۱- Introduction

۲- Reclaiming pedagogical pluralism in urban economics

۳- Student experiences

۴- Reconstructing urban economics

۵- Conclusion

References

Abstract

Although it is widely held that pedagogical pluralism could transform urban economics education, to date, it remains unclear how urban economics students actually experience pluralism. Drawing on a range of evidence, including subject outlines, surveys, and student debates, this paper shows that pedagogical pluralism in urban economics education could substantially enhance the quality of student learning in terms of developing their critical thinking skills, increasing their awareness of, and strengthening their personal commitment to social justice. Pedagogical pluralism in urban economics education could, therefore, contribute to nurturing a new cadre of economists whose repertoire of concerns includes citizenship.

Introduction

Most economists, especially those of a neoclassical orientation, are either dismissive or patronising of pluralist economics and political economy education. Strategies to keep the pedagogical challenge to the mainstream at the margin are wide-ranging. Aside the widely-researched, more hostile strategies of not hiring political economy staff, or frustrating those who are hired (Butler et al., 2009), there are many others. Three of them require emphasis because they are widespread. The first is to claim that pluralist economics is immature. So, some three decades ago, pluralist economics education was held to be undeveloped, leading J.J. Siegfried and Rendigs Fels to observe, in an extensive survey of research on teaching economics, as follows: ‘We regret the omission of radical economics. Radical economists have criticized orthodox economics teaching severely and have published discussions of alternative approaches. But to the best of our knowledge, they have not done enough research on the results to warrant inclusion here’ (Siegfried and Fels, 1979, p. 924). With the number of articles on pedagogy in pluralist economics increasingly being published in this and other journals such as the International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, this strategy has become increasingly ineffective, but it continues in a new guise: labelling pluralist economics as ‘unscientific’ (Dow, 2019). A second strategy is to contend that mainstream economics education has already undergone major transformations and, hence, there is no need for pedagogical pluralism (for a detailed review, see Thornton, 2015; Elsner, 2019). This strategy too has received robust responses from political economists, especially Tim Thornton. Through a systematic analysis of the content of orthodox economics textbooks and syllabi at different universities around the world, Thornton (2015) shows that the alleged transformation of mainstream economics is just that: an allegation. Indeed, the evidence strongly shows that the core contents of economics education have remained largely the same. A third tactic is more patronising.