Changing Introductory Economics
REMINDER: Registration for book club ends on Friday. If you’re interested, you can find more information here.
Not a single student who has signed up for their first economics class has done so with the intent of understanding why prices change. Indeed, in the collection of questions economics investigates, it is one of the more mundane. So why is that the question at the heart of introductory economics?
A little while ago I wrote about how my purpose at Market Power is to change the way people are introduced to economics. Today I want to explain why I think it should change and what we could change.
First, the why. The standard tools of supply and demand are incredibly useful. In fact, they are arguably as useful for understanding the world as Newton's laws of motion. Just like Newton's laws, they abstract away from friction and many other forces that affect the objects of interest. And they are insufficient to explain some phenomena. But if you master Newton's laws, you can explain a good chunk of physics, and if you master supply and demand you can explain a big hunk of economic concepts.
So I'm not saying supply and demand are not useful. But it's like trying to get someone interested in a hammer. I don't care about hammers. I want a bookshelf. But it just so happens that if I want a bookshelf, I'll need the hammer. So if you can find what I want to build, then you can get me interested in the hammer.
What is the bookshelf that economics classes think we want to build? I have Mankiw's Principles of Economics in front of me, and his motivating questions are lackluster. The first question he addresses are what are the gains from trade. I happen to think this is an interesting result from economics, and it's not a bad way to show students that economics has unique insights. But it isn't necessarily a burning question for students. The second question Mankiw addresses is how do markets work. From there he jumps immediately into the tools of supply and demand.
For both questions, we can convince students they are interesting, but they are not coming to the class with that interest. In Newton's terms, the object is at rest and will not move without the teacher's compelling force. Wouldn't it be better if the students were already in motion?
What kind of questions might already be at the top of student's heads? What are the bookshelves they want that will get them interested in our hammer?
Most students already have a natural interest in economic history. Why is my life today measurably better than someone living 100 years ago? How did we get to this point? Leading with economic history has multiple benefits. First, it ties into something the students already know. They have been receiving history lessons since their first year in school. But most don't get economics until they get to college. So you can take the thing they already know (history) and teach them the thing they don't yet know (economics). Second, it requires less energy to get them interested in the questions. In the standard approach, we ask students if they understand how markets work. But most haven't given that idea any thought and don't know why they should be interested. Instead, lead with the question, "Does anyone know what caused the Great Depression?" That's one of the most significant events in global economic history. They certainly have heard about it and know that it's important. But if you ask them to explain it, they'll be at a loss. The object is in motion.
Another natural question is what makes some countries rich and other countries poor? This isn't that different from the economic history question, but it's another bookshelf for the students. And it's super easy to get students from these questions to the tools of supply and demand. For example, why are education levels lower in many developing countries? One answer is that not enough people are choosing to go to school. Great, let's talk about the demand for schools. Another answer is that there are not enough schools or quality schools in developing countries. Perfect, let's talk about the supply of schools. These two factors will determine schooling. How do we get more education? Well, we can increase supply or we can increase demand. Once we identify the bookshelf, handing them the hammer is easy.
So I think we could do a better job of introducing students to economics if we relied more on economic history and development economics. Those fields have some of the biggest questions in economics, and they are the ones that students want answered. What do you think are better ways to introduce people to economics? Let me know in a comment.
I think you might be onto something here. Sometimes it seems like a lot of the classroom and classwork is administered/assigned in such a way as to turn people off of a subject. Not that this is the intent but this is the effect. The intent might be to make the course more challenging, but the effect is to make it miserable. It is also possible the intent is to get through the curriculum as efficiently as possible which may leave it a dry whirlwind of textbooks and tests.
I think there are other factors, many of which I may not have thought about. I know many people would talk about certain professors who they really liked. I remember there were some professors who even though their class was really hard people would still talk about it positively. Perhaps without realizing it I think what they were attesting to was that a challenge or adversity can instill growth. I know there were also professors who had such a rapport that students would take their classes even if they weren't especially interested in the subject. I think some professors were good at making a subject come to life and some have the privilege of teaching something they love and the latitude to do that how they see fit.
In my university we don't have introductory economics class, rather we have economic history in our first quarter and then we're taught how supply and demand work in our world's history. Primarily we begin for the importance of institutions and markets to answer the question of what our country, Colombia, lacks in that aspect.
Additionally, the emphasis is totally put in antiquity and modern age.