Political Economy as Alternative

This strange body of knowledge, looking at many of the problems that drew most of us to economics in the first place, is known as political economy. Most of its adherents, since they are dealing with these larger problems, tend to be more radical than orthodox economists. Many are 'Marxists'. It is not surprising they and their ideas are not welcomed by orthodox economists.

There's a basic conflict over what economics should be. One side wants to concentrate on issues of allocation, of marginal adjustments to a system that is not fully understood The other takes a more overall look, attempting to focus attention on general economic structure and developments.

It is stretching belief a little to claim that one can "choose" one of these two approaches and then remain "value-free". For most students of course, there is little matter of 'choice" about it. With [unclear: the] heavy doses of ideology in one direction, one soon begins to believe in the imaginery can opener.

To recap, many of us were drawn to economics because we wanted to know a bit more about what makes the system tick. All of us are supposed to look up to the economists who use long words and tell us how the country should be run.

What I have tried to show in this article is that no only is economics much less than it is cracked up to be, but that the long words also hide a very one sided approach to problems.

Marx called the economists of his day hired prizefighters for the bourgeoisie. This statement is still apt - it is doubtful if many economists could fight their way out of an imaginery paper bag.

So why study economics? Clearly the study of political economy is more helpful, if those are the questions that interest you. Even orthodox economics has some uses however - as Joan Robinson puts it:

"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists".

Let the learning begin!