 |
| Frederic S. Lee |
Most academics
initially thought the exercise would be a fair way of allocating state research
funding when the state decided to reduce its commitment to higher education. However,
in some disciplines, such as economics, it became evident by the mid-1990s that
the exercise was also being used to cleanse economic departments of heterodox
economic ideas that did not conform to mainstream (neoclassical) economic
theory and with the neoliberal, pro-market policies based on the theory and
which the state approved of. But the precise manner through which the cleansing
process operated was not clearly understood. The rest of the article deals with
the cleansing process, its consequences for UK
Cleansing of UK
It is now
possible to see how the process worked. In a somewhat synchronized manner, the
Royal Economics Society under the direction of the state-organized Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) recommended economists for the RAE economics panel;
these economists in turn made decisions about the quality of the research
output submitted by the economics departments; these decisions in turn
determined the research funding allocated to the departments; and upon
discovering the apparent basis of what is considered quality research — that is
publications in a specific group of mainstream journals called the Diamond List
journals — UK economics departments then directed if not harassed their staff
to publish in them (and if not got them transferred to other departments or
made their working conditions so bad that they left the university) and only
hired mainstream economists who could publish in them. The outcome of these
mutually reinforcing relationships is that, over time, heterodox economics is
mostly eliminated from UK economics, economics departments became increasingly
homogeneous both internally and with respect to other departments, mainstream
economics research gets concentrated in fewer but quite acceptable areas that
are compatible with the economic and political interests of the state (as noted
above), and a few mainstream economics departments dominate UK economics.
Outcomes
What is the
concrete meaning of these outcomes? First of all, over 75% of all research
funding goes to just 13 universities; and these same universities teach only
mainstream economics to their students and only hire mainstream economists. However,
these latter outcomes are not just specific to them. Because all economics
departments (whether engaged in research or not) feel the pressure to be
mainstream, heterodox economists are not hired, resulting in a majority of UK economics
departments having no heterodox economists on staff, and not teaching any
alternative economics to their students. This means that most UK students who
take economics as their first degree are not introduced to any alternative
economic theories or policies; an outcome that is reinforced by the state’s
decree through its benchmark statement for economics which says that only
mainstream economics should be taught to students.
The result of
this cleansing of UK economics of heterodox economists and their ideas is to
create a single national view of what constitutes both economics and
appropriate economic policies, such as cuts to government spending so as to
deliberately create unemployment, eliminating help for the poor because they
brought their poverty upon themselves and the unemployed because they brought
it upon themselves by being inefficient workers, privatizing health care, and
attacking trade unions and all other forms of support for living wages and safe
working conditions. These policies emanate directly from the mainstream
economic theory taught to students as a faith-based truth. So it seems that the state, through the RAE, has
bought the economics and economic policies that it desired. But there is more
in that students and the UK population at large are deliberately prevented from
developing critical thinking so that they can, on their own, evaluate different
economic theories and their associated economic policies and determine which
one they think is best. In short, the state through the RAE has made mainstream
economists the direct enforcers of national thought control in economics.
What is to be
done?
So what is the
way forward? The first is do not trust economists and their economic policies;
second do not think that academic economists give unbiased advice; and lastly,
do not give economists associated with elite universities, such as the London
School of Economics, University College London, University of Oxford, and
University of Cambridge, any respect as their economics is designed to support
the 1% and at the same time make the lives of at least the lower 90% worse off.
There are, moreover, more positive steps that must be taken at the same time. The
first is engaging in political action directed at the state-sponsored RAE to shut
it down; and at the same time put pressure on the state to eliminate subject
benchmarking which prescribes what is the acceptable subject matter for an
academic discipline — much like telling people what religious views they must
believe and how to carry out their religious activities. For example, subject
benchmarking in economics defines economics as only mainstream economics;
consequently Marxian economics and any other kind of heterodox economics is not
economics and cannot be included in the study of economics. In addition,
departments that promote pluralism in the teaching of economics and heterodox
economists need financial support to stay viable and carry out research that
supports the other 90%.
It is obvious
that the business community bought their way into universities by providing
funds to build business schools and establishing professorial chairs in
business; and the same has been done in other areas such as the pharmaceutical
and biological sciences. Moreover, there are even specific instances, in the
United States for example, where conservative neo-liberal foundations and
business people have attempted to redirect the teaching of economics in
economics departments to support their free-market ideology (for example
Florida State University). So, in light of this ‘acceptable’ activity to push
economics in a particular direction, similar efforts need to be made. For
example, find economics departments that provide their students with a
pluralist understanding of economics and support them through providing student
scholarships or even just by encouraging students to do their economics degree
in the department. In addition, all heterodox economists need financial support
to carry out their research. Since the state and reputable foundations will not
generally support heterodox economists and their research, such support has to
come from individuals and from trade unions and progressive charitable
organizations — hence pressure needs to be put on them to provide such support.
Moreover, alternative, non-state based ‘schools’ providing a pluralist approach
to economics need to be established and promoted, such as something like an
independent working class education movement devoted specifically to economics.
Finally, to
force the specter of heterodox economics to be acknowledged by mainstream
economists, it is necessary for heterodox economists to take a more active,
confrontational route, such as disrupting the Royal Economics Society annual
conference. Each of the positive suggestions takes time, unpaid effort, and
money, but given the current dominance of the state and mainstream economics,
there is no other course of action.
This article is based on Lee,
F. S. 2013. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the Narrowing of UK
Economics.” Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 37.4: 693-717.
Download this article as pdf
Frederic Lee is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He taught at De Montfort University in the UK in the 1990s. His current research is on heterodox microeconomic theory. Finally he is a long-time member of the radical trade union, Industrial Workers of the World.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment