I would like to take a rather broader view of teaching of economics than that at college and university level in the formal set-up, which had been the major focus of those who earlier addressed this issue, presumably because they were in no way associated with teaching at school level. Since I was requested by the NCERT to write a textbook on ‘Indian Economic Development’, I has an occasion to reflect on it. In fact, one should discuss education of economics, which would include teaching of students and training of economics professionals and others, and perhaps, self-learning. After all, Hicks (1976) turned from one who was appallingly ignorant, to use his phrase in his confession, into an economist of great standing through informal channels of discussion and interaction with peers and superiors when he became a teacher in the London School of Economics. I shall largely confine myself within the domain of formal teaching, not covering the non-formal, distance-mode, and parallel-college learning because of my ignorance about their working rather than my wish not to recognize their role, which I believe is great. Somebody should do that job too.

I do not expect myself to finally resolve any issue that confronts us but shall try my level best to delineate a few broad parameters, which could be taken up subsequently by scholars for further refinement and development. In some advanced countries this is almost a continuing exercise in professional meets involving some of the best brains and therefore they could ponder over pedagogy and evaluation besides content. The Indian Economic Association, the only All-India learned body of economics in India discussed the theme of Indian Economics in 1942 and organized a post-conference seminar on Teaching of Economics in 1974. On both the occasions, the focus was relevance of received Economics — often said to be General Economics, which Joan Robinson (1961) thought was a very particular Economics. Later in 1989, in the workshop organized by the Indian Economic Association for Research and Development on Teaching of Economics in India in Bangalore, this was one of the issues.

The invitation to the workshop on the Teaching of Economics in India had issued three major questions: What is the relevance of the content of Economics as is taught today in the Indian Universities? The tenuous relationship, which economics came to assume with other social sciences in the course of time, occasioned by the workshop, was also referred to: What are the interrelationship between economics and other social sciences as envisaged in the University curricula? In addition, the issue of ‘quantification’ of, that is the application of mathematics and statistics in, economics with regards to its extent and intensity and purpose was also taken up: What is the role of the modern quantitative techniques in the teaching of Economics in India?

In responding to these issues, the participant-scholars threw up other issues also such as Indianizing the science of economics and revolutionizing the material, which passes under the rubric of Indian economics. It is a little surprising that, in India as well as perhaps elsewhere, nobody ever suggested that not only national and international but also regional and local issues should form part of our teaching of economics at various stages of its teaching.

Normally what are do in the meetings of the Board of Studies in the Universities or Syllabus drafting exercises in the school examination boards, is to include as much new material as possible except for the constraints of teachers' competence, students' capability, and textbooks' availability. Rarely is the issue of relevance raised. The UGC carried out three exercises in 1979, 1988 and 2001 but there was very little said about the relevance in comparison to advances in the sciences.

[Let me emphasize that the linear fashion in which we discus the issues is often very defective in approach but very expedient in delivery. There are various feedback and feed-forward loops, some of which I could take cognizance of with little less justice but with a view to preventing you from voting with feet. I offer my apologies for that.]

First things, first. Economics has gradually been drifting from scholastic traditions comprehending the whole to narrow professional specialisms. There are therefore fewer ideologues today and more professionals in almost all fields. Specialisms could roughly be said to be of three varieties: (a) pan-economy special aspects like trade, banking and labour, (b) sector specific aspects like industry, agriculture and tourism, and (c) interdisciplinary themes like gender economics, law and economics, environmental economics, and energy economics. Even when Economics had become a professional discipline, most people trained as economists were employed as teachers and only a few in the government or international organizations, very few in the research organizations and still fewer in business or media. The relative importance of non-teaching professions has of late been increasing. Teaching of economics at lower levels should take note of this fact so that there is enough economics that is intelligible to the general public.

But then, Economics does not enjoy the same standing as it did before — even say forty-fifty years ago. In the US academia, economists etched second highest salaries after physicists in the nineteen fifties and sixties. There was then prevailing no great management education. Best brains, opting for social science and humanities disciplines were attracted by Economics. Even commerce was not so popular. Today there are many more openings available for brilliant ones. Earlier, interdisciplinary work was espoused by one group of scholars but often detested by another. Today Economics has befriended Management, Environment, Law, Finance and a host of other subjects. Its earlier allies have also involved more and more economics tools. Each of its sectorial branches has also flourished. Importance in many senses seems to have increased but scope for pursuing pure academic economics — ivory tower economics as some would say — has somewhat come down.

Today, Economics is truly becoming a professional subject such as law, medicine or engineering. It may be more professional than sociology and political science but much less professional than even social work. (Professional economists in Kurien's (1996) description are scholars and teachers of economics and his description of professional economists is not much in line with his own description of other professionals like administrators, doctors, engineers, lawyers, journalists, politicians and social workers who are more of practitioners.) Many of the early learners will settle in life much earlier, say at technician level and many more would choose such a vocation where they will make little use of the economics learnt. Content of Economics at early stages should therefore take due note of this fact and therefore it should be general enough and broad enough.

At this stage, may I seek your indulgence to permit me to drift for a while and dwell on teaching as such rather than on that of Economics? We often say: A teaches X to B. A is the teacher, B is the learner and X is the subject/skill being taught. Economics is X. But X has little meaning without A and B. But who are these A's and B's? Why are A's teaching? Why are B's learning? What are B's expectations from learning economics? In what kind of climes is teaching-learning taking place?

What, When, Where, Who, Whom, Why and How are basic W's, which, alone or in various combinations, are a part of any enquiry. Whom do we teach what we teach and why is proper complement of who do learn what they learn and why. A student enrolled in a regular course in a university is likely to have different motivations than one enrolled in an open university, who in turn is likely to have different motivations than one enrolled in a coaching institution for supplementary instructions. A student who wants to pursue a research career has a different motivation than one who wishes to pursue a course in management. One who wishes to join government service is expected to have a little different motivation than one who wants to work for an NGO. While the factor of individual circumstances need not be discounted, the consequence in terms of motivation needs to be noted. Learning outcomes will depend a great deal on it. Most of the learners have however a motivation of passing examinations, securing good grades and qualifying for certain non-specialized jobs.

A further factor needs to be noted. While graduates in areas like medicine, engineering, architecture, law, journalism or music are likely to be practitioners in their respective fields, the same is not true of those in social sciences or even physical sciences even if we choose to ignore those in arts and humanities. Self-employment could perhaps provide the greatest motivation for learning because one's earning depends on one's discernible performance and performance depends on learning, notwithstanding the fact that a lot of learning takes place on the job itself. Even though on-the-job training and refreshers do a great job, the basic training matters a great deal.

A great majority of economics graduates end up doing something other than practicing economics as teachers, researchers, consultants, policy-makers, advisors, or even as opinion-makers. Thus, economics learning ends up in becoming a sort of general education rather than a specialized one. What we should try to do is to make teaching of economics from broad-based/general to specialized/professional as the education levels move up from school stage to secondary school stage to graduation stage to post-graduation and research.

Entry behaviour, as it is called in training terminology, depends a great deal on motivational factors indicated above. Chakravarty (1986) points out non-motivation in ill-equipped learners of a lukewarm disposition, without realizing that ill-equipment is itself a great demotivating factor. However, it should be added that there exists a distinct possibility of changing this motivation mid-course. The way teachers behave and teach, the curriculum that is imparted, and co-curricular activities that are conducted can all turn some of the learners into great scholars and practitioners. Many of us may narrate our stories in confirmation of this assertion.

Let us finally note that most human beings, if not all, have some internal thirst for discovery and invention and in some of us it survives till late in age. This real want in our breast has made some of us great discovers and inventors, despite facing odd circumstances. But most of us fail to pursue it for long. The contribution of a great majority goes unnoticed. Sometimes, it is possible that some of us who are made to learn, do prove to be great learners in the end.

But, let us admit, a great majority of us would like to learn certain subjects and certain skills, which will enable us to earn our wherewithal in an honest manner, respecting the societal norms — even if we may like to challenge them. Call it by any name, career prospects or need-achievement, as our younger generation would put it. This is one of the primary objectives we seek in our life. There would be very few who would live and die for their society and learn skills with only that objective. Rarely, we learn consciously in the societal interest — with a view to promoting societal good, to improving the conditions of society — though we all exhort others, including our children towards this objective, notwithstanding the fact that we do many things in societal interest as we are ourselves a kind of social product. Yet, our activities pursued in our own interest in normal conditions promote the societal good as well, suggests Adam Smith, who would not find ordinary people — the baker, the brewer and the butcher — to engage in their activities with a view to feeding their neighbours, which they end up doing. There is a kind of harmony between self-interest, and societal interest. As Boland (1984) put it, self-interest or greed, which is considered a social evil, may turn out to be a virtue rather than a vice in many situations.

Teaching and training are two important ways to facilitate learning and the objectives of teaching and training cannot be divorced from learning. Teaching has to keep the motivation of learner in mind, which may just be passing the examination! After all, the learner has to choose a subject from a very limited set of options made available to him. Changing/modifying the motivation of such a learner is a great task before the teacher who has no control over the environment and can offer nothing for those who do well. We often ask: is the teacher sufficiently motivated and, if motivated, motivated for what? In subjects where jobs are relatively easy, the teacher can motivate for real learning. Given the job scenario, economics learners have low motivation for learning in most of situations. Many of these (us) turn out to be teachers! While some of them improve, the rest keep camouflaging. Whatever damage is left undone is complete when they (we) become part-time academic administrators.

Teaching is one of the vocations we practice for earning our livelihood. Paid jobs command much less respect for one gets paid for one's contribution. It is true that it is one of the vocations that still command respect. Teaching in today's world, where education is treated as an industry, is a commodity and therefore it commands some value. A teacher gets paid and yet gets respect, which very few other professions do. Teaching is one of the noble professions. There was a time, and not long ago, the duty of a teacher was not so much impartation of knowledge but, as Marshall (1920) put it, shaping the character of the parents of the next generation. That he can do by setting his own example. A teacher does come from the same social milieu from which come the learners. Today, he is more professional and he has developed some kind of detachment with the students. There is nothing wrong in earning from teaching. So long as one's entitlement comes from one's contribution, it is fine. The issue is: What do we contribute?

But what for do we teach? A simple answer could be: To earn our living. That we do whatever we do! This is an honest answer. What goal (s) do we set for teaching? Making students pass examinations. Then, what is the difference between giving a private tuition, and enagaging a tutorial class in a university? There have come up so many coaching institutes to help aspirants in getting admission to professional courses and passing competitive examinations. (Today, there exist tiers of coaching institutions. There are coaching institutions to help your child to get admission in reputed coaching institutions). Why to we have examinations at all? Why not simply print degrees and distribute them away as gift or as alms. It means that public educational institutions were supposed to play a rather different role. The situation is far more complex today. But how many of us are really aware of our role as teachers in public educational institutions and of the role of educational institutions?

If not making the learner pass an examination, then what else could be the purpose? There was a time when education had only a civilizing role. The learner would enjoy reading and perhaps writing prose and composing poems. Many science laboratories were outside the university system, in which scientists engaged in whatever pleased them. Those days, a lot of Economics developed in the Political Economy Club than in the Cambridge or Oxford campuses.

Earlier, education reached directly from precincts of the universities to homes as it was of that kind. That purpose still continues to hold but its relative importance has diminished. And the (occupational) training that was a familial activity has now come to the portals of learning. Today education goes to the home, so to say, through a factory, meaning thereby it is, please note, a commercial activity for promoting commercial activities. The real purpose therefore ought to be to help raise the productivity of the learning and trainee as well of the system. The ultimate source of higher earning/income is higher productivity. There is a necessary condition; individual entitlements would require other conditions as well. The two ingredients are not just additive but interactive. It is more or less clear that secular teaching involves concern for raising productivity of the economy. And it is true that over time productivity of many societies and humanity has increased; teaching — including that of economics — must have played some role and it should be given due credit.

What for do we teach Economics? It has to be realized that even those who do not teach with the express purpose or intention of raising productivity and living standards also wily nilly promote them. For example, a coaching institute may have a very limited purpose, which is to help the enrollee to get through the admission test or competitive examination whereas a medical college or a music college may have a very clear focus on performance in real life. Teaching of economics should be general enough at the lower end so that the learners feel like analysing and explaining what is happening around them but should also lead to developing a quest for a more adequate understanding. This way some of those who get a chance to pursue further study turn out to be great economists, specialists in a certain way and in certain fields and some of them choose the field of prescription for sectors, business, government, multilateral bodies, NGO's and the public at large. Yet the system should turn out a few others who choose to advance the science with better understanding of the economy, to borrow from Kurien who borrowed from Anderson, Arrow and Pines, as an evolving complex system.

Humans do not just behave instinctively but also deliberately. Therefore, we have a feeling that there is good scope, normally at any point of time, for slimming the gap between the potential and the realization.

Do then I mean that contribution of Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and Newton or for that matter of Einstein, Hawking, and Chandrasekhar, should just be ignored because they had no express purpose of relieving the toiling masses and only the contribution of Borlaug and Swaminathan, and of Stevention and Edison who directly contributed to raising the living standards of people, should be extolled? No, far from it. The work of astronomers, geometricians and mathematicians may not be seen to be contributing for generations together. Litterateurs, philosophers, and artists do contribute to society in a variety of indirect ways. The contribution of an anthropoligist/archeologist who is just interested in discovering positive laws or finding patterns has not to be ignored simply because he neither has any express purpose of coming out with a solution to a current social problem nor does he come out with one. What do we say about a historian who has little to predict the course at the edge of the future?

Economists have been a little harsh when they (such as Hicks, 1976) maintain that we want theories, which will be useful and practically useful, though Georgescue-Roegen (1965) concurred with the view that the purpose of science in general is not prediction but knowledge for its own sake. Pythagoras though that science ceased to serve exclusively the need of business but has remained ahead of these. Science may yet serve the need of society. Kurien however wants it to be like the science of medicine rather than that of astrophysics.

I should now come back to the main discourse of teaching of economics under the constraints but for the milieu in front. But I think it proper that I should provide some background of teaching of Economics in the portals of knowledge.

It was not easy for Economics to emerge as a separate discipline of teaching, as have asserted many researchers without indicating if it was easy for other disciplines. But we know that the science was regarded in the second half of the nineteenth century to be in infancy (Marshall, 1920). A science having wealth as its subject matter was repugnant for many thinkers in those days. In Marshall's reckoning, ‘the conditions of modern life, though more complex, are in many ways more definite than those of earlier times. Business is more clearly marked off from other concerns; the rights of individuals as against others and as against the community are more sharply defined; and above all the emancipation from custom, and the growth of free activity, of constant forethought and restless enterprise, have given a new precision and a new prominence to the causes that govern the relative values of different things and different kinds of labour.’ It is in this institutional setting, which is getting more and more sharpened by the day, that Economics started emerging as a science.

It has yet to complete a century as an independent subject of study and investigation anywhere in the world. Though Thomas Robert Malthus was the first Professor of (History and) Political Economy in East India college, appointed nearly two hundred years ago, it was only hundred years ago that the Economics Tripos was inaugurated in Cambridge, which afforded ‘economics a place in the University curriculum alongside classics, history and other great subjects of study’. Then term Political Economy, which persisted for long because it dealt with those matters and affairs which concerned the State (polis) about ‘what ought to be the affairs’ of the economy (oikos) but probably not because, as thinks Kulkarni (1956), the tradition wanted to give it a subordinate status. As history reveals, in the days of the Renaissance, many people were using words like economy and economics to refer to the olden Greek usage. In one such book, according to Anikin (1975), economy was defined as ‘the art of well governing a man's private house and fortunes’ wherein a gentleman was advised to select for a wife a lady who was ‘no less useful in the day than agreeable at night’. In was in that kind of environment that Montchretien, a leading exponent of mercantilism, chose the little Tract de I'Oeconomie Politique to reflect his concerns about wealth of the national economy and the role of the State. Yet, that, it remained subordinate to law in the continent for long is a fact. Later, ‘what is’ became an important part of enquiry and the term Economics came to assume its due importance.

There was however a distinct realizing that this comparatively young science had not yet reached the stage of evolution attained by most of the natural sciences, meaning thereby that social science could not be as definitive as natural science. H. Stanley Jevons (1916), who taught in the University of Allahabad, thought that Economics by then had hardly emerged from the stage of controversy insofar as some fundamental doctrines were concerned, suggesting thereby the hope that there could come a day when this could happen. It becomes therefore difficult for the teacher, he thought, who tries to do justice, to present the standard theory as given in standard books and also state the truth as revealed by this own observations and reasoning. The dichotomy between economics and economy was so revealing.

In India, Economics was tucked to History and later Politics (as was the case elsewhere) which, in view of Kulkarni (1956), behaved as mothers-in-law. However, Jevons (1916) found it a peculiarly important subject of study in India. In his view, Indians were forced to interest themselves in the science as the introduction of European civilization and penetration of industries were causing the most serious economic problems. In his assessment in the early years of the twentieth century, the universities and colleges had realized that there existed great demand for teaching of Economics. In due course of time it assumed a respectable place in social sciences because of its increasing importance and its role in societal affairs. Practically all universities, save those established for special subjects or vocations, offer courses in Economics at Undergraduate, Post-graduate and Doctoral levels. Indian Institutes of Technology did offer courses on economics to their undergraduates, who I recall, are economics practitioners. The Indian Institute of Technology at Kanpur is now proposing a 5-year integrated M.Sc. Programme in Economics. Most of the school boards now offer it at + 2 level, if not at high school level. Though it is an optional subject rather than a compulsory one. And wisely so.

But Economics has made great strides in the course of a century. Economics has got today so many branches and a mind-boggling interface with many sciences, social science and humanities subjects. Agricultural Economics, Industrial Economics, Labour Economics, Rural Economics and Urban Economics, etc. are interests of the past. You have today economic anthropology, environmental economics and bio-economics on the one hand and marketing economics and financial economics on the other, interspersed with economic sociology, constitutional economics, property rights economics and so on.

However, dis-satisfaction with development of economics and teaching of economics is rather well known. While quite a few scholars pointed towards the sheer irrelevance of economics that we have been teaching (Pillai, 1962; Leontief, 1971; Adisheshaiah, 1978; Kurien, 2001), some scholars went to the extent that some of it has to be unlearnt (Brown, 1972; Chaubey, 1989) when an economist has to assume practical responsibilities. So much so that Joan Robinson (1972) once remarked that cranks should be preferred over the orthodox for the fact that the former recognize the existence of a problem while the latter shut their eyes. Right in the beginning of teaching of Economics in India, two of the pioneers Jevons and Slater were not happy with what was happening in the name of teaching Economics. While Jevons had dissatisfaction with standard economic theory, textbooks and method of teaching, Slater had total disaffection with parrot-learning of principles and instead exhorted his students to have extensive surveys of his own villages.

It seems that it is this discontent with the sterility of content, which has made Economics align with other disciplines in a more professional manner.

We divide this discontent on what we teach into two parts: discontent over content of curriculum and discontent over conduct of teaching economics. Within contents we broadly cover Economic Theory, Quantification of Economics and Indian Economics. And within teaching I would again cover these three areas along with some teaching through practicals.

The next logical sequence to clinch is the issue as to what do we teach or in what do we train our students? Broadly speaking, we can say: Economic Theory or Principles of Economics and Indian Economics or Indian Economy. The many courses/streams/papers that we teach are different facets of these two main divisions.

There has always been discontent about this dismal science, as Carlyle called it, yet it emerged as a discipline. But it is a fact that despite protests over content, methodology and approach, Economics surged ahead and is surging ahead. Some of those who largely swore by the mainstream economic theory suspected its use for the economies like India and so much so that some of them considered its teaching mis-education.

Most of the scholars who earlier addressed this issue had a utilitarian view of economics education, as expounded in the philosophy of education, and exclusively devoted themselves to the question of content as to what ought to be taught so that learners are able to help the Indian economy grow. Many foreign scholars, particularly the British such as Joan Robinson (1960) also had similar views and it was regarding economic theory, which, in their view, did not adequately address the problems of countries like India. Kurien (1992, 1996), who thinks that the role of economic theories is to analyse economic problems and to be of aid to economic policies, finds that there has been a sharp schism between the world of problems and the world of theories. In many excellent centres of economics teaching and research, to use Ashok Guha's phrases, there exists a tendency of playing a scholastic game of logic-chopping and puzzle-solving. Hicks (1965) and Sen (1970), both great theorists themselves, pointed out that, despite great motivation for work towards practical policy issues for growth, much of the growth theory dealt with esoteric issues or class-room exercises. Their occupation may then perhaps be likened to chess enthusiasts. Even development economics, which grew out of policy concerns for developing economies, got entrapped into a formalistic structure.

Relevance of what we teach to our students, is an oft-repeated question. The issue of relevance can be looked at from various angles. One could be the angle of curiosity with which we look at various natural phenomena/events and try to discover laws or patterns — such as movements of celestial bodies like astronomers of behaviour pattern of birds like ornithologists. In that sense, does it help us in understanding human conduct of economic activities or economic affairs of human societies? Our interest could be to find out whether it helps us to understand economic affairs of our society and its sub-societies. This could be the scholastic view. Very few scholars in economics hold on to it but very many of them in centres of higher learning do practice it.

Another could be the angle of applicability, which could be said to be the professional view. Whether this will help us in devising a prescription for betterment of the people — improving the lot of the poor, lessening unemployment of the employable, suggesting ways to produce the employable, has been the question in such discourses. The State being in the background, there was always a debate whether the State could be called upon to intervene in the economic affairs and if yes, how? Whether policies devised for intervention are proper and will be effective? Whether adequate care of the institutional reality and motivation of human actors has been built in the model before deriving the policy prescription? For example, Kurien (his running theme since 1969) finds that for a large part of self-employment households/enterprises, saving may be an active function of investment opportunities in business rather than a residual from consumption or interest rate available in a bank. And the policy prescription is ‘open bank, mobilize savings and lend to somebody’ as if there exists, demand across all sectors.

Today, we can take perhaps a little larger view. Earlier, besides teaching, economists were supposed to advise the government or choose to advocate or champion a particular cause. Whether this will help us helping those who turn to us for achieving their economic goals — like entering a particular market or promoting a particular product line. Getting patent rights, advising on pollution control, so on and so forth.

When some people debunk certain propositions with the remark that ‘it is all theoretical’ they little realize that this proposition itself is theoretical. In science, theory and practical go together but in social science, many think, they often divorce. Pragmatists and dogmatists both debunk theories. But what do we mean by theory? Can there be a science without theory? Surely this indignation emanates from inapplicability of the apparatus created for the very purpose. So long as the apparatus remains far from reality, it will receive these flaks — all the more in social science because in the case of societal affairs we can relate things with ease, even if vaguely.

Theories are explanation of certain phenomena in terms of causal relationships between certain variables deduced logically. We can include in this category empirical patterns observed with some amount of regularity. Admittedly, the first one is grounded in mental logic and the second one is grounded in the empirical world of nature. In substantive cases, the two have to come together. Gravitational force is an empirical reality but the law of gravitation is a mental device. The world would not have existed without the force but its existence came to be recognized barely four hundred years ago and for a quite a long time people did not believe a body could be pulled by another without contact. Theories are about why happens of what happens and therefore what is likely to happen under the given circumstances. Should the circumstances change, including human intervention, the course of events may change in a predictable direction provided the theory/model characterize the system well or at least it is properly contextualised. But in social sciences, as Kurien points out, there is distinct possibility of multiple equilibria but we keep insisting on finding existence, uniqueness and stability of equilibrium. For many even the solubility of the system has become so important that they would change the closure conditions.

In social domain, it is often emphasized, theories are rarely perfectly right or totally wrong though. Sometimes, alternatives are equally attractive. But from the point of view of applicability they may be appropriate or inappropriate insofar as policy implications are to be derived from it. Many do say that such and such a theory is good or bad. An inappropriate theory with a logical policy device may do wrong and so can an inappropriately derived policy from an appropriate theory. Distinction between variables and parameters may be very thing. As agents are not part of the game in standard theorems, the solutions often come from outside.

There is a distinction, some scholars feel, between conceptual theories and empirical theories or let us say between conceptual science and empirical science. Wile conceptual sciences are based on plausible, intuitive axioms and logical deductions are carried out, in their view, empirical sciences are grounded in empirical reality. A conceptual science is deductive, formal, abstract, general, universal and eternal. It is irrespective or matter, time and space. An empirical theory on the other hand is not a pure mental construct; it thrives on objects, events and phenomena. Except pure mathematics, there is a clear interface between empirics and logic. Which comes first — logic or observation — is a difficult chicken-egg question. A theory in the social domain has to be grounded in the reality of society, as manifested through cultures, traditions, institutions and values because human behaviour is largely shaped by his society. A social theory in the social domain is therefore little likely to be universal or eternal whereas a science theory in many cases could be both universal and eternal. Yet, it is something common, which makes science possible and it is its varied manifestation, which makes it necessary. A pertinent suggestion comes from Kurien that in a formation if postulates match theories in the sciences of essence, the situation is fine but in empirial sciences it is better to maintain that since postulates are acceptable, there the theories are fine.

There have been schools that believed in universalism and eternalism in social domain. Nothing that in different phases of development different institutions emerge and different policy prescriptions were held out, the belief in eternalism waned but the faith in universalism continued. In fact, eternalism took a different shape and it was that all societies will eventually trace the same path and Marxists called it historical determinism. Even if that were true there could be nothing social-empirico, which could be universal. If something is not eternal because society goes on changing, then it cannot be universal either in the social-empirico context. As in the physical world, so in the social context there could be phenomena, which exist but their existence is not known and we as scientists try to discover them. But in the social context, there could emerge new phenomena too. Societies are evolving while scientific paradigms chosen often remain mechanical.

In social sciences, it is often remarked, there exist simultaneously a number of theories for a given set of phenomena; new ones emerge but the old ones do not die. There abound alternative theories. Rarely one theory completely replaces the other. Preference for certain theories does not come from the facts alone but also from ideology. As there abound alternative ideologies, there will remain alternative theories. But even methodology of construction and validation, think some scholars, may matter a great deal. As my colleague Pranab Banerji would like to summarize, a given theory is a product of four constituents: (a) the world-view, (b) method of theoretical construction, (c) method of validation and (d) social utility. The world-view could well be the philosophical underpinning or ideological orientation. Even the choice of methodology may be guided by ideological orientation. Even the choice of methodology may be guided by ideological inclination. Social utility may not be a constituent but a desirable feature.

It may so happen that these alternative theories adopt so very different concepts and terminology due to ideological reasons that there could be little debate possible between them.

It also happens that new phenomena arise and it is suddenly discovered that the dominant, mainstream theoretical setup has no answer. So much so that Keynes had remarked in his introduction to the series of Cambridge Economic Handbooks that the Theory of Economics does not furnish a body of settle conclusions immediately applicable to policy and it is a method rather a doctrine, an apparatus of mind, a technique to thinking. Thus it is a mode of thinking rather than a set of theories. According to Dasgupta (1980), ‘the function of economic theory is to formulate questions concerning economic phenomena, and to indicate the mode of answering them. Questions that are relevant to economic theory derive from phenomena as they occur in an economy; they must, if they are to elicit answers, which could be used for interpretation of reality. The development of economic theory may thus be viewed in terms of the character of questions that economists have airmed at answering from time to time.’ In fact, he prefers to call revolutions as landmarks and the periods between landmarks as epochs, each characterized by a major school. These schools represent, he says, systems of economic theory, which differ in the nature of problems that they seek to explain as well as the techniques, which they choose to employ. Does that mean the economists seek to answer the problems of contemporary history? Perhaphs largely they do so. Only they pose them as eternal. Soon they face the problem of not being able to explain the problems and to suggest policies appropriate to the problems in hand. There is a deluge and there is turmoil. This is what explains the Keynesian revolution, which reversed the classical prescription. Robbins (1935) still held steadfastly that ‘it is a well-known generalization of theoretical economics that a wage above the equilibrium level necessarily involves unemployment … history of this country since the War is one long indication of its accuracy’ Keynes (1936) therefore held classicals as Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world. But why the great depression occurred was in true sense never explained, never forecast.

That not all but a number of theories are grounded in the historical reality of their times, is well recognized. For instance, the subsistence theory of wages or iron law of wages reflects reality of the period when the agricultural revolution together with the enclosure movement and mechanization of agriculture deprived the freeholders of their land and released a large body of landless labourers, which were not to be absorbed in manufacturing, for industralization was itself in its early stages. With the progress of industrialization and emergence of trade unions, the theory of wages changed within half a century. Earlier, demand had no role in determination of wages but only in that of employment. (And the poor laws were taking care of the unemployed.) This may still be true of certain segments of the labour market in countries like India!

The same could be said about the construct of perfect competition in the market because the conditions prevailing in the third quarter of the eighteenth century when industrialization and mass production was yet to be visible in England. Perfect competition actually mimicked the reality. Monopolies were not ‘natural’ but State-sponsored — such as the East India Company. From these instances, Dasgupta (1980) suggests that an economic theory has thus to be judged, not in absolute terms, but in relation to the peculiar setting to which it belongs and to the purpose which it is expected to serve. He had much earlier suggested that in teaching the theory and tools, the historical background has invariably to be given (Dasgupta, 1960).

This is a great simplification because there were thinkers who tried to chart out the course of events — in terms of tendencies. And there were others who, deliberately or innocently, pressed their theories to buttress the perpetuation of certain kinds of relations and institutions. Many economics to the Classical Political Economy period were as great propagandists as they were analysts. Some of them accepted certain paradoxes but others put them under the carpet or consigned them to footnotes. For example, as Joan Robinson (1971) points out that ‘the linchpin of the orthodox defence of laissez faire was the doctrine that under conditions of perfect competition, a free market will always allocate resources efficiently’, which she says was never convincing. It is possible only under conditions of full employment and full utilization of capacity. Not only that, these terms are not well defined, in the usual sense; also there is nothing to assure us that they ever exist. Under such tenuous assumptions, grandiloquence is built up. Somewhere lurk in certain ideologies what may well be vested interests. As Joan Robinson further points out, the orthodox theory describes the market demand for commodities in terms of tastes of consumers, not the distribution of income amongst them. The prices of factors of production are derived from the prices of commodities. Do they redistribute purchasing power among the consumers? Textbooks will avoid answering such questions and if asked, will reply saying ‘it will be discussed later in another chapter as to how incomes are distributed’.

The terms efficiency is used as a condition when, for a given combination of resources, one cannot produce more of one commodity without sacrificing a certain amount of another commodity. Production possibility frontier depicts the points describing the maximum amount of a commodity for a given combination of all other commodities for a given configuration of resources. Each commodity has a marginal opportunity cost in terms of the sacrifice of other commodities, which would be required in order of produce a little more of this one. The same is defined for a firm in terms of minimum cost for a given output, where cost is in terms of expenses rather in those of physical resources. The expenses depend on the amount of physical resources — intermediate and primary inputs — and their prices, which are commodity prices for intermediate inputs and factor prices for primary inputs. These markets may not be competitive. We may further recollect that all issues raised by Sraffa in the late twenties regarding economies of scale were brushed aside to favour the theorem of automaticity.

Kurien (2001) posed two issues from our everyday observations from common experience. One is whether it is scarcity that leads to choice or abundance necessitates it. While common experience suggests the latter, we go on teaching in classes the former. We do not discuss it. It goes on as a monologue and the other side parrots it unmindfully. The other is from the offer made by a vendor for larger discounts for a larger purchase, suggesting a downward sloping supply curve. Do we ever discuss this behaviour of the trader, the vendor? It is because of opportunity cost of time, as would seem to be the case of the morning vegetable market (sattee or haat)? Or, is it because holding inventory has a cost? Or does the explanation lie in the fact that the trader is a different animal from the producer or rather the manufacturer. In the theory of history, Hicks gives due consideration for the emergene of this intermediary. Kurien (1996) has cleverly distinguished the role of the trader from that of the producer and pointed out toward conditions of his emergence in the evolution of economy. We may note that no farmer but many manufacturers may produce on demand. So it seems that a rising marginal cost curve for the quantities above the minimum average cost and flat average cost line for quantities before that point constitute the supply offer of an individual manufacturer or producer. But one may also ask whether resources are waiting in queue for employment? But have we ever checked up the behaviours of manufacturers and traders of their commodities?

We teach free entry and free exit of firms as important conditions of perfect-ness in competition because that would permit reallocation of resources (and that takes place in the short run) and prove the market as an efficient allocation mechanism of resources. But what are the real resources? They are machines and equipment, and carpenter and computer programmers, teachers of economics and dance masters. Can they be reallocated with all that great ease between a mosquito repellant factory and an institution that produces classical musicians and dancers?

The neoclassical approach came under heavy attack but no replacement could be found. Scholars charged it for sterility but were charmed with it logical elegance, While the historical school of Germany and institutional school of America gave it a thorough challenge, their analytical grip was perhaps loose. Use neoclassical economic tools but concede empirical reality is the answer given by the new institutional economics. Multitude of transactions is not close to instantaneous transactions as hypothesized by neoclassical economics. Long-term contracts not only in factor markets (long in existence) but also in goods markets make the matter more complex; but economics refused to entertain them till the other day. Lack of information, existence of information asymmetry, existence of moral hazards, and therefore existence of a variety of institutions and enforcement agencies have now been addressed more adequately. If not, the whole of experimental economics at least the part dealing with the game-theoretic approach also shows some promise.

These are some of the illustrations of inapplicability of some of the important theories in the territory of their origin. While classicals were replaced by neoclassicals through analytically resolving some of the paradoxes the former had posed, by the clever device of mathematics of the margin. That put aside some of the Marxian questions by the device of methodological individualism, which subverted the notion of classes, which the classicals were concerned with. Pure theorists, devoted to logic and mathematics and searching for universals (Walras) and general principles (W.S. Jevons), found no place for human beings and social relationships in their approach to economics. Walras was happy to note that Adam Smith's economics was perfected in less than a hundred years by neoclassicals whereas the journey of astronomy took two hundred years from Kepler to Newton and Laplace as did that of mechanics from Galieo to D'Alembert and Lagrange. For Walras, pure economics was ‘a science which resembled the physico-mathematical sciences in every respect’ and therefore the ‘pure theory of economics ought to take over from experience certain (real-) type of concepts, like those of exchange, supply, demand, market, capital, income, productive services and products…should then abstract and define ideal-type concepts in terms of which it carries reasoning. The return to reality should not take place until the science is completed and then only with a view to accomplishing practical applications (Walras, quoted from Kurien, 1996).

The first major challenge to the grandiloquence of laissez faire, supposedly espoused by the classicals and buttressed by the neoclassicals through methodological individualism, was posed by the scene of the Great Depression in the late twenties of the century gone by, which made the capitalists class to lose along with the labour class. The State was called out to reverse its role from inaction to action. But fifty years later, the State was again told to retrace its steps and to act just as watchdog. And it was a universal prescription that while different economies are at different levels of development, they have different societal complexes and political setups, and face different problems (for instance, developed countries face unemployment and developing countries face poverty).

However, it is an opener that much of the attempt to make neoclassical economics compatible with the observed behaviour of the changes in the output as a result of changes in primary inputs of capital stock and labour input, was found totally unsatisfactory. Different techniques are resulting in such different results that even the direction is not known, forget about the magnitude. Felipe and McCombie argue, quotes Dasgupta (2004), that the structure of economic concepts and relations built around classical and neo-classical economic thinking, is incapable of dealing with economic phenomena evolved over time.

These are some of the illustrations of how weak had been the foundation of the economic theory as developed in the West — particularly in Britain. It talked of resources, technology and tastes but not so much of institutions of production and distribution. May be there were many to point out that some of the institutions might have outlived their utility. And this fear did not allow the mainstream economists to discuss the theories of institutions except that of the State. Received theory is therefore not expected to be completely applicable to the Indian situation. Similarly, received wisdom from the Washington Consensus for universal prescription has to be double-checked. Yet, there are portions and parts, tools and apparatus, which come in handy for many an analysis in the economic arena.

In order to save space and time I am using the term of ‘quantification’ somewhat loosely to encompass the tendencies of using mathematics, statistics and econometrics in economic investigation.

Statistics has been in use for building up a large part of economic theory for generalizing patterns and tendencies as well as to provide appropriate assumptions for model building. Mathematics was used as a tool to condense abstract reasoning. Use of mathematics in Economics dates back to the late eighteen thirties with Cournot (1838), followed by Dupuit (1844) and Gossen (1854) and was done over again according to Marshall (1920, p. 85n), by Jevons and by Menger in 1871 and a little later by Walras in 1872. Edgeworth, Pareto, Wickstead, Auspitz, Lieben and Pantaleoni were Mathematical Economists in the beginning of the twentieth century. In the thirties followed the textbooks on what could be called Mathematical Economics.

Is mathematics needed? Mathematics is a non-verbal language, written with the help of signs rather than with letters of an alphabet. It obeys logical rules and is often able to transcend the possibilities offered by verbal logic. But then it is a purely intellectual system, the elements of which are intellectual and fictitious in nature. Then the question is: if economics is not inherently mathematical, do we really simplify matters by using mathematics or still more importantly, do we gain in understanding with its use? It is methodologically efficient in terms of (a) intellectual labour (b) clarity of exposition, and (c) accuracy, asks Brand (1961). However, these questions may neither be eternal nor universal as our mental equipment is itself an evolving complex.

In the late nineteenth century, wrote Marshall in the preface to the first edition of his book Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume: ‘the chief use of pure mathematics in economic questions seems to be helping a person to write down quickly, shortly and exactly, some of his thoughts for his own use; and to make sure that he has enough, and only enough premises for his conclusions (that is, his equations are neither more nor less in number than his unknowns)’. He did not recommend the use of mathematics for communication. Yet the fact is that today, after a century, most people know that little of mathematics. This generation would easily tell Marshall that they know that equations in a question have to be independent as well, not only that their number has to equal the number of unknowns.

If we mean by theory (i) a statement with a (ii) set of assumptions through (iii) a logical analysis, leading to a (iv) set of conclusions or predictions, say Archibald and Lipsey (1976), then mathematics helps us in the third step. They narrate an interesting story of a conference, which they attended:

The first paper was given by a mathematical economist who presented a four-equation model of the behaviour of firms, deduced all its testable implications and showed how he had gone to test some of them. Because of the mathematical nature of the tools used to make deductions, the paper was regarded by many of the audience as being ‘impossibly difficult’. The second paper was given by a literary economist. Here the discussion centred (in purely verbal terms) on an important applied problem concerning the workings of the monetary system. The model involved had not been formally specified but must, at a guess, have involved about a dozen unknowns, and their relations over time, as governed by a set of unspecified simultaneous differential equations. Proper specification and solution would have been very difficult. As things stood, we did not even know if the model had a solution, but, because the argument was all conducted verbally, no one seemed to think that economics was difficult. When an essentially complex theory is loosely and informally sketched, the intellectual effort subsequently devoted to its verbal analysis can only be a waste of time. No one would possibly have answered any of the questions posed in that discussion about the implications of the model being discussed without a formal specification and the application to it of some quite complex mathematical analysis. To pretend otherwise was self-delusion (Archibald and Lipsey, 1977, p. 10).

Any theory is based on a model, which is an abstraction of reality, a simplification of the real complex. The domain of human affairs is no less complex rather much more complex than the much wider sphere of the physical world. Early economists saw some resemblance between mechanics and economics and found it expedient to use geometry and algebra — let us say analytical geometry — to capture simultaneous operation of a number of relationship. To capture the idea of incrementalism, calculus (including calculus of variations) was harnessed. Later for checking existence, stability and uniqueness, mathematicians choosing to work in economics used topology. Operations Research and Decision Making came to play a larger role in practical problems whereas the Games Theory challenged the very basic assumptions of microeconomic theory, particularly with regard to competition. Axiomatization is one of the latest trends. Experimental economics is also emerging.

Macroecoomic modelling, general equilibrium modelling, inter-industry modelling have been for quite a long stretch of time occupying the space in economics journals before being partly replaced by inter-disciplinary research where economics plays a significant role. Many of these exercises did provide some inputs to policy-making, including inappropriate policy advices, some of which were pure light shedding exercises.

Of late some scholars are recognizing cords or asserting different approaches. For example, an evolutionary paradigm is better suited to economies than mechanical; disquilibrating forces are more dominant than equilibrating ones; processes through time rather than snapshot situations deserve more attention; short-term dynamics rather than longterm statics should be given priority. In some such cases, mathematics will be difficult or will not be easily applicable.

Many asserted and many others disagreed that quantitative relationships dealt with in economics are inherently mathematical in nature and therefore mathematics is a great aid as a manipulative tool. Many even doubted that use of mathematics in all cases simplified the statements but many others asserted that mathematical models opened the way to a new understanding. So much so Bodenhorn and Ropke have been cited to remark that the trend towards mathematical frameworks in economics may be associated with an application of good mathematical assumptions but poor economics (Brand, 1961). Only for those who understand economics, does their intuition get guided by the use of mathematics; the rest get lost in the wildemess of mathematics.

Two tendencies have been observed in the recent research explorations. One, some of us take delight in solving curiosa rather than real problems and some of use are more interested in applying the techniques we are adept at. Flights of fancy and creation of a pseudoworld of its own is the problem with researchers infatated with the application of an analytical edifice. In a general context, Sen (1970) observed that much of the modern growth theory (which is quite mathematical) dealt with esoteric issues despite immense practical motivation in the aftermath of the war. Dilemma of mathematical form versus economic content looms large in our research and percolates down to teaching. Seductiveness of the form is irresistible. In its pursuit a researcher may be tempted to forget the economics content. Economic Theory is fated for a long mathematical future, felt Gerard Debreu (1987).

It may be pointed out that some of the early economists, like Marshall and Edgeworth, had also noted abuses of mathematics. It is well to remember Albert Einstein who pointed out that insofar as mathematical statements relate to reality they are uncertain and insofar as they are certain they do not relate to reality. We should therefore encourage judicious use of mathematics and discourage its senseless use.

Statistics is the social science, said somebody, which is totally amenable to mathematics. Statistics is the dataset, is a science of inference, and is plural of sample attribute statistic. Generalization and inference from empirical observations, casual and systematic, have been the foundation of practically all of secular inquiries. Economics as a science is a latecomer. Yet, it was Engel's law of demand (1857) rather than Marshall's law of demand (1890), which made its first appearance. Even before Engel there were Eden, Petty and others. But there were no regressions and correlations, which came from biometrics.

Attempts at building up national accounts date back to Gregory King (1600). The story of index numbers is a little less old but that of death rates and birth rates is pretty old. How did the poor live and what kind of movement did take place for and between different classes of workers, were statistical enquiries. Thus, measurement of microvariables and macrovariables and their aggregations had always captured our attention. The interface between underlying theory and the index is somewhat new but important. The historical sequence in teaching would be good enough.

Econometrics evolved out of many practical problems and paradoxes. Many simplified models did great service if we consider them for their operational value. Haavelmo changed the course by initiating the probability method in econometrics. Chakravarty (1985) quotes Samuelson at length to impress that the practitioner of an intermediately hard science like economics must come to terms with methodological problems while in a hard science he can afford not to bother so much as the subject has self-cleaning property.

Whatever it is, let us admit that, our teaching of econometrics in many stations is so defective that the student has no clue as to where and how he should apply his knowledge and interpret the results and try to explore their implications.

There is a good dose of economic statistics in applied economics branches. There is usually a paper on elementary statistics. However, most of the text books in statistics, even if titled as Statistics for Economics or Statistics for Economists, have rarely to do anything with economic statistics. That way, demography does much better and education does somewhat better. Economics teachers of statistics still count marbles and play cards rather than measure road-length or weigh sugar. They find out the correlation between scores in mathematics and statistics or judges’ score on beauty parades rather than between poverty and inequality or between urban poverty and rural poverty or even between income and consumption or money supply and national income.

How relevant is the content of Indian Economics that has been taught over the century? Indian Economics is an odd phrase and not well defined. It can be taken to be an Economics which is germane to Indian soil, that is her ethos, temperament and institutions and therefore applicable to India where India represents not the current political boundary of India but a vast cultural expanse. Institutions are the basis to distinguish the economic systems, not the technology it uses, asserted Georgescu-Roegen (1965), for two systems of different institutional make-ups may still use the same technology. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. may be clear examples. However Marx pointed out that there may be a unique relationship between technology (productive forces) and an institutional set-up (production relations); to put it more precisely, there is some unique sequence of progress of the two and there is constant conflict as the two do not progress in consonance. We go here in this section by Georgescu-Roegen.

Do we have European Economics or American Economics? There is surely a British Economy, and an American Economy. There is nothing like British Economics, though what we teach has generally descended to us from Britain and of late from America. The theories/thoughts from the continent came to us filtered through the British eyes in the English language. Yet, there is nothing like British Economics. But there exist Slavery Economics, Feudal Economics, Capitalist Economics, and Socialist Economics. Indian Economics in the sense could at most mean Gandhian Economics or Kautilya Economics. Even Buddhist Economics, half-heartedly promoted by Schumacher, would capture only a few features of Indian reality. Nobody ever called Gandhian Economics, as exposited by J.C. Kumarappa and Sriman Narayan Agarwal, as Indian Economics.

Even in a modern sense, Indians have contributed to economics for close to a century and a half, beginning with Dadabahi Naoroji, Romesh Chandra Dutt and Mahadeo Govind Ranade. While earlier economists were seized with Indian problems, later ones — the ones that are of note — became more interested in extensions of economic theorems. Speaking of contributions to India economic analysis, Bhagwati and Charkravarty (1972) noted that economists in India discussed practically every conceivable problem but also pointed towards the literature contained in reports of numerous committees and commissions. We should include in it the work of the National Planning Committee. It is important to remember that in India professional economists replaced business leaders quite early in economic writings.

When Ranade used the phrases Indian Political Economy and Indian Economics, he wished to point out that Indian instituitons, customs and mores, and value-systems as also her modes of thoughts and reasoning were so very different from the Western ones that the economic theory evolved there has hardly any direct applicability to the Indian sense. For example, he points out that ryots’ rent is different from farmer's rent and therefore the Ricardian rent theory was inapplicable here. The stand was so strongly reinforced by her unique institutions of caste and joint family and tradition-rooted nature of people. But it is curious to note and it should be pointed out that in certain respects he found that the Indian economy was closer to that of the other European countries, such as Germany and France, and America, which were not so industrialised as Britain was. Not laissez faire, he asserted, but protection to industries, promotion of credit institutions and help to agriculture were the appropriate measures needed. Yet, he thought that some day our economy would be like theirs and their economic theory would be applicable.

Many textbooks started pouring in with the title of Indian Economics. One such was authored by Pramathnath Banerjea and published in 1911 by Calcutta University. From the perusal, one finds that it is a largely factual description of the Indian Economy rather than a theoretical construction of the economic life of people in this part of the globe or even an analytical description. It is this tradition, which has been followed by other textbook writers till date, notwithstanding the existence of a good amount of theoretical reasearch in various sectors of the Indian economy. It seems that H.S. Jevons (1916) was dismissing such books and was unhappy. One popular textbook, which ruled for long was by Jathar and Beri (1936), which held that Indian Economics is generally understood as a study of Indian economic problems' — understanding the economic situation and finding out means and methods of improving it. A good short description of the economic facts with some institutional perspective, old and modern, it failed to relate with the theory in existence but passed in educating problems with fragmentary treatment. Bhabatosh Datta once remarked in a lecture in Calcutta that when he was a student there was hardly any interaction between the teachers of the two compartments of the economic course, Economy Theory and Indian Economics.

It seems Dr. S.V. Ketkar (1914) had given profound thought to Indian Economics almost at the same time as teaching of Economics was about to begin in India. The full title of his essay is very indicative of his thought. It read as An Essay on Indian Economic as its relates to social, psychic, political and living and working conditions in India and on the laws of economic evolution and on the acceptability of socialistic measures and the future outlook. Without an independent science of Indian Economics, he maintained, it was not possible for us to effectively solve the economic and social problems of India. He was not apologetic as was Ranade but proud about the caste system. He regarded it as a unique and bold experiment of the Hindus to organize an extremely tolerant society that could expand without disturbing social equilibrium. This unique contribution to world culture could not be dispensed with. India was not only distinct from England and other European countries but from all other countries of the world. He held that India was so unique that her conditions could be explained by an independent discipline of Indian Economics (Sovani, 1974).

In 1924 Gadgil would not agree with him and doubted the necessity of a separate discipline because Ketkar did not respect the boundaries of economic science. The differences were not so material, said Gadgil, as to require a separate discipline though economic processes would work out with greater friction. But in 1942 when the Indian Economic Conference chose to discuss the topic, Gadgil tended to agree with Ketkar.

Lakdawala (1977) felt that continental size and variety of the Indian economy presented a considerable obstacle to its comprehension. While export-oriented simple models developed in the West were of no help, factual data across regions and over time were too scanty to move ahead.

There was another school of thought impressed by Western thought, which did believe in the universality of economic laws. For them, including Dadabhai Naoroji, the differences between the West and East would melt away with development and the end of alien rule. Part of the reason was that these writers were so engrossed with the problems of their day that they had little time to question the theory than the policy of the day. As late as 1974, quite unmindful of the fact that their own theories were not eternal, Sovani (1974) felt economic laws were universally applicable but they worked with frictions in soils like India.

The role of economics in India changed after Independence from one of protest to construction. In initial years, practically all economists of note were associated with the policy-making exercises. Yet, have we, for example, articulated sufficiently well that there may be a case where a family is ‘over-employed and yet poor’, have we ever cared to alter the wage-employment oriented western economic theory to incorporate self-employed entrepreneurship, or have we noticed that the unemployment rate has a negative relationship with participation rate? Is it not late in the day that we could notice the practice of efficiencywage or relationship between product-market and input-market?

What do we really teach in the name of Indian Economics to our students at school and college levels? It is largely a factual description of the Indian economy in terms of numbers, with a good dose of institutional structure once upon a time such as land tenures. Here it would be pertinent to mention about Gilbert Slater, who was appointed in December 1915 to head the newly created Department of Economics in the University of Madras. Distressed as he was with the fact that learning of economics in Madras at the time (that was true elsewhere too) consisted of ‘a series of unintelligible theories to be learnt parrot from Marshall's Principles’, he felt that the central objective of the study of economics in India should be to understand ‘the causes and remedies for Indian poverty’ (Kurien, 1992, p. 278). And for this he launched his students on a study of particular villages — their own villages if possible.

To come back, in mainstream Indian Economics, we give an enormously vivid description of the economy in terms of numbers. Different facts are seldom related with each other and rarely juxtaposed with theory. Actually, the theory required for interpreting economic facts or economic history of often of a high level and not very definitive. But involvement of students in lower classes in interpreting data will make enormous sense out of it. Sensible compilation and classification of economic data along with the use of elementary mathematical operations and graphical portrayal, interpretation thereof and inference therefrom, do involve some kind of theoretical analysis, which we may not be consciously aware of. A heap of data, of any set of facts, is garbage. We make sense out of it only when we systematically arrange it. Let us not think that there is a unique way of doing it but accept plurality and as teachers let us devise our own methods to the extent the environments permit.

Finally, let me note, we are often found ignoring local and provincial matters as if they are of no concern. One reason could be that factual information is missing. The other could be that we do not visualize the role of teaching economics, which could be more than knowledge. With PRIs and ULBs firmly placed, local economies deserve to be better appreciated and understood. Some data about agricultural crops, their outturns and yield, their industrial disposal could be and should be locally generated. So could be the case for commercial establishments or manufacturing units in the informal sector. Private and public services in education and health and public health measures could be easily studied. As a secondary source, one could use the district statistical handbooks and district census handbooks. Students with this knowledge would prove greater assets for local governance. With this knowledge, they could turn out to be better leaders when they transcend to the provincial and national scene.

Provincial statistics need to be better spread. It is a shame that we do not know the rate of growth, rate of saving, amount of investment, output of wheat, minimum wage rate, contribution of industry when it comes to discussing U.P. but we know a lot more about the U.K., which is not even half the size of UP. It is the duty of the State governments and subordinate offices in districts and blocks to disseminate statistics and other information — collected, compiled and processed at their end — to the intelligentsia, analysts, teachers of the area to which it belongs. A horizontal spread rather than vertical scattering would pay better dividends. Many districts now have their websites, which need to be enriched and need to be widely used.

Discontent over conduct could be four-fold: (i) improper content of syllabi, (ii) defective pedagogy of teaching, (iii) ill-written textbooks, and (iv) absence of practicals. Demand for economics learning, in terms of knowledge and skills, may come from business, government and nongovernment organisations. Societal demand may deviate and diverge from the sum of perceived individual demands, which we may call market demand. Reading of societal demand in terms of components and depth is an important exercise and it should be carried out. Social institutions have to intervene to bridge the quantitative and qualitative gap and may have to give signals to the other players about the kind of orientation that is needed. Supply of economics teaching has a number of sources — formal, non-formal and semi-formal. A certain part is learnt on the job. We shall largely deal with the formal channel of supply, though for a certain section of students some knowledge is available on the inter-net.

We seem to believe whatever is needed is already in existence, which is not the case. There may also be a lot of stale stuff for discard. We know that we cannot create a new economics whenever we want, nor can we wait until new economics arrives. We can therefore adopt the syllabus that suits us best and adopt that style of teaching in which knowledge imparted becomes relevant. In fact there exists a lot of research, which has not been but can be harnessed in teaching and in writing textbooks. [I cannot but briefly touch upon the broad contours in the course of this lecture.]

Syllabi for different levels have to be different, is well accepted by all but syllabi for different boards/universities have to be different is not digested by some of us. There has to be product differentiation depending upon the student-clientele. Yet, there has to be a general background of the economy starting at the local level and gradually reaching the international/global level. There has to be knowledge of certain concepts, basic principles, and analytical skills. But they should be couched in such terms and with such a background that the students are able to relate them to the life they live when they are at a lower level. When they are at higher level, they should be able to see the connection between what they study in the institution and what they otherwise read in the newspaper or view on the television. Some of them may work for the media while others may work for business, government and teaching. Few may go for research related to different aspects of economics.

Economics is taught and rightly so at the school stage. But Economics that is taught at +2 level, say as per the CBSE syllabus, is a diminutive version of what is taught at a higher level rather than forming a base on which a further structure is built upon. There is little graduation in the structure. School teachers have a feeling that teachers of higher levels are pushing down their burden. They may be right. Students at +2 levels are currently being taught (i) Microeconomics, (ii) Macroeconomics, (iii) Indian Economic Development, and (iv) Statistics. While Statistics may not be sufficiently economics-ized, Microeconomics and Macroeconomics may not be sufficiently Indianized. But the more important issue is different. Most of these students may drop out without knowing any thing about their local economy or provincial economy while they might have known how the external dept in national currency changes when the exchange market behaves in a certain manner. Why should they know about the happenings, phenomena, events, and problems as well as institutions and organizations, which surround their own economic surrounding, only at the research level? In a large country like India, it is desirable that there is a judicious mix of local, regional, provincial, national and international economy. The golden principle is to start from the known to unknown. Teach them first about the economy and then economics. Teaching about the economy itself involves some amount of abstraction and some amount of generalization. Let us start with this low level of theorizing, descriptive analysis.

When it comes to under-graduate level, we have over the country two levels — a pass course and an honours course. In the pass course, again four courses are generally offered covering economic principles and the Indian economy. They should know about growth of the state economy as also of the national economy. There should be imparted knowledge of sectorial composition of SDP/GDP but also more importantly why they should expect a change. Which means one ought to have a little idea of these indices and how they are formed. There should be imparted knowledge of our labour-employment-unemployment situation as also of poverty, inequality and dimensions covered by human development. Even public-private and rural-urban divisions of many aspects would be a good idea. Emphasis on flow of resources through financial institutions across regions would be a good idea. There should be adequate emphasis on public finance. Indian economics should have a good mixture of state economy and the national economy. In short, the content of Hicks’ Social Framework, a mis-named book, should be adapted suitably though many scholars are not happy with its available adaptation carried out by Moni Mukherji and Shyamal Ghose. This part is more analytical than institutional though some would see the institutional bias in the treatment. We cannot completely wish away what is there nor completely cut off from the rest of the world particularly when the dominant trends are for some kind of uniformity in methods.

For the pass course while neoclassical economics with examples of real market situations have to be taught, a minimum modicum about multi-market interaction must be included so that they could realize the repercussions of developments in one market on the other. In honours courses, depending upon the inclination of the students and teachers, the scientism brought about by imposing symmetry on the behaviour of capitalists and labour as consumers and producers, likening all activities to exchange, and treating individuals — shorn of their societal existence — as hedonic locations may be exposed. For example, while production is not easily reversible, exchange is; while production is transformation through time brought about by technology and/or biology, exchange is of properties created by a social organisation. So treating the two activities as the same through a common denominator of utility does a lot of violence to science dealing with societal relations in a material world. The restrictive definitions of work and work force, in view of the fact that a major time is spent on economic activities inside the house, need to be explained along with its ramifications for other aggregates. Whether here or at a still higher level, the basic postulates undisclosed but underlying the general equilibrium analysis need to be discussed. The condition of survival is still unfiltered to the textbooks. The discussion on price-taking or the phenomenon of adjustment is lukewarmly treated.

For the honours course, mathematics would be needed for drilling in analytical methods but emphasis should lie on economics and if possible the problems that they are currently faced. It is important to discuss also how different statistics are compiled and indices of performance are computed. Sources and methods with logic behind them and possibly some history about the indices should be part of the syllabus. There may be or may not be recognized scope for specialization in any particular field. But infrastructure, energy, environment and issues concerning gender could be thought of for inclusion.

Microeconomics with some application and simple macroeconomics along with a strong dose of public finance and role of financial institutions could form an important part. Indian textbooks on macroeconomics are hardly familiarizing macroeconomics with an Indian dose and textbooks on Indian economics have rarely used an analytical macroeconomic framework. Importance of home market vis-à-vis foreign market as well as empirical strengths of various flows across the national economy could form a solid base. Varieties of accounts of public finance and international balance of payments could be taught. The style could be borrowed from Hicks’ Social Framework. One could think of including in this a course on economic development. Received development economics could well be enriched with a constant flow of literature uncovering and theorizing several practices in different spheres of living and working.

Ideally, at post-graduate stage, a real advanced knowledge as well as craft of doing economics should form part of the teaching. Many college- and university-departments will not be able to undertake it. Yet an effort in the right direction should be made with the hope that it will percolate down. About a dozen centres in the country are doing quite well. May be, they need to strengthen certain courses say on Indian economics where they may be slightly weak. Again, recent literature and vintage literature on problems of the Indian economy, perhaps avoiding many of rut of the textbooks pouring numbers, could form a part here. An analytical description, neither a narrative nor a simplified equation-system, would do a great job.

General equilibrium rather than partial, disequilibrium economics, multiproduct firms and economies of scope, apportioning of overhead costs, mechanisms of transfer pricing, various ways of state intervention in the market and cross-border flows could all be part of the postgraduate syllabus. Here all underpinnings and their implications for application need to be bared rather strongly. Natural resource accounting, issues of imputing values to non-market outputs, vexed issue of gender economics should also be included as also open-economy models. Issues of and inter-relations between poverty, inequality, dimensions of human development and elements of welfare economics should be built into the syllabus. Here is also scope for introducing development of economics.

New institutional economics dealing with the principal-agent problem, importance of information, existence of enforcement agencies, long-term contracts and choice between long-term and short-term contracts deserved to be discussed. Here is scope for sharing the experience of the mature students in their own market transactions. In fact the interface that is emerging between technology and institutions, in old Marxian terms production forces and production relations, should be our interest. In fact, teaching of evolution of economy complex, if possible in a particular setting as against a general setting, could be a good idea.

It is needless to say that elementary econometrics, if not taught, earlier with practical application should be an important component.

All major sectors, neither so much in terms of numbers nor so much in terms of alternative theoretical conceptions, should be part of the syllabus. These old specializations should be a part of compulsory teaching though the matter should staggered through different levels, while from the angle of employability, topics of current interest to business, environment, gender and law could form part of specialization.

Finally, a good exposure to sources of official statistics, rudimentary/thorough knowledge about their construction and possible uses in understanding various branches of economics will go a long way. But here it would be pertinent to make the student feel, question and discover that the methodology of economics is trying to capture a ‘whole’ as an ‘aggregate’ and therefore there are limitations in use of many indices we are employing.

I have divided the content in a certain graduated manner but actual division and flexibility is a matter of field. The actual division will entirely depend on the level and background of students, interest, competence and inclination of the faculty, academic environment of the institutions and opportunities of application of knowledge and skills. Taking note of several other factors such as availability of other subjects, choice between vocational and academic stream and guidelines from the UGC/Board each body will take its own decision. Though everything emerging needs our attention as teachers, we need not necessarily pass on everything to the students as there may be a lot of irrelevant material. Still further, we should leave some scope for experimentation rather than blinding them with blinkers.

All this suggests that there is availability of a good teaching faculty, which is not true. The new generation is expected to be better equipped and should the doing better than the old. They are our carry-forwards. Many of the oldies like me believed that the new generation of teachers is ill-literate and insincere. This is a result of our own maladjustment. Our belief in them rather than cynicism about them will embolden them to do better. If we give them time for self-development, encourage them to participate in conferences and seminars and recommend them for a variety of refresher courses for enrichment (rather than promotion), it will be possible to have a good faculty for new courses. What do we do? Mature economists should write simple books for schools and undergraduates without using cut-paste technology!

Teachers must engage in some research, which may be some kind of survey of literature. They may at least go through some of the entries in The Palgrave, try to gather literature as much as possible and conclude on their own rather than quoting somebody in the beginning and somebody in the end. Refutation rather than confirming or conforming is the best strategy to learn. Some teachers should soil their hands with collection of data on their own to see if there is some resemblance between what is happening on the ground and what is being taught. It is possible that all four theories in a particular area get confirmed in the first blush and this should cause no worry. Still others can play with secondary data on a computer.

I have kept a certain audience in mind while making these comments. I think M.V. Mathur was echoing same when he said that we must begin with the teaching of teachers of economics (Neelakantan, 1989). They should develop a habit of ever-willing to learn and ever-willing to question. In some places we find that some of us house both ignorance and arrogance and thereby hamper growth of a new generation of teachers. Moreover, the new generation should be encouraged to opt for newer branches but continue developing a wider perspective.

Depending upon the matter, there are used a variety of styles in teaching. For yoga or shooting, we use one style and for a philosophical discourse, another. In certain cases element of training plays an important role; while in others, dialogue is more effective. Certain aids are suitable in certain modes of teaching. The issue is that learning must take place and the learning must mean use of knowledge in furtherance of something good to the society in the final sense.

In teaching economics and most of social science and arts, the simple lecture method has been the dominant mode. We usually pursue the chalk and talk method in our classes, which are quite often monologues. Students are rarely supposed to understand. They are supposed to learn by heart for examinations. Now there is scope for using a variety of other teaching aids and making learning more effective, beyond examinations.

All teaching aids have certain advantages but have their limitations. Audio-visual aids, which are considered to be a great advantage, have their limitations too. For example, since a set of transparencies are ready and therefore do not prepare one for a lecture and the must finish all transparencies attitude is a great handicap. Yet, for repetitive kind of diagrams, power point presentation or over laying one transparency over the other will save a lot of time and will not break the continuity.

It may be found to be economical from an institutional point of view to go for e-teaching/e-learning, e-conferencing and so on. Virtual teaching, as it is called, is devoid of the human touch and cannot have the same impact as a human teacher does. For training some of these tools may be good but where you wish to finally advance the frontiers and wish to come out with new ideas and new solutions, either it is a dialogue or self-learning.

Yet, not using technology where one can is not a good idea. Hence creative use is the answer.

However, what I would like to emphasize is that panel discussions and symposia could be organized with local resources and mutual cooperation between different departments like Economics, Commerce, Management, Insurance, Banking, Agricultural Economics, Business Economics, Statistics, Demography, Law and so on.

Finally, the teacher and the institution should realize and impress upon the students that an examination is not the end of learning but only a step towards it. It has to be told time and again that the real purpose of learning is to be able to use the knowledge and skills learnt in the service of society and to earn wherewithal therefrom.

Let me emphasize that Economics is a social subject but a science too though intermediately hard. Each department should aspire for a laboratory, which is fairly easy now. A patient training of students with real life Indian data collected from pocketbooks/handbooks will help them to learn the tools by doing and comprehend the intricacies of the economy. They will improve their research skills and research quality as well. They will be much more confident as they will develop a feeling or creation. We shall thereby be able to produce at least technicians and technologists — if not scientists and ideologues. They will be greatly demanded in today's world.

With a view to improving quality of teaching, some scholars addressed the question of preparation of teaching material in general and textbooks in particular — which unfortunately they never had time to write about. Occasionally, the question about medium of instruction was also raised. And, very rarely, economists devoted their time to the issue of how to teach economics, which was left to the teachers of teachers training institutes. Which means the students were never in focus! Secondly, the discussion was always about economics education at university and college level though economics is taught and rightly so at below college level also.

When great scholars like Sukhamoy Chakravarty thought use of foreign books by teachers is one of the reasons for fragmentary teaching, they did not take notice of the books written in Indian languages, nor of those circulating in thousands of colleges in non-metro centres. Actually, there are a good number of textbooks available, which may not be rated as very good or even good. What do I think of the textbooks in circulation countrywide in English and in Indian languages as 90 percent teaching in undergraduate courses in about 5000 colleges and 80 percent teaching in postgraduate courses in about 1000 colleges and perhaps 50000 schools take place in the mother tongue? I agree that the books are substandard and I agree that many of them are ill-written and I also agree that the material contained therein is inappropriate but I do not agree that they have done no service. On the contrary, I think, in the absence of good, appropriate and well-written books, they have done a great service. This could be a universal fact, not peculiar to Indians.

In India, those who should have written textbooks by these normative standards have not written them, and those who ought not to write, have actually done so. While the former have done disservice by not writing, the latter have actually done service by writing. The former did not risk their time and resources. The latter had no better options. Both the groups made their economic calculations. The former made name and fame and money and toured the world, the later met the demand for textbooks and made money. It does not mean that all textbooks are bad. Even the bad ones did some service to let students learn some economics even for passing examinations. People point out Gresham's law in this regard but so long as bad money is serving as a medium of exchange it is doing its job.

But Chakravarty was right in the sense that foreign books are inappropriate for teaching in India. But why are they inappropriate? For our setting is different. So teaching material has to be written. Not only Textbooks have to be written, but also Monographs, Readers, Workbooks, and Handbooks, for teachers. Let us imaging that there are people with differentiated and graded capabilities. Many be a team of teachers does certain things better. Expectedly, all teachers are not going to be involved and should not be involved in this activity but many more than in the present can be and should be involved.

Textbooks have to be written even if they are to be e-published. Who should write a textbook? I think those who have gained sufficient maturity to make a judgement what and how much should be passed on to the students and at what level. A researcher, who ventures out to be a textbook author, should not push down his own research agenda. A teacher, who is a voracious reader, should not discuss all controversies he has known. Though social sciences are heavily value-loaded, a textbook writer should be broad-minded enough to indicate various shades of opinion. But a textbook writer should preferably write in his area(s) of specialization. Further for school children, the style could be interactive rather than narrative, interesting material could be inserted in boxes and material that could break the continuity could be put in appendices. A good glossary would further enrich the book. Exercises and activities could be included. This will suggest to the children that there is nothing to learn in a parrot-like fashion. Some of these ideas could be tried in books for undergraduate students as well.

For school students and for undergraduate students, textbooks are a must while postgraduate students should be encouraged to read economic columns in newspapers and magazines. They should learn more from notes, reading lists, readers and journals. They should be encouraged to use the inter-net, if possible. For them, teaching monographs for various topics could be prepared. Since most of the monographs may not have a good market, some learned bodies should come to support such an activity. These bodies may have to seek support from various sources — governments, financial institutions, philanthropists, etc.

I have deliberately not covered the part related with teaching for research.

U. Sankar (1991) felt that India needs a large number of competent ‘middle-brow’ economists, well-trained in economic theory and quantitative techniques, with sound perception of our goals, environment and problems. Where will they work? Should all economics teaching lead to making of economists? Or we should think in terms of wellspread economics learning at various stages with ‘economists’ at the top. I have kept the latter in mind in proposing the conduct of the teaching part.

I have tried to delineate some of the issues concerning the science of Economics, its relevance and applicability to the countries of the West as well as in those like ours. In the context of teaching, I discussed various aspects of received theory, quantification, and weaknesses of courses on Indian economics. I also tried to delineate the future course of action in terms of suggesting an outline of syllabus, improving the quality of teachers and teaching through use of variety of new ways, and providing hints for writing of textbooks and monogaphs. I have also suggested extensive use of computer-based laboratories to turn the students into technicians and technologists, who will be in great demand in various spheres in the days to come.

I think I was too pragmatic as a professional in delineating my ideas in teaching Economics. I think we need more technicians and technologists than scientists. The distinction I make between science and technology is that science has overtones of universalism while technology is more social, quite society-specific. I have taken a technology view of economics so that we have a good supply of those who have a scientific temper but can also feel the pulse of those who turn up for cure or better health. If I have failed saying much for developing scientists or ideologues, I consider it a success. Some other day, some other time, I think I will have an occasion to speak on the other side.

[Each visit I made outside Delhi during the preparation of the lecture as well as before finalization of the script for publication, I made it a point to exchange notes with scholar friends in different cities. At this point of time I am able to recall the contributions of the following scholars: Prof. Rajeshwar Prasad, Prof. P.K. Mishra and Dr. Prabha Mishra, Prof. Anjali Kulkarni, Dr. V.N. Deshpande, Dr. Sneha Deshpande, At Delhi, Prof. A.K. Dasgupta and Prof. Pranab Banerji who were kind enough to read the draft and make observations and Dr. V.N. Alok shared his views on some specific issues. While everybody recalled above could be credited with contributions along with the scholars I had discussions with on earlier occasions as well as the authors whose works were consulted, everybody is absolved of the odd views for which I alone am responsible.]

References