To kick off this discussion about why Theologians and Economists don't get along, I want to look briefly at the contribution of Economists to the tension.
Throughout human history, social life was conceived in terms of face-to-face relationships. What we know study as macro forces in sociology and economics were seen as the inexorable forces of the gods or nature. From at least the time of the Enlightenment, an awareness of impersonal relationships between large groups of people (like cities and nations) that shape our lives began.
Adam Smith (1723-1790), falsely identified as the father of capitalism, began to observe the interrelationship of these large impersonal forces that generate wealth. He wrote about them regarding political economy … "management of the societal household," if you will. In studying his parish records and other sources, Rev. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) detected a pattern where agricultural abundance tended to spawn population growth that outstripped the ability of agriculture to feed everyone. Short of famine, war, or plague, the system would eventually bring about a collapse in the population, and the process would begin all over.
Probably the most influential person in establishing American economic education was Francis Wayland (1796-1865), a clergyman educator whose political economy text was premier during the mid-nineteenth century. While these men, and others like them, were gaining insight into the relationship between impersonal socioeconomic forces, they were still largely possessed by the idea of the immutability of these forces. God's providence governed the order of things, and interference with them would be counterproductive.
In the late nineteenth century, we first saw a field called "economics" emerge. Often called "neoclassical economics," economists systematized many concepts taught in modern textbooks today. More importantly, the move was made to apply the rigors of science to the subject matter. The vision was of objective economic science, disassociated from ethics and values, with economists functioning as the arbiter of public policy questions. The desire was to move away from normative economics that incorporated notions of what the economy should be to "value-free" positive economics.
Part and parcel of the neoclassical school became the concept of "homo economicus," the economic man, a thoroughly rational utility calculating machine (who critics would say had incredible knowledge about markets that no actual human being could ever have.) Economic analysis was done with homo economicus as the presumed actor.
Yet careful analysis and cross-cultural studies indicating that people in different cultures value things differently cast considerable doubt on this formulation and method. The transcendent meaning people see in their actions frequently leads people to behave in ways inconsistent with the narrow utility calculation of homo economicus. Multiple attempts have been made to rescue and resurrect our friend, but I'm not sure any can succeed.
This exemplifies one of the frequently leveled criticisms against many economic models: They are often constructed to ignore major difficulties and include only those elements that support the desired outcome. Thus, the joke about asking an economist, "A man falls into a deep hole and cannot climb out. What should he do?" The economist's response? "Well, first, we assume a ladder …." The models work with great precision, but to what degree do models approximate reality?
This is not to say that economic analysis is useless. That is an overreaction. Economic analysis is of immense value. But postmodern critiques remind us that no one stands in a value-free objective place outside reality and does research. Beliefs about what constitutes things like rationality, utility, and justice are inescapable in economics. There are no objective observers.
Today we can see values working their way out in the public debate. Virtually all economists today agree about the centrality of markets. However, some believe markets will deliver the optimal outcome in almost any circumstance. Failure of markets to deliver is not a result of market failure but rather of markets distorted by intervention. Consequently, the best thing we can do is to grease the wheels of the markets and get out of the way.
Others also believe vibrant markets are essential, but markets have considerable imperfections. They say significant government intervention is required to achieve optimal outcomes. Can either view be established beyond a doubt, even with more rigorous empirical research? I'm guessing not unless you already share a predilection for one of the views.
So, what does all this mean for the relationship between theologians and economists?
First, real or imagined, there is perceived hubris on the part of economists. The idea of being the impartial arbiter of economic truth from outside the public debate leaves economists looking aloof … lacking in compassion and knowledge of their ideas' real-world consequences. Couple this with some economists' penchant for mocking Christian values, and the animosity is understandable. The phenomenon feels very familiar to the polemic stance of evolutionist Richard Dawkins toward Christianity.
Second, introductory college education in economics has been woefully lacking. It has been more oriented toward articulating economic tools and concepts that will lay the groundwork for more economics courses rather than equipping non-specialists to see and reflect on their world through an economic lens.
Third, Christian economists have been scarce in the dialog about theology and economics (though I think this is improving.) I think I can count the number of recent books on one hand that are written by economists that systematically help non-specialists process economics and theology. (Victor Claar and Robin Klay's Economics in Christian Perspective and John Stapleford's Bulls, Bears and Golden Calves are two I can think of.)
I can appreciate the challenges. I suspect many Christian economists feel caught in a double bind between economist colleagues who frown on entering the public debate and Christians predisposed to be hostile to economics. But the net consequence is that partisan ideological groups heavily dominate the debate, and their take is perceived as representative of mainstream economic thinking.
As we will see shortly, I believe there are enormous misunderstandings about economics on the part of theologians. However, I don't think all the blame for theologians "not getting it" can be placed at the feet of theologians. There has been hubris by economists that gets in the way and a detachment that creates barriers to people developing an economic lens.
What other factors would you identify contributing to the animosity and distrust?
For your amusement, you might get a kick out of the T-Mobile ad about economists trying to educate the public: Click here.
Also, check out this interpretation of basic economic principles by a stand-up comedian and economist:
Leave a Reply