D-Econ Workshop at the Exploring Economics Online Summer Academy 2020

summer-academy-for-pluralist-economics-2020-workshopsD-Econ will be hosing a workshop at Exploring Economics’ Summer Academy August 10-16th 2020. The summer academy’s title is “Mainstream Economics Sold Out? Exploring Ways into Sustainable Futures.” This is how the purpose of the Academy is described:

On the one hand, we want to debate whether mainstream economics has indeed sold out or whether there is an increasing acknowledgement of unorthodox, non-neoclassical thinking. On the other hand, we want to explore the transformative potential of the coronavirus crisis not only with regard to the global economic system but also to the discipline of economics. What kind of economic thinking is needed to lay down pathways towards sustainability and international solidarity, instead of ecological destruction and xenophobic nationalism? We are convinced that this can only be done from a pluralist perspective. Indeed, there is not a single path towards one shared future but multiple ways to a plurality of possible futures. However, such a perspective challenges us to overcome Eurocentric thinking and to take into account the diverse voices of the so-called global south.

The registration period for the Online Summer Academy is open until the 24th of June.

Read about all the workshops here. Information about D-Econ’s workshop is below.

Workshop 1: Critical Development Economics/ Decolonizing Economics

by Diversifying and Decolonising Economics (D-Econ)

Dr. Farwa Sial (University of Manchester)

Dr. Surbhi Kesar (Azim Premji University)

Dr. Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven (University of York)

Dr. Hanna Szymborska (Birmingham City University)

The workshop on Critical Development Economics will engage with four core issues. First, we will explore how the project of economic development, despite it being celebrated as an ‘apolitical’ project of ‘modernity’ was rooted in colonial power structures. We will then explore how the discipline of Development Economics has evolved historically and will engage critically with the current mainstream of the discipline. Second, we will engage with certain critiques of the discipline that question and problematise the project of economic development from a noneurocentric perspective. Third, we will unpack the dichotomy between the public and private spheres in development policy-making and how this has varied across time and region. Through this lens, we will problematize the ‘one-size fits all model’ of capitalist development. Finally, we will explore the political economy of the contemporary development agenda, with a specific focus on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and unpack how it reproduces the structural inequalities that the project of development was ‘expected’ to dissolve.

Input Session 1: Dr. Surbhi Kesar

The first session of the workshop introduces students to the historical evolution of the discipline of Development Economics. It engages with how the project of economic development for the post-colonial developing economies was essentially embedded within the neo-colonial/imperial power structures and how, consequently, the discipline evolved into a colonised / western-centric discipline. The session will also provide a brief overview of certain non-mainstream strands that engage critically with the colonised nature of the discipline and attempt to break away from these colonial roots.

Input Session 2: Dr. Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven

This session unpacks how thinking on development economics discipline has evolved, shifting from being a colonial project, a modernization project, an emancipatory project, to a technical project. This will involve delving into critical strands of development economics, such as dependency theory and thinking on post-development, but also to examine critiques of the contemporary “gold standard” of development economics, namely randomized control trials.

Input Session 3: Dr. Farwa Sial

The dichotomy between the public and private sphere is at the heart of capitalism and any attempt at building contemporary economic models emanates from a basic understanding of the distinction between these spheres. However, this distinction has not been historically consistent under the broad umbrella of Western capitalism and also varies across countries. Building on previous
sessions, this session will highlight the historical evolution of the public-private dichotomy and argue against a ‘one size fit all’ approach to economic modelling.

Input Session 4: Dr. Hanna Szymborska

In this last session, participants will examine the current state of the international development policy agenda by scrutinising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants will learn about the political economy of the SDGs, the strengths and the shortcomings of the post-2015 development agenda, and to what extent the SDGs and the international institutions that are involved in achieving the SDG targets challenge or reproduce the status quo in the global economy.

Collaborative Session

Roundtable on how to develop a non-eurocentric / decolonized development economics syllabus. Participants will take part in this interactive discussion to formulate practical insights which they will incorporate in the subsequent collaborative sessions over the week.

Podcasts about D-Econ

D-Econ members have been asked to talk about D-Econ in different forums this year. Here are two interviews with D-Econ members in the form of podcasts. We hope you enjoy them!

Economia Decolonial (in Portuguese)

On the 10th June 2020, Por uma questão de classe podcast invited D-econ member Carolina Alves to talk about “Economia Decolonial” and introduce the D-econ initiative to the Brazilian audience. In a sequence of stimulating and pertinent questions by economists Joelson Carvalho and Jadir Eduardo Corrêa Junior, the conversation also included issues related to ‘the Cambridge School’ of economics, heterodox economics, Marxism and Brazil’s current government. 

Women in Science (in English)

On February 27th 2020, the “Women in Science” project invited D-Econ member Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven to talk about diversifying and decolonising economics. This was a part of the Great Speaker Series campaign in Portugal in partnership with the British-born co-working space Second Home Lisbon. Ingrid outlines how D-Econ came to be, how she came to be interested in heterodox economics, and why and how the missions of diversifying and decolonising economics are so essential.

Is career mentoring a panacea for gender inequality?

ArianeAgunsoye-mentoring-image4-1

Ariane Agunsoye highlights the inadequacy of mentoring in overcoming gender inequality in academia especially during this pandemic.

The COVID-19 crisis has once more exposed inherent inequalities in academia. The pandemic and the female academicNow more than ever we need to talk about how lack of equality and home affects women at work and Women academics seem to be submitting fewer papers during coronavirus at work are just a few of the recent headlines. While there is an upsurge in articles outlining the disproportionate effects of lockdown on women, there has been surprisingly less critical engagement with the support mechanisms in place that are meant to reduce gender inequality. Not even hindered by the current pandemicmentoring is promoted as a panacea for the career advancement of women academics. We at D-Econ have already cautioned in the past against rather simplistic approaches in tackling systemic issues. Mechanisms such as coaching, mentoring, shadowing, and training often individualise structural problems without questioning the system in itself. The current crisis highlights more than ever the inadequacy of mentoring in overcoming gender inequality in academia.

Three deficits: representation, accessibility, time

Academia suffers from three deficits that result in creating and maintaining unequal structures. First, women are largely underrepresented in academia, as shown in the latest report on gender equality in academia from the European Commission. In spite of an increase in female doctoral graduates in the European Union, culminating in a near gender-balance (47.9 percent of doctoral graduates were women in 2016), their career trajectories remain highly unequal. Occupying 41.3 percent of all academic positions, the share of women in senior-level positions lies only at 24 percent. Perhaps most importantly to note here is that while female doctoral graduates and academics increased by 10 percentage points since 2000, the change of women academics hired at professorial level rose only by one percentage point (from 6.4 percent in 2000 to 7.4 percent in 2016). Moreover, only a third of researchers are female (with no change since 2000). The lack of representation is even more alarming in the case of minority women. With only 25 female black professors (out of 21,000 professors), white women and black men are six times more likely to become full professors in the UK.

Second, women’s access to the institutions of knowledge dissemination is highly unequal. When considering that internationally recognised publications are taken as an indicator for promotion, it is alarming that on average, men publish twice as much as women. This appears to be prevalent more in some disciplines (e.g. economics) than in others (e.g. educational studies). In the top four economics journals, the share of women authors per paper is on average 15 percent. Meanwhile, only eight percent of the papers are authored principally by women, and only four percent solely written by women. More generally within the social sciences, men cite other men more than they cite women.

Third, women face an imbalance in terms of workload. Women still conduct the majority of care work often without an appropriate support system. Strikingly, the UK fares the worst among developed countries with regards to sharing of responsibilities within households: UK women conduct on average 60 percent more unpaid work than men. This double work burden has a negative impact on promotion due to reduced publications (two children result in a loss of 2.5 years’ research output), but also due to expectations of being constantly available, joining evening seminars, and conducting numerous research collaborations. If universities are serious about tackling gender inequality, these three deficits in academia need to be addressed.

Can mentoring help overcome these deficits?

To promote gender equality, numerous studies have outlined the benefits of establishing a productive mentoring relationship. By sharing their knowledge more experienced scholars, it is argued, can help early career researchers to build self-confidence, increase competence, and avoid isolation (which is a risk deemed particularly prevalent in academia). While having a support system is important, I doubt that mentoring programmes can overcome the three deficits: the representation deficit based on the number of women in senior positions, the accessibility deficit based on a lack of diversity in terms of knowledge production, and the time deficit based on unequal workloads.

Sure, a mentor could be helpful in reducing the representation deficit by taking up the role of a sponsor and collaborator. Not only has it been proven that being mentored  increases confidence, but also that a mentor can introduce early career researchers to their own networks and co-develop research projects. This, in turn, would enhance the profile of the junior academic and increase visibility, both of which are conducive for promotions. Yet, these initiatives do not tackle any systemic issues in the form of gendered perceptions within promotion panels. When having achieved similar or even more qualifications than men, the evidence shows that women are not promoted equally (which is intensified by a minority ethnic background). Mentoring does not address these systemic issues, but instead places the responsibility on the individual to develop career strategies within a dysfunctional system, thereby indirectly reinforcing it.

It is also questionable whether mentoring can reduce the accessibility deficit. Yes, formal mentoring has been found to be conducive to an enhanced publication record but this process in itself is problematic. Academic promotions are to a large degree dependent on publications where journals work as gatekeepers of knowledge. The mentor can teach the mentee the “particular kind of knowledge” requested by academic journals. However, the theories, methodologies, and geographical locations considered acceptable by journals not only downplay power imbalances based on gender and ethnicity, but also deepen them. At the same time, a mentor cannot influence gender bias in the publishing process, even when teaching the right kind of knowledge or collaborating with mentee. To name a few: women face higher publishing standards, are less likely to be given credit for their work and face a lengthier peer review process which in turn is detrimental for promotion.

Against this backdrop and the existing time deficit, it should not be surprising that there “have been negligible number of submissions by women” since the lockdown. Those with fewer care and domestic duties are able to use the lockdown to produce more articles and improve their publishing profile, while those with care duties – mostly women – are left behind. Carers now have to find time before or after the children are awake to record online lectures and manage student activities and then use a few hours during the day to work on research. Since the lockdown, journal editors have noticed that women have submitted fewer papers than usual at this time of the year in contrast to men who have submitted 50 percent more papers in some disciplines. While a mentor could give advice on how to manage time, they cannot make up for the fact that academia suffers from a substantial support deficit, often assuming uninterrupted working lives when evaluating career trajectories for promotion.

Given that these sexist practices continue to exist in the workplace and at home, a focus on mentoring as the solution props up this current system without challenging the underlying structures. Instead, the solution relies on helping “women build their skills and capacity” to succeed in a male dominated environment, placing the responsibility onto women. We at D-Econ have recently argued that career mentoring cannot be a panacea to overcome systemic limitations, but that a holistic approach is needed. Rather than mentoring programmes, we need clear-cut promotion categories which do not give too much leeway for interpretation. We need more emphasis on publication practices, highlighting inequalities and tackling these, for instance through measures as suggested by womenalsoknowstuff. These include, amongst others, journal editors checking the gender composition of references and encouraging authors to achieve a balanced citation practice. Finally, we need to reduce home inequality while acknowledging different life trajectories when evaluating promotions.

Ariane Agunsoye is a Lecturer in Economics at Goldsmiths, University of London. She is also on the steering committee of D-Econ, a network of economists who aim to promote inclusiveness in economics.

This post was originally published on the LSE Blog on Higher Education.

D-Econ Statement of Solidarity with Black Lives Matter and Affirmative Action Points related to the Discipline and Pedagogy in Economics

In the midst of the global pandemic, governments all over the world have unleashed a series of violent attacks on people that are protesting the violence inflicted on Black people. The brutal killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery and countless other Black people has once again brought systemic racism and discrimination of Black people in the spotlight.  As we know these are not one-off incidents, but rather what Black people have always been experiencing: unresolved issues of race and discrimination in the US and around the globe are not a single event or a series of recurrent events but constitute historical and institutionalized racism. As a platform which advocates for both decolonizing and diversifying economics, D-Econ joins other organizations in condemning this violence and systemic discrimination.

We are heartened to see the outpouring of solidarity for the Black Lives Matters Movement among economists. However, we believe urgent and comprehensive action is needed to truly ensure that Black Lives and Black voices matter in the profession. In line with our mission statement to reform the discipline of economics, we have issued the following non-exhaustive points for affirmative action for universities, managements, and academic and non-academic policy and advocacy institutions. We believe implementing these points transcend the need for performative alliances with Black academics and activists.

  1. It is imperative that universities and policy research organizations increase the employment of Black academics, policy specialists, and NGO advocates in permanent roles. Without the input of Black people, it is impossible to actually have meaningful change. This will not happen automatically, and university and research organizations need to actively seek out and recruit Black economists, specifically Black women economists. In the meanwhile, it is crucial that the work and voice of Black academics be amplified.
  1. Universities need to make a special effort to recruit and retain Black undergraduate and graduate students in their student body, and to ensure that they create a safe space for them against racist discrimination and violence. This is the only way that departments can become inclusive spaces and contribute to the upliftment of Black people and other underrepresented minorities. Armed police should not be present on university campuses, as they seek to profile, threaten, injure, and arrest Black students. Not only is this deeply unjust and dangerous, it is directly inimical to learning, especially those that are disproportionately targeted by police. 
  1. The curriculum of courses that are taught in economics department need to center racial capitalism, structural violence, and systemic discrimination. It is not enough to relegate this to optional courses. This needs to be compulsory education for all students. The teaching of economic history, specifically that of slavery and colonialism is indispensable to the understanding of present day inequalities and structural violence, and should therefore should also be made mandatory.   
  1. Several institutions within the discipline are institutionally discriminatory. These range from using the GRE and English language tests for graduate school admissions, REF in the UK, which discriminates against non-native speakers of English and non-white people and women by rewarding productivity in publishing while being less concerned with quality, ranking of journals and departments determining promotions and hiring decisions, among others. These need to be re-evaluated in a serious way. 
  1. All instructors need to ensure that they do not exclusively require students to read books and articles by white men. And this should not be limited to courses on racial inequality: Black academics study all sub-fields of economics, and their scholarship, and those of other underrepresented minorities, need to be in all courses. 
  1. All journal editors should periodically publish the race and gender breakdown of their publication and submission statistics. They should also report on the measures taken to increase the diversity within publishing. Furthermore, we need to ensure that journal editors are held accountable for the performance of the journal under their stewardship.
  1. Bullying and policing of minorities based on issues of representation should be scrutinized and investigated thoroughly, especially involving those in positions of power and junior staff members.
  1. Economics is not only a North American and Western European profession, and publishing, hiring, funding, and conferences should reflect this fact. The profession needs to deal with its Eurocentrism, in part by valuing knowledge that is produced outside the usual boundaries of  elite institutions in North America and Western Europe. 
  2. Racism is a structural problem, and therefore the solution needs to be structural. It is not enough for individuals to voice support for anti-racism, which is required but is the bare minimum. In fact, many individuals may face repercussions for speaking up against powerful gatekeepers in the profession. Anti-racism in economics needs to be institutional, with it being the focus in curriculum, methodology, hiring decisions, accountability of journal editors, diversity in conference and seminar programs, among others. Change must be initiated by institutions.

Decolonising and Diversifying Economics and Economic History (D-Econ @ LSE)

Ariane Hillig (Institute of Management Studies, Goldsmiths) and Professor Tirthankar Roy (Department of Economic History, LSE) will be discussing decolonising and diversifying economics and economic history at LSE on Thursday 20 February 2020. The discussion will be chaired by Dr. Akile Ahmet (Inclusive Education, LSE’s Eden Centre).

The Speakers will discuss key questions, challenges and relevant initiatives in decolonising and diversifying their respective disciplines.

This event is organised by the Eden Centre for Education Enhancement, Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity (LSE) and the Decolonising LSE Collective.

Screenshot 2020-02-12 at 22.17.08

Call for Applications: Workshop on Diversifying and Decolonising the History of Economics

On June 17th in Utrecht, Netherlands, before the 2020 HES Conference

As widely documented, economics lacks gender and ethnic diversity. Women and economists from so-called minority groups face disadvantages and even outright discrimination. Within the history of economics, the topic of diversity has also raised some discussion and it has been acknowledged that history of economics meetings often lack of diversity of participants. This is paralleled by a lack of diversity when it comes to research. Research within the field is largely directed at the few, towering, (male) economists, as recent surveys of publications in history of economic thought journals have shown.


That diversity in history of economic thought is essential can be seen in the fact that male dominated research has tended to “serve male interests” reinforcing gender inequality. At the same time, there is an interest in and a demand of increasing the diversity both of scholars and of research, as discussion within the HES and other organisations such as AEA have shown. The aim of the workshop is to increase the visibility of diversity issues in the field of history of economic thought. We will be joined by two senior scholars working on diversity and decolonisation within economics and the history of economic thought: Dr. Rebeca Gomez Betancourt , and Dr. Sara Marzagora . We aim to address issues both of diversity of thinkers and of diversity of methods. This includes a reflection of how our own research might be impacted by taking into consideration issues of
diversity.


We encourage especially, but not exclusively, young scholars (including PhD level) researching on history of economic thought or those who adopt historical methods in their research to apply to the workshop. A limited amount of travel stipends for scholars based inside and outside Europe is available.


To apply, please submit a brief description of your own research (100-200 words) and a brief motivation for your application (200-300 words) to diversityhetworkshop@gmail.com If you want to be considered for a travel stipend, please note this in your email. For further information and inquiries, please contact us.


The deadline for applications is February 29th , 2020. Successful candidates will be notified by early March.


The workshop is organised by D-Econ Steering Group members Danielle Guizzo, Ariane Hillig, and Reinhard Schumacher. It is funded by the History of Economics Society’s New Initiative Fund.

D-Econ at ASSA and ICAPE 2020

D-Econ was present at the Annual American Social Science Association (ASSA) Meetings and International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE) Conference 2020 from Jan 3 to Jan 6 2020 in San Deigo, USA. The conferences were attended by several senior and junior scholars in Economics from across the world, particularly by those based in the USA.

D-Econ organised a round table discussion on “Diversity in Heterodox Economics: Radical Solution for an old Problem” at ICAPE 2020. The panelists for the round-table were Hanna Szymborska (Birmingham City University) [Chair], Devika Dutt (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), and Surbhi Kesar (Azim Premji University and South Asian University). It was an interactive round table, where several issues relating to the colonized nature of the discipline, and how lack of diversity is intimately related to this colonized nature, were discussed. Devika and Hanna talked about how these biases are perpetuated in the discipline and how D-Econ aims to be a movement to counter such biases. Surbhi briefly talked about how the process of knowledge creation is a political process and, as a part of that process, how Development Economics came to be a colonized discipline. The session was attended by several scholars, who shared their own experiences and insights on these issues. We collectively discussed how to challenge the prevalent sexism and racism in our profession and the colonial underpinnings of our discipline. We are grateful to the participants who encouraged our initiative and expressed a great deal of interest in being involved with D-Econ!

Continue reading

Diversify and Decolonise your Holiday Reading List

The D-Econ Winter 2019 Reading List

This article originally appeared on openDemocracy, as a part of their ‘Decolonising the Economy’ series.

Get a head start on your New Year’s Resolution to read more, by reading some or all of our recommended reads from our Winter 2019 Reading List! As the previous year drew to a close, we took stock of best books published last year. While mainstream economics publications (e.g. see the FT list or The Economist’s list) have been celebrating a very narrow range of authors and subjects (mostly white men based in the US and the UK, writing within mainstream economics), we have put together a more diverse list in terms of background, training, and perspective.   

This Alternative Economics list includes authors from across the world, with more varied backgrounds – and writing about more wide-ranging topics from a broader variety of perspectives. Our alternative list also reflects our belief that issues such as structural sexism, imperialism, and the politics of knowledge production are central to understanding economics. 

Due to institutional and language barriers we were unable to include as many scholars from the Global South as we would have liked. For example, we would love to read the new book L’Arme Invisible de la Françafrique by Fanny Pigeaud and Ndongo Samba Sylla on the how the CFA Franc continues to constrain the social, political and economic prospects of its member states, but we are still waiting for the English translation. 

Continue reading