THE RADICAL PROBLEM

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In recent years much has been written about the 'radical problem' in the Economics Department, including a Crimson article in December which reported on a meeting between the Graduate Economics Club and the Economics Visiting Committee. The following are some thoughts about the controversy which I have had during my three years as an economics graduate student.

The most salient fact about the department is that many of the graduate students, particularly those in the first year, are terribly unhappy with the academic program. Listening to the discourse of the Graduate Economics Club, one gets the idea that this is due primarily to the lack of radical economics course offerings. I would like to suggest that more fundamental reasons for the malaise are a) the teaching is often of poor quality, and b) there is no evidence that the department cares about the students. It is easy for a prospective economist to become disgusted with the poorly taught neoclassical theory and to look for some group which really cares about him or her. The radical courses tend to be better taught, and the radical economics group (URPE) offers a needed sense of comraderie. Thus many students soon become believers that neoclassical theory is a "crock of shit."

It seems to me, by the way, that it is no accident that the radical courses are on the average taught better than the others. For an 'establishment' economist, one way to achieve power in the department is by obtaining large research grants from government and/or the private sector. As the radicals have often observed, these sources of funds are generally not as available to them for obvious reasons. Therefore, one way for them to attempt to gain power is by developing large and vocal followings of students. This can be done by teaching excellently, being a through iconoclast, and (e.g.) going drinking with the students. Although the radical professors have failed in their bids for some influence in the department, they have certainly succeeded in gaining ardent personal followers, perhaps as many as one third of the graduate students. At the visiting committee meeting one graduate student declared that the struggle for radicalism at Harvard had to be carried on for the sake of radical Professor Samuel Bowles, who was denied tenure last year. Her emotional appeal was greeted by enthusiastic applause. It's hard to imagine any of the non-radicals generating such loyalty from so many.

Let me qualify some of these remarks. Not all radicals are personable; not all neoclassicists are empire builders. Some of the neoclassicists are excellent teachers who take a sincere interest in their students. (At least this has been my personal experience in the department.) Although my comments may be interpreted as being cynical, I do not view the activities of either group in a sinister way. Rather, both the radicals and non-radicals are doing the best they can given the constraints and incentives they face. If we want to modify their behavior, the structure of incentives must be changed. Thus, for example, the reason for poor instruction is not that the professors are selfish capitalists, but rather, for rather, that the professional and pecuniary rewards are much greater for research and consulting than for teaching. If the graduate student malaise referred to in the second paragraph is to be relieved, a new system of incentives must be developed which will encourage good teaching and close faculty-student contacts. I do not have space to detail my suggestions, but I think that movement along these lines will be more fruitful than simply hiring four (or more) politically radical economists.

One more observation. It seems to me that part of the bad feeling in the department is due to the fact that the radicals have decided that politeness is a bourgeois affection. Indeed, the reason I was finally moved to write this letter was the constant suggestion that anyone who doesn't follow their line is a greedy little technocrat just waiting to find a niche in our repressive society. Naturally, the neoclassicists respond in kind. I hope that in the future both sides will substitute reason for invective. Harvey S. Rosen (GSAS-4)