable. They are consequential, in the sense that they have a sizeable impact on economists’ output. Yet many economists may not even realise they are there. This paper surveys ways in which values influence economic theory and practice and explores some implications for the manner in which economics – especially welfare economics – is taught, practised and communicated. Explicit attention to values needs to be embedded in the teaching of economics at all levels.

Angner, E. (2023), Teaching economics as though values matter. Fiscal Studies, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12336

This really and truly is a paper that you should read in full, so rather than give you my notes about it, I’ll simply note ten points that were very important to me. But I’ll urge you once again to read the whole thing.

  1. Hume’s law is worth noting: “You can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”.
  2. Check the premises of your arguments. Always and everywhere. Students who have just finished reading Ayn Rand might remember a particular phrasing on the part of one of her characters, but the point goes much deeper than that. In this case, what Erik Angner (the author of the paper) is saying is that we should be aware of what values are entering our arguments. To give you just one example: should there be a market for kidneys (or organs in general)? I’m not judging you for your answer, and nor should you judge yourself. But whatever your answer to this question, you are telling yourself a fair bit about your values.
  3. Disagreements can happen either because we fail to agree on what our understanding of reality is (which is relatively easy to correct), or because we have different value systems (which is much more difficult to correct). But begin by trying to understand where the disagreement comes from in the first place.
  4. “Public policy must be responsive to the values of the population in whose name policymakers take action. This is an important lesson for students of economics who subsequently are engaged in policy decisions.”
    This is also why studying only economics isn’t enough to become a good policymaker. Knowing economics is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for formulating policy. (Recommended reading: Where India Goes)
  5. “Most importantly, and particularly when it comes to teaching future generations of economists, we will want to enquire: ‘What and whose values ought to inspire our work – and how?’”
    Answering this question is hard, in part because no single value system has “won”. Perhaps none ever will, and that makes answering this question hard, important, frustrating and rewarding – all at once.
  6. “It is interesting to reflect on why economic pedagogy has become a surprisingly value-free zone. One reason may be that welfare economics itself (as discussed in the introductory paper in this symposium) has not been a prominent area of research for decades, with the publication of key texts dating to the early 1970s. Another is the lasting influence of positivism on economics as a social science committed to a particular conception of the scientific method, from Robbins (1932) through to recent continued insistence on the objectivity of economic analysis. Economists teach as we aim to practise our discipline, with courses – particularly at masters level and beyond – geared to the production of future academic economists rather than students who will work in policy or other domains of economic practice”
    Our job is not to produce more academic economists alone. Our job is also to produce economists who are employable in the world outside of academia. That is actually around eighty percent of our job! You’d be surprised at the number of academicians who do not et this point. At all.
  7. Question number three in macroeconomics is “What can we do to make the world a better place?” The word “better” is inherently subjective, and it is a value judgment. You can’t teach or study economics independent of thinking about, talking about, and explicitly incorporating values into your work.
  8. The work that we do, as economists, needs to be communicated. How we communicate it, through which medium, whether we communicate it or not, how we phrase our communication, are all value judgments.
  9. “Kuhn said a good scientific theory has five qualities, or cognitive virtues: empirical accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness.”
    What if you have two competing theories, one being very good in three of these, and another being good in two of these, but with no overlap? Which do you “choose”? How is this not a value judgment?
  10. Erik ends with an excellent list of suggestions that teachers could consider when designing a curriculum designed to surface values:
    Provide historical context | Provide alternative economic perspectives | Articulate relevant values | Practise normative reflection | Use case studies | Encourage epistemic humility

The paper’s concluding paragraph is worth quoting in full:

Recognising that values play an ineliminable role in economic theory and practice does not mean that anything goes, or that economics pedagogy should be used as a vehicle for promoting specific, parochial values and ideologies. It does mean recognising the centrality of values as an input in serious reflection about economic things, as well as helping us develop the requisite sophistication to engage in normative reflection as appropriate – in economic theory, practice, communication and teaching.

Angner, E. (2023), Teaching economics as though values matter. Fiscal Studies, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12336

Dwarkesh Patel on The Mystery of the Miracle Year

An interesting pattern recurs across the careers of great scientists: an annus mirabilis (miracle year) in which they make multiple, seemingly independent breakthroughs in the span of a single year or two.

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/annus-mirabilis

This is how the short, extremely readable essay begins, and the topic of the essay is not just observations about the remarkable number of scientists who have had these miracle years, but also ruminations about how we might get more people to have these years.

Newton, Darwin and Einstein are three people who Dwarkesh argues exemplify best the idea of a miracle year, and well, it is hard to argue against that list. But it’s not just this rather intimidating list – Copernicus, Von Neumann, Gauss, Linus Torvalds and Ken Thompson are also mentioned. (By the way, I’ve decided to not link to the Wikipedia pages in each case deliberately. Please do look up any name that you are unfamiliar with, because they’re all worth a Google search or two).

Dwarkesh argues, and to my mind fair convincingly, that the phenomenon isn’t just coincidence (read his post to understand why).

But that then raises two important questions: one, what were the causal factors that were common across all of these cases? Two, are these factors replicable – how do we increase the probability of many more folks having these miracle years?

As regards the first, Dwarkesh offers up two main hypotheses. The first:

In Kuhnian terms, you could say that the great scientists found a new paradigm and then spent a year gobbling up all of the important, low hanging discoveries before their competitors could catch up.

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/annus-mirabilis

If the word “Kuhnian” is new to you, you’re in luck. Read this highlight, and then, if you can spare the time, the rest of the article. Also read the Wikipedia article, while you are at it. So ok, one idea is that these scientists were responsible for a paradigm shift, and as Dwarkesh says, they gobbled up all the important low-hanging fruit in these (apologies for the mixed up metaphor) unchartered territories.

A related hypothesis, and the two need not be mutually exclusive, is offered later on in the essay:

Perhaps there’s a brief window in a person’s life where he has the intelligence, curiosity, and freedom of youth but also the skills and knowledge of age. These conditions only coincide at some point in a person’s twenties. It wouldn’t be surprising if the combination of fluid intelligence (which declines steeply after your 20s) and crystalized intelligence (which accumulates slowly up till your 50s and 60s) is highest during this time.

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/annus-mirabilis

Confused about fluid and crystalized intelligence? Read the Wikipedia article about it.


As always, read the rest of the essay, but I want to focus on the concluding paragraph of Dwarkesh’s essay:

Given how many of the great scientific discoveries have come about during miracle years, we should do everything we can to help smart Twentysomethings have an annus mirabilis. We should free them from rote menial work, prevent them from being overexposed to the current paradigm, and give them the freedom to explore far-fetched ideas without arbitrary deadlines or time-draining obligations.

https://www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/annus-mirabilis

I have chosen to not excerpt the very last sentence of the essay, in which he laments about how the excerpt above is the very opposite of a modern PhD program. Slight disagreement – I would say this is the very opposite of higher education in general – in particular, the “overexposed to the current paradigm” bit truly resonated with me.

Higher education is far too much about received wisdom and current orthodoxy, and I don’t think we do enough in terms of leaving opportunities for serendipitous conversations, chance encounters, heated debates and the freedom to explore potentially heretical ideas – no matter the field of study.

Sure classes are important, but there is so much more to education than memorizing definitions from a textbook. The cultivation practices currently in place aren’t going to generate too many annus mirablis’, more’s the pity.