{
  "id": 15824985,
  "title": "The role of economic science in an era of global power dynamics",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/20/the-role-of-economic-science-in-an-era-of-global-power-dynamics",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-20T23:58:10.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Island Sri Lanka",
    "slug": "the-island-sri-lanka",
    "url": "http://island.lk/the-role-of-economic-science-in-an-era-of-global-power-dynamics/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In recent years, the relevance of economic science in addressing global power dynamics and structural crises has been questioned. This is exemplified by an anecdote involving Queen Elizabeth II and distinguished economists at the London School of Economics (LSE) during the 2008 financial crisis. The economists' answer, stating the crisis was caused by a stochastic shock, bewildered the Queen and highlights a fundamental issue with contemporary economic science. If economists cannot explain major crises in intelligible and meaningful ways, it raises concerns about their ability to play an affirmative role in tackling structural crises today.\n\nSeveral prominent economists, including Richard G. Lipsey, Milton Friedman, and Mark Blaug, have criticized the excessive use of mathematics in economic analysis. Lipsey observed that publication in top-ranked economic journals requires providing a mathematical model, even if it adds nothing to verbal analysis. Friedman lamented that economics had become a branch of mathematics rather than dealing with real-world problems. Blaug went further, describing modern economics as an intellectual game disconnected from its practical consequences for understanding the economic world.\n\nThis crisis in contemporary economic theory may stem from excessive mathematization, but it is also a consequence of the social sciences' persistent attempt to emulate physics—known as \"physics envy.\" The ontological assumptions underlying mainstream economics, such as the atomistic conception of the individual, the idea that interactions among rational individuals generate an optimal solution, and the theoretical importance of the theoretical optimum, make mathematization almost imperative. From this perspective, the Queen's question becomes revealing: what does the concept of a stochastic shock explain? In standard neoclassical modelling, such shocks are often treated as external to the model's underlying mechanisms, failing to provide a satisfactory account of crises that emerge endogenously from the normal operation of capitalism.\n\nTo overcome these limitations, the author argues for a Kuhnian paradigm shift in economics, treating it as a human and social science. Two proposed theoretical turns are discussed: the ontological turn advocated by British economist Tony Lawson and the classical turn advanced by late Anwar Shaikh.",
  "summary": "by Sumanasiri Liyanage If I were asked whether economic science, as it stands today, could play a positive role in an era of global uncertainty and structural crisis, my answer would be that it is unlikely to do so in its present form. Why do I say this? Let me begin with an anecdote. In […]",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}