teaching Archives

Meet Gonçalo Fonseca, creator of the history of economic thought website

Every so often, we highlight one of the senior scholars that has supported the Young Scholars Initiative as a mentor. We share their perspective on the discipline, their past experiences as a young scholar and their thoughts on New Economic Thinking. This time, we talk to Gonçalo Fonseca, Research Fellow at INET and creator of the ever-expanding History of Economic Thought Website. His research is on the intersection of the history of economic thought and economic theory.

Were you always interested in economics, even at a young age?

Not really; I did read a lot as a kid, but not necessarily economics. I grew up in Zambia, where people hardly had anything. But then at 18, I moved to New York, to attend the New School. I actually started off as an Africanist, doing African studies; mostly politics, history. There actually wasn’t much economics offered at the undergraduate level, but one way or another, African studies inevitably leads to questions of development. So when Gunseli Berik allowed me to sit in on her graduate-level economic development class, it blew my mind; she opened the door, and from then on, I was in. I delved deeper into economics, Alice Amsden and Tom Palley being perhaps the strongest influences among many great professors I have had. I continued my graduate studies at Johns Hopkins, studying under M. Ali Khan, then returned to the New School to finish my Ph.D. with Duncan Foley.

Was it tough being a young scholar?

In the early days, I did experience a lot of the same challenges that young scholars today express; economics is a restrictive discipline, and I felt that too. Young people tend to be very anxious, particularly about choices that might affect their careers. They tend to see their futures too narrowly, thinking that there is only one path, or that they have to do things one way, or everything will go wrong. But I managed to do my own thing. I ended up giving myself a lot of leeway; perhaps more so than other people. I let myself chase shiny objects; I let myself pursue my interests. Partly because nobody told me what the path was, or was supposed to be! So I just did what made sense to me. I allowed myself to get immersed in things. And I developed myself broadly by combining my New School education, where the teaching was more unconventional, with my training at Johns Hopkins.

What is your advice to young scholars?

Chase the shiny objects! By which I mean pursue things that really interest you, or that really irritate you, that you’re really furious about, or dissatisfied with. Really pursue them, so that they can become yours. As strange as it sounds, if you can find one small thing that’s really yours, you will always be the reference for it. Don’t be the nth person working on a generic problem. Be the point person working on the thing that really interests you, and become the expert in that. Economics may seem unforgiving, but it’s not. There is leeway! Even in conventional departments. It’s valued when someone is really knowledgeable about something that they care about. It takes a little courage to get there. But it’s worthwhile.

My experience with students is that they are very curious and engaged with the world. And it takes years to beat that out of them. So the key is to retain that curiosity and to follow it. Don’t let publications be the only metric that matters to you. Don’t make the publication the goal. Make the goal that you contribute to the field.

But don’t get mistaken. It’s chasing shiny objects, and it’s fun, but it’s hard work. I’m really trying to understand something. What people are trying to say. How they fit with others. All that is work; lots of not sleeping, and pain. It’s like building anything else.

A lot of it is going to corners you didn’t expect to. Topics you didn’t think you were interested in. Stuff you didn’t imagine you cared about. Realizing hold on, there’s something here. And poking at it, and then getting lost, overwhelmed, start bringing your own narrative on it; you make it yours. And there’s really something to learn from everyone.

As a general strategy, in order to understand something, you have to be able to explain in plain English. To reach that, you really have to go deep and try to get a perspective and understand how it fits in its context. It’s work, but it’s very pleasurable. Once you get a grip on it, you get the “ah..” But before that, you may be frustrated. I’ve made myself learn obscure math just to be able to understand something, in order to understand something related to that. And once you have it, you’ve made it yours. It’s an armament.

Your point touches on the importance of being able to explain something to others, on teaching!

Yes, I’ve been teaching economics as long as I’ve been learning economics. Once you’re teaching something, you can start to really understand it. Already in undergrad, we’d organize with classmates to teach each other. Then we TA’d, and taught entire courses. At that point, it is harder to cut corners. You can, but you’re not doing yourself any favors. Especially once you start teaching people who don’t have a background in the subject, it forces you to think about it systematically. And the more you work on that, the more it becomes yours. This is why teaching is vital.

And it doesn’t even matter what the topic is. I have taught everything from econometrics to philosophy, and every time, I am happy, because I get to learn something; there’s something to learn from everything.

Who is the best teacher you’ve ever had?

Ali Khan, at Johns Hopkins. He taught mathematical economics, which is something people can easily get lost in. And he was very systematic. So I took a lot of tips from how he teaches. And what I always keep in mind is that my students are not there for me; I’m there for them. A lot of them have made sacrifices to be able to study, and they deserve the best. You can make a big difference if you manage to inspire those who are taking their first economics course. Even if they do not end up being economists, their understanding of the economy, civically, is very important. Similarly, I love being a mentor to young scholars in YSI.

How did the History of Economic Thought Website come to be?

It was actually a favor…! Heilbroner was teaching a course at the New School, while I was at Johns Hopkins. He was assigning a lot of reading, much of which was actually available online; it was just that nobody had put anything together. These were the early days of the web.. 1997. So one of his students, who was a friend of mine, asked me if I could gather these readings in one place online. She knew nothing about coding and I didn’t either. But she asked me if I could figure it out, and I did! And then it grew. From excitement, and because once you’ve covered this person, you know you should also cover that person, and then you just keep going. It became a lot bigger than I thought.

It was pre-Wikipedia, so it was a new thing to let one piece link to another and then another. Which is fantastic, because it means things don’t have to be linear like a book. The purpose is for it to be non-linear, so that you can roam, see what thoughts connect with what theories, what mentors connect with what students, what approaches there are between various groups.

What makes the History of Economic Thought such a powerful field, for you?

Many reasons. For one, it’s beautiful. But more importantly, it really helps you understand the theory. It can help you understand why a theory developed one way or another. It can allow you to see things more clearly, and help you understand the reasons why it’s structured the way that is. Because economics is not leveled or settled. And it’s not just models! At the end of the day, economics is constructed by people. It’s driven by people, and the questions they have. Their interests, the relationships they have, whether those are relationships of mentorship or rivalry.

Sometimes, the math in economics obscures this. But math in economics is like the notes on the page for music. Music is what you hear from a violin. The notes on the page are not the music. So some people condemn mathematics. And they shouldn’t. You can’t get mad at the mathematics in economics, just like you can’t be mad at sheet music. You can only be mad at whether the tune sounds good or not. By studying the History of Economic Thought, you get to see the full picture. You hear the full tune; and then you can decide for yourself.

Take a look at Gonçalo’s History of Economic Thought website! If there is another new economic thinker that you’d like to see featured here, let us know! Share your thoughts in the comments below, or email us at contact@economicquestions.org

Ending the Econocracy: The Need for Pluralism in Economics

To understand why economics students around the globe are calling for Rethinking Economics, the book The Econocracy is a thoughtful and accessible place to start. An econocracy, as defined by authors Joe Earle, Cahal Moran, and Zach Ward-Perkins is “a society in which political goals are defined in terms of their effect on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it.” Their work carefully explains why our current system is an econocracy and discusses possible ways to change that. Based on my own experiences so far, I can’t help but agree with them.

The Econocracy argues that the current definition of economics is limited to a narrow, neoclassical viewpoint. Institutions of higher education have accepted and helped reinforce this tendency, at the expense of the discipline. The neoclassical approach to economics requires an understanding of complex mathematical models, which leaves many citizens feeling unable to engage with it at all. However, they should not be intimidated by those who do possess the necessary quantitative skills. While today’s economic experts hold prestigious positions, their understanding of math is often greater than their understanding of the economy. As the 2008 recession demonstrated, the majority of current experts didn’t get things right. This shows “the perils of leaving economics to the experts.”

The authors’ critique of economics curricula at colleges and universities necessarily extends to a critique of the higher learning system where these curricula are taught. Interestingly enough, they argue neoclassical arguments have helped shape this system to become what it is today. “Human capital” theory has its roots in neoclassical utility maximization. One of the first exercises in standard econometrics classes is to calculate the “returns to education,” which shows that incomes are higher for those who have completed college degrees.

These type of theories are problematic because they frame education as a “financial investment” which encourages students to give “the minimum effort and engagement necessary to get a satisfactory grade.” Such a mentality “undermines many of the core principles of a liberal education.” The authors look through history at the UK’s higher education system, and show how rising tuition costs financed by personal loans also has its roots in neoclassical thinking. This type of change is symbolic of the econocracy’s influence throughout all spheres of civil life.

While studying at UC Berkeley and Bard College, I met many students who thought and acted this way. As long as you put in a minimal effort, there was little chance of failing or being expelled. Second and third chances were given out often. Teachers did not give a lot of room to think critically about what you were learning, and worksheets and one-size-fits-all curricula were the norm. Nearly every class I had was in a lecture/tutorial format, and nowhere was the socratic method used for teaching. Still, there were some great professors and fellow students who shined the light in the right direction for me. I finished school feeling like I missed out on something, but I’m glad I have my entire life to continue learning.

The Econocracy does more than offer a critique—it also puts forth a new direction, albeit one that might be tough to achieve. For the authors, reform should start with the education system. They pose it’s necessary to shift away from “a passive student body—whose only input into their education is a tick-box feedback form—to an “active student co-production of education.” Debate and dialogue should be encouraged.

A shift needs to happen within economics curricula too. The authors recommend economics departments teach with a pluralist approach, which would place post-Keynesian, classical, Marxist, feminist, Austrian, historical, ecological, and other perspectives front and center next to neoclassical economics. This way, students would be able to see neoclassical views as one of many ways to look at things. They would recognize that scholars have debated alternative points of view for decades, often on the fringes of the institutions they call home.

As Joan Robinson quipped in Marx, Marshall and Keynes: “The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” It doesn’t have to be this way. The Econocracy offers a different vision for economics. One where it is not only for the experts but for everyone. They want to “democratise economics because [they] believe at its core economics should be a public discussion about how to organise society.” That’s something we should all get behind.

At The Minskys, we too hope to help advance a jargon free view of the economy that everyone feels empowered to engage with. Economics can’t just be left to the experts, because “the economy” affects us all.

Be sure to grab your own copy of The Econocracy, read it, and comment down below with your thoughts.

Women should be running things. They actually care.

The jobs in our society that focus on caring for others are often held by women. Women hold 70% of teaching jobs, 90% of nurses are female, social workers, childcare, customer service, you name it. If the duties performed in a particular industry involve caring for another person, most of the workers employed in that industry will be female. Yet within these industries men who do the same jobs are still paid more. Overall, women earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men who perform the same job. This gender pay gap exists even in these jobs dominated by women. A male elementary school teacher earns 9% more than a female teacher. A male nurse’s median weekly income is $556 versus a female’s $446. When we cut budgets for our schools and our hospitals, we’re doing more than hurting the women typically in these jobs. We’re hurting everyone. If we want to better care about our citizens and reverse these trends, women would know how to do it best.

Yet women only hold 24% of C suite positions in the United States. Only 19% of our “representatives” in Congress are female. How does that stack up with the fact that half (that’s 50%, y’all) of our nation has the power to birth a human being? Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy performed a comprehensive review of literature with regards to preferences and gender. They find that women are more risk averse than men, are more sensitive to social cues, and are more cooperative. If women were in charge, would the bets placed on the housing industry that helped cause the last financial meltdown have happened? Would we be cutting funding for educating our children, profiting off our students in colleges, or letting 48 million Americans live in poverty? Given the findings, it seems unlikely. Women just seem to care more about these things.

Take a look at Hillary Clinton’s choice for chief economist for her transition team, Heather Boushey. Her book, Finding Time, highlights how care for our health, our children, and the elderly, have all been subsidized by “the American Wife.” As women have entered the official workforce, “the market” needs to recognize these valuable contributions with equitable pay. Or look at our recently spotlighted economist Pavlina Tcherneva. She advocates for feminist fiscal policy, claiming our current gender and race blind policy approach is anything but. Policy that is race and gender blind really just means favorable for white males. These problems are intersectional, income disparities get even worse if you’re female and a person of color. If we want to reverse these trends, we need to target policy towards helping these communities who have been harshly marginalized. Sadly, I doubt it’s going to be males who get it done. Males are the more competitive gender, and real competition drives capitalism. If society was driven by the cooperative gender, and we had real cooperation and caring instead, where would we be?