Educating the economists-to-be: gender (in)difference and hegemonic economic thinking

Abstract

Previous studies in several countries, as well as international activist initiatives, have pointed out the monopoly of the orthodox or neoclassical perspective in university teaching of Economics. This has been characterised as an “insane” ideological-intellectual practice that impoverishes not only the discipline itself ―by extirpating pluralism, interdisciplinarity, the ethical dimension and the connection with actually existing socio-economic problems―, but also the process of (in)formation, critical training and empowerment of students as future economists. This educational hegemony of neoclassical economics also has its problematic gender dimension, which translates into the invisibility of critical and transformative theoretical-methodological perspectives, such as feminist economics, as well as of problems that particularly affect women (such as the feminisation of care work or wage discrimination) and of the female economists themselves as reference authors.

In order to verify the resonance of this diagnosis in the case of the Spanish university system, a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology. Firstly, a content analysis of 79 syllabus of 3 of the most relevant subjects in Economics degrees (Macroeconomics, Economic History and Labor Market), from 15 Spanish public universities was carried out. Secondly, a statistical and interpretative analysis of 116 online questionnaires’ responses from economics students (60 women and 56 men) were made. It was analysed students’ opinions about the (im)proper training they receive to learn about diverse socioeconomic perspectives and issues, and to enter the labor market satisfactorily.

In relation to the analysis of the syllabus, the main results of our research indicate that: the dominant perspective of Economics in the Spanish public university system is also the orthodox or neoclassical thinking; the attention to gender perspective and gender issues in the subjects is very narrow; the majority of Economics lecturers, in general terms, are men; and references to female authors in the bibliography of the studied subjects are very limited. Regarding the analysis of students’ (self)perceptions, it stands out, on the one hand, the absence of significant gender differences between the opinions of men and women; and, on the other hand, their critical perception of the education they receive, defined generally as unidimensional in theoretical, methodological and empirical terms, as well as insufficiently effective for their integration into the labor market as future professionals.

What we argue is that the orthodox one-dimensionality of Economics as a subject of learning ―including its intense gender blindness in theoretical and empirical senses― implies a pauperisation in the university education of economists-to-be. Potentially, this reality affects society as a whole, since it reproduces, through the legitimate voices of future experts and professionals, the economic-political and cultural hegemony of a dominant economic thinking that makes social inequalities invisible or naturalised, especially gender discrimination.