Economist Brain Exploration Textbook

G.H. Abiri

Retired Professor of Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch

Tehran, Iran

Introduction: This study is based on a paradigm of economic failure from both sides of “market failure” as well as “government failure”. This will create a challenge or at least define, the job of scholars in the field of economics as a branch of science. The language of economics is very complicated and needs to learn that post modern capitalistic civilization has developed this language in the shadow of a pluralistic society. Anthropologists believe that economic concepts developed in developed countries may not be helpful in developing countries. Besides the cultural values that can directly affect the language, the connection of words and its meaning has also brought another barrier to our studies (semantic issues).

Although the concept of rethinking in economics studies is meaningful, the history of economic thought shows reliance on the different schools of thought in economics, passed toward the mainstream, which might create a divergence in the language of economics.

Methods: In the shadow of the above interdisciplinarity, this research focuses on what economic scholars have done in their textbooks, from the Principles of Economics of Adam Smith to A. Marshall, and from Macroeconomics to Development Economics.

In this regard, I went towards the ways economists used different technical words (weaving words) in scientific textbooks, in universities as well as in international organizations.

From the websites, 41 textbooks were selected, for the purpose of this study, plus a framework model consisting of technical words encompassing Market Forces, Resource Endowments, Objectives, and Indicators. Applied different regression models for the purpose of understanding consistency and coordination in the words weaving process (compare the coefficient of determination & ranking of technical words plus meaningful analysis).

Results: Out of 400 regression models, only 15-25% of models had significant, meaningful results. Although our textbooks are well-informed, they are not consistent in fulfilling knowledgeable students of economics. Different models bring attentiveness to textbooks with the same title, and contradictory results. For instance, two different textbooks on economic development had the lowest coefficient of determination, and two textbooks on macroeconomics and microeconomics had the highest coefficient of determination. The ranking of words in the models was a big warning about the importance of words (variables), in each model, which is in contrast with our famous hypothesis (Philips Curve).

Modern textbooks such as Knowlege Economy had the lowest coefficient of determination in the models applied, (degree of freedom is fair enough).

Implications / Discussion:

There are feasible approaches, to changing the disciplines of training our students as well as, changing rules for publishing economic textbooks, to achieve better coordination at different levels of presentation to explore new ideas for solving problems of economics.

Each model will provide a foresight to look over the trouble and change the roadway, to minimize the contradiction. It should be accepted that the present gap between textbooks will no longer be accepted.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEIXmabw_UhSWTvTS6ftsuA/join

Support the Society’s commitment to maintain an open professional forum for researchers at the edge of conventional science: https://linktr.ee/scientificexploration

The SSE provides a forum for original research into cutting edge and unconventional areas. Views and opinions belong only to the speakers, and are not necessarily endorsed by the SSE.

Published on March 8, 2024