Different views, opinions, approaches and methods have existed in economics for almost as long as the profession has existed. Despite this, some approaches and methods tend to rise and dominate whereas others remain on the periphery. The Financial Crisis 2007–9 brought the discipline into sharp focus with many in the media suggesting economics was in a crisis of its own. It seems that this crisis in economics was put down to widespread failure to ‘predict’ the Financial Crisis. In an interview in 2018, the Bank of England’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, agreed that economics had come up short in its ability to forecast. Not only was the Financial Crisis one of the ‘failures of forecasting’ but the forecasts of the effects of the referendum vote in the UK to leave the EU were also inaccurate;
the Bank of England had predicted that there would be a considerable slowdown in economic activity in the wake of a no vote, but that did not materialize in the first two years post the referendum vote.
One of Haldane’s reported comments from the interview was that economics had failed to build irrational behaviour into its models sufficiently and to do so in the context of human behaviour in the twenty-first century. One of the reasons why Haldane is concerned that economics does not lose its reputation is that the profession has a powerful seat at the table of governments around the world, because it is relied upon as providing expert analysis on which policy decisions are based. If the analysis is flawed, then why should politicians trust or even need economists?
Perhaps one of the reasons why economics has got into this position is its claim that it can predict. In physics, explanations of physical forces can be investigated, theories developed, tested and validated which allow physicists to make predictions which are largely accurate. Economics is not dealing with physical forces but human behaviour.
Reading criticisms of economics in the media, it seems that many commentators bemoan the inability of economists to forecast but equally invariably note that ‘some economists got it right’. The few that did predict problems in financial markets in the mid-noughties have been hailed as visionaries and have obviously ‘got’ what economics is about.
There are many cases where people predict all manner of events and, in the vast majority of cases, are wrong in their predictions, but on rare occasions they will get seemingly wild and bizarre predictions right.
Many see the root of the problem in the way in which economics is taught in universities. Critics argue that the curriculum in too many institutions is dominated by males, teaching predominantly neo-classical methodologies which fail to give students sufficient exposure to different approaches and methods in the subject. The result is they leave university with a particular world view about the discipline, and those that continue in academia merely propagate the same approaches in subsequent years to their students.
The criticism of economics and the call for more heterodox approaches to be included in university curricula has been acted upon by some universities. This may be in the addition of elective modules which deal with heterodox schools of thought; in other cases, courses are being redesigned to include insights from other disciplines such as sociology, psychology and anthropology; and in others, modules are being offered in employability skills which can help budding economists to better communicate their ideas and analysis to non-economists.
To some academics, the opportunity to offer more ‘pluralism’
in economics degrees is a clear ‘market opportunity’, whereas to others it is paying lip service to pluralism in ideas, and they argue that the basis of economics has not really changed despite all the apparent soul searching.

Critical Thinking Questions
1 Why do you think that some approaches to economics dominate whereas others remain on the periphery?
2 ‘Economics should be about explaining not predicting; you can’t predict human behaviour.’ Consider this statement in the light of the apparent failure of economics to forecast or prevent the Financial Crisis 2007–9 and the inaccuracy in the forecast over the behaviour of the economy in the aftermath of the referendum in the UK on Brexit.
3 To what extent do you think that approaches such as those covered in this chapter and insights from other disciplines enrich economics – or do they simply add to confusion?
4 Should economics be worried about its future because it might lose the confidence of policymakers if forecasts and predictions continue to be inaccurate?
5 Consider the economics curriculum at the institution you are studying in. Do you think the curriculum reflects different approaches to the discipline, and does the economics department reflect the debate in economics about its future?