Neoclassical economics has always relied on a positivist approach to\neconomic issues, presenting economists as being non-ideological and free from\nbias. Even after the 2008 Financial Crisis, this has remained largely unchanged\n– with no major re-evaluation of thinking around neoclassicists relationship to\nideology and its impact on plurality and pedagogy in the discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ideology is embedded in economics departments all over the world (though we will see later that this problem afflicts some groups more than others). Recognising this would have dramatic implications for the discipline. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In our recent study \u2018Who said or what said? Estimating\nIdeological Bias in Views Among Economists\u2019<\/a>, we subject this matter to empirical scrutiny for\nthe first time. Using an online survey of over 2400 economists from a total of\n19 countries, we attributed the source of 15 quotes to economists of different\nideological persuasions. All participants received identical statements but the\nauthors of the statements were randomly changed without the participant\u2019s\nknowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The results of the survey were revealing: while\na substantial majority of the participants (approximately 82%) agreed that \u2018a\nclaim or argument should be rejected only on the basis of the substance of the\nargument itself\u2019, the wider results of the study suggest that in practice\neconomists do not adhere to their own self-reported principle. More\nspecifically, they were significantly more likely to reject an argument if it\nwas attributed to an economist outside of the mainstream club. For example,\nwhen a statement criticising \u2018symbolic pseudo-mathematical methods of\nformalizing a system of economic analysis\u2019 from Keynes was attributed to\nKenneth Arrow, the agreement level from economists was 11.6% higher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We also found significant and systematic differences among economists\nwith different characteristics: the estimated bias significantly rose as respondents\u2019\npolitical views moved rightwards, and was stronger among mainstream economists\nthan among heterodox economists – with macroeconomists, public economics,\ninternational economics and financial economics displaying the most pronounced\nbias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, male economists displayed a greater degree of bias than\nwomen, with an even larger divergence when it came to a question around gender problems\nin economics. Geography also played a considerable role, with economists with a\nPhD from the US, Canada, Asia and Scandinavia exhibiting stronger ideological\nbias than economists from South America, Africa and Mediterranean countries.\nOur study also found that whether participants had an undergraduate degree in\neconomics also had a notable impact on the results, with those with an\nundergraduate economics degree displaying stronger bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It may be argued that the bias found in our study only\nexists because the survey was a \u2018low stakes\u2019 environment; when it comes to\nserious academic work, economists will put their ideological biases aside and\nbehave like real scientists, it may be argued. However, there is a lot of\nevidence emerging that ideological bias affects many areas of academic life and\nthus the output of many economists. There is growing body of evidence that economists\u2019 political leanings and value\njudgements affect not just their research<\/a> but also citation networks<\/a>, faculty hiring<\/a> as well as their positions on issues related\nto public policy<\/a>. As a result, ideological bias plays an\nimportant role in suppressing plurality, narrowing pedagogy, and delineating\nbiased research parameters in economics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An important step that helps identify the appropriate changes necessary to minimize the influence of ideological biases is to understand their roots. As argued by prominent social scientists such as Popper<\/a>, Foucault<\/a>, Thompson<\/a> and others, ideological bias is primarily knowledge-based and influenced by the institutions that produce discourses. There are two main channels through which mainstream economics, as the dominant and most influential institution in economics, propagates and shapes ideological views among economists: economics education, and social structures and norms within the profession.