T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan: Economics in schools

Over the years, I have become convinced that economics is one of the biggest con tricks conjured up by men and women. Its usefulness is nowhere near the claims its practitioners make on its behalf.

This is because about 90 per cent of what it says is common wisdom, for instance, if prices increase people will usually buy less. The rest is hair splitting.

Yet the subject goes from strength to strength. Indeed, such is the spell cast by it that it is now taught in schools also. India is one of the very few countries to inflict it on uncomprehending minds.

Predictably, what is taught is divided into two parts: theory and Indian economics. I have enquired from members of several syllabus committees why they have opted for this division. Apart from the banal answer that a student must know both, no satisfactory explanation has been available.

I have enquired from Americans and Brits if there is something called American economics and British economics. The answer has been a puzzled stare.

The folly doesn't end there. The scope of the syllabus is also virulently huge.

A student who takes economics in the 9th and 10th, pretty much learns all the elements of basic economic theory. I am not exaggerating. And, if he or she opts for in the 11th and 12th, the need for a BA practically disappears.

As for Indian economics, it turns me homicidal. If ever I were asked to recommend a class of persons for whom habeas corpus should be withdrawn, I would unhesitatingly point to the authors of textbooks on Indian economics. More nonsense is taught under the broad heading of Indian economics than you can ever imagine.

Thus, the number of pump sets in India in 1952 is considered important, as are the novel insights that devaluation helps imports, credit rationing and directed credit are anti-poverty schemes, bureaucrats always know more than markets, urban land ceilings are good because they keep prices down, and so on.

There is, in short, zero quality control. The syllabus is not the only problem. Given the flakiness of the subject, you need very skilful teachers. But given the salary levels in schools, such skills are not available.

So what the students get, instead, are teachers whose knowledge comes out of the lousy textbooks they are forced to use. These textbooks are often written by influential members of the school boards, who put the word out that if the teachers want students to get good marks, they should memorise from these textbooks. Overall, great damage is done.

So what should be done?

The best option is not to teach economics in schools. If that is too drastic for the pusillanimous school establishment, at the very least Indian economics should be eliminated.

Finally, in economic theory, the syllabus should be restricted to micro economics alone, rather than going into the rest of the flimflam of economics.

The slack should be made up with greater emphasis on the altogether more useful statistical methods.