Ec 10 May Lose its Radical Sections

When the Yardlings flock to Sanders Theater next fall to sign up for Social Analysis 10, "Principles of Economics," they will find two new leaders and, possibly, no radical sections.

Elimination of the special sections focusing on radical economic theory is only one of the changes proposed for Harvard's largest course, commonly known as Ec 10, when Professor of Economics Martin S. Feldstein '61 comes back from a two-year Washington stint to take control.

"We've had some discussion about whether it would be better not to have all radical students clustered in a few sections so more students could share views," Assistant Professor Lawrence H. Goulder, the current junior faculty head of Ec 10, said yesterday.

But controversy surrounds the proposal, primarily because section leaders say that the primary emphasis of the course, which concentrates on classical economic theory, does not present students with alternative views.

"The people taking Ec 10 radical sections are by no means radical, they are just interested in a different way to think about the world," radical section leader Tariq Banuri said yesterday. "People in radical sections have an unspoken agreement with the section leaders to question."

"Other students take Ec 10 for different reasons, and spreading out those few would dilute the questioners without really changing the other sections," Banuri said, adding that distributing the students from the three radical sections among the 32 mainstream sections would add only three students to each.

In the past, the University has been accused of neglecting radical economic theory. Banuri said that the general conservative atmosphere in the department might be one of the reasons for cancelling the sections.

There is general agreement, however, that the issue of radical sections came up this year as a result of the transfer in course leadership, caused by the death of Warburg Professor of Economics Otto Eckstein, long-time helmsman of Ec 10. "It was definitely because of the new blood that the question was raised," Goulder said.

And Lawrence Lindsey, who will be taking over Goulder's position next fall, said that the question of radical sections was "just one of the decisions to be made."

"We want to bring in more of a policy-oriented prospective," Lindsey said. "Theory is important, but we hope we can make it a more interesting course."

Lindsey added that since both he and Feldstein are insiders in Washington, they may be able to bring in "some inside issues that don't make it to the Wall Street Journal," Lindsey is currently the senior staff economist for tax policy at the Council of Economic Advisors in Washington. Feldstein recently resigned as head of the council.

But Lindsey said he does not expect any revolutionary changes in the course next year. "It will have to be a process of evolution over the next four years," he said.

However, no final decision on the fate of the radical sections is expected until August. "Feldstein has been very busy, I've been very busy, and we haven't had time to sit down and talk to all the interested parties to figure this out." Lindsey said, adding that he wanted to get input from professors and section leaders who have had experience with the course.

But whatever the decision, section leaders say they will continue to teach the radical concepts. "I would probably say the same things even if it wasn't a radical section," Banuri said.

Alumni of the sections said yesterday that they were pleased with the radical approach. "In addition to conveying regular material, it provided people with a way of critiquing neoclassical theory," Jean S. Catler '86 said.