Why They Will Never Lower the Signboard of "Economics"
In the end, economists always win. When a barrage of fierce criticism attacks them for ignoring the fact that real-world humans are far from perfectly rational, they quietly slip the research findings of psychology and sociology behind their mathematical equations. Then, whispering as if they have undergone a grand self-reflection, they say: "We, too, have now begun to consider the psychological and cultural limitations of human beings."
At first glance, this appears to be a humble gesture—laying down the hubris of the ivory tower to compromise with reality. At this exact point, however, we must ask a much more fundamental and uncomfortable question.
If they truly want to account for reality, why don’t they cede leadership to the disciplines that explain it best, such as psychology and sociology? Why do they refuse to let these new fields branch out independently, stubbornly defending the "Economics" signboard until the very end? Inside their belated confession of considering reality lies, paradoxically, the most vicious form of academic hubris.
A "Bailout Mindset": The Arrogance of "We Will Complete You"
For a very long time, a deeply rooted "methodological chauvinism" has existed within the field of economics. It manifests as a subtle disdain toward other social sciences, dismissing them as lacking mathematical rigor and being "merely verbose."
In the eyes of economists, the real-world laws discovered by psychology or sociology are nothing more than "incomplete discoveries." Their attitude is essentially: "The reality you speak of seems true, but you cannot smoothly prove it with clear models or equations. Therefore, we will upgrade and complete that ambiguous reality using the sophisticated tools of economics."
They have no intention of handing over the reins. Instead, they view integration as a process of "bailing out" neighboring fields by subsuming their achievements as sub-concepts of economics. This is the true nature of economic interdisciplinary work and the starting point of their arrogance.
An Empire of Vested Interests: The Nobel Prize and Capital
The most secular yet powerful reason economics never relinquishes its dominance is that immense vested interests are at stake.
Economics is the only discipline among the mainstream social sciences that boasts a Nobel Prize. This symbolic authority grants it absolute power within academia. But it does not stop there. When designing government budgets, national initiatives, or mega-corporate projects, the heads of think tanks are almost always economists. The supreme institutions of power that distribute national wealth and values are all territories of economics.
The moment an economist admits, "This phenomenon belongs to the realm of psychology or sociology, so we will hand over the leadership," those massive assets, power, professorships, and research grants would flow straight to other departments. There is absolutely no way they would meekly surrender the throne of an empire built over decades for the pure, noble cause of "better explaining reality."
A Convenient Colonization Masked as "Convergence"
The reason they refuse to let these emerging fields become independent, insisting on appending the suffix "-economics" to titles like "Behavioral Economics" or "New Institutional Economics," is because it is the most convenient way to cherry-pick the finest fruits of other disciplines.
They casually extract decades of blood, sweat, and tears shed by psychologists researching human cognitive biases, slap a few equations on top, and swap the nameplate to declare: "This is a new subfield of economics." From the perspective of neighboring disciplines, this is nothing short of academic colonization—where they do all the heavy lifting, while economics takes all the credit and research funding. Economists have zero intention of sharing leadership; they merely wish to pillage neighboring territories to expand the borders of their own empire.
Conclusion: Eyes That Blindly Miss True Reality
"If economics cannot handle it, hand over the leadership." Faced with this perfectly common-sense demand, economics remains silent. Holding hands with psychology under the guise of embracing real-world ambiguity, while ruthlessly defending their vested interests in the academic power structure, is downright hypocritical.
Ultimately, the "reality" economists speak of may not stem from a genuine concern for human life, but rather from a need to patch up a temporary shield to prevent their empire from collapsing. Unless there is true respect for other disciplines and a willingness to cede leadership, the territorial expansion of economics will never be recorded as a beautiful convergence. Instead, it will be remembered as the rapacious colonial history of an bloated and greedy empire.
Leave a Reply