“A missed opportunity for the NRC,” says Wilko Letterie, responsible for education and research at the School of Business and Economics. He is not too put out about it: “Fortunately, students are able to find our programmes.”
In Maastricht, they are used to the fact that journalists don’t think about them, says Jona Linde, assistant professor at the department of Micro-economics and Public Economics. “Groningen was not mentioned either. Randstad arrogance?” Professor of Macroeconomics and International Monetary Economics Clemens Kool confirms that image: “It has led to hardly any kind of fuss or agitation within SBE.”
So, it appears that the Maastricht economists are not losing sleep over the issue, but do they agree with the NRC article? What doesn’t apply to SBE, at any rate, each and every one said, is that Economics education does not pay attention to ‘real’ social problems such as the climate crisis. “It is inevitable, because of Problem-Based Learning,” says Linde. “If we don’t talk about it, the students will.” And students don’t just talk about practice, they are firmly rooted in reality, says Kool. As an example, he mentions a project in the master’s programme, in which students carry out an assignment in groups with an external organisation. “There is a good balance between theory and practice in Maastricht.”
Love for neoclassical theory
The main reproach in the NRC article is that the bachelor’s programmes are too one-sided, mathematical and theoretical. To this is added that the dominant theory in Economics – the neoclassical model that suggests that people act in their own interest, make ‘optimum’ choices and that markets stabilise themselves – is too far from reality. Even after a critical report by the economists network Rethinking Economics three years ago, hardly any changes have been implemented. This group of economists feels that Nijmegen, Utrecht and the Vrije Universiteit are making steps in the right direction, but the three big ones – Tilburg, Rotterdam and the University of Amsterdam – fail to do so. Behavioural or experimental Economics, or the body of ideas by economists such as Thomas Piketty and Kate Raworth, are hardly even touched upon, according to the NRC.
Maastricht economists can explain the love for the neoclassical theory. “If you want to dance, you first need to learn how to walk,” says Martin Strobel, associate professor of Microeconomics and Public Economics: “The neoclassical theory explains the driving power in markets very well. This basis is something that all Economics students must learn in their first year before they get on to the more complicated (and more realistic) theories and trends in their second and third years. But there is no economist who actually believes that all movements in the market can be explained purely on the basis of striving towards personal gain.”
Strobel recognises the shortcomings of the neoclassical model, but he hasn’t seen a better alternative yet. “It falls short, for example, if you want refer to points in time. Economists were able to predict in 2008 that things couldn’t go on like they did forever, but to predict exactly when the crash would be? That is impossible with this model.”
Neuroeconomics
So, start off with as simple a model possible and then expand on that, says Clemens Kool in his office. His bookcase is bursting at the seams, Piketty’s well-known book with its red edging being one of them. “In the second and third year, other trends are given a much more dominant role. There are subjects on Standards and Values, Trust, situations in which one party has more information than the other.” Later on, Strobel adds: “Or subjects on Behaviour, Psychology, History of Economic Ideas, and even a subject such as Neuroeconomics, in which a closer look is taken at the biological processes in the brain. Then you are very far removed from the neoclassical model.”
Then we have the focus on quantitative research methods and the disregard for the qualitative approach. Why, for example, are there not more interviews in Economics? “That is a good way to get acquainted with businesses or individuals,” says professor Kool. “But you can’t get away from mathematics. That is part and parcel of general Economics.” According to Linde, there is nothing wrong with the prominent role of quantitative research methods. “Students are going to join businesses as economists or they will do empirical research for the government, or interpret the work of others. Data analysis is becoming more and more important, also in the education programme.”
Positive v normative
Still, there isn’t just discontent about the gist of the NRC article. Hannes Rusch, assistant professor at the department of Micro-economics and Public Economics, disagrees with many points made by the author, but feels that discussion about the curriculum is good. One of the most important points is given a mere two sentences by the NRC journalist, says Rusch: the difference between positive and normative science. “An example: Imagine I am teaching about economic measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If that is your objective, then you have measures a, b, and c in order to carry this out in a cost-effective way. This is from a positive scientific perspective. Of course, students need to know this, but I think that the normative perspective is as least as interesting: Do we want such a reduction? And what is then the relationship between the reduction of emissions and the growth of prosperity? I agree that there should be more room for discussions on standards and values in Economics. Although, because of PBL, there is already a lot of room for this discussion in Maastricht.”