Daniel Stähr on economic formulaic language
Technocrats of all countries, unite!

People who have studied economics often express themselves in a very formulaic way. This does not make them apolitical, explains Daniel Stähr. Not to mention their influence on social structures.

By Daniel Stähr

There is a joke that is very popular with economists: two men watch a military parade. After the tanks and soldiers have marched past them, a single man in a badly fitting suit follows. “And who is that?” one observer asks the other, to which he replies: "That's an economist. Can you imagine the destruction he can cause?"

This joke shows two things. Firstly, economists are not particularly good at telling funny jokes. Secondly, it makes it clear that most of them are well aware of the power they have. There is no other social science that has as much influence on politics as economics. Economists head many of the most influential global institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. In addition, almost every country has its own economic advisory board. In Germany, this body even has the status of a Greek oracle when its members are reverently referred to as ‘“die Wirtschaftsweisen”.

An all-pervading science

However, the influence of economics goes much deeper. During the Cold War, the theories of various economists such as John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman had a decisive influence on politics. The era of stable social democracies in Western Europe up until the 1970s bears Keynes' signature, just as the neoliberal turnaround under Reagan and Thatcher bears the signature of Friedman and Hayek. It is therefore no wonder that various authors have labelled the period after the Second World War as the “hour of the economists”.

Today, the sphere of influence of economics goes far beyond purely economic issues. They have a say in the distribution of donor kidneys, draw conclusions about historical developments by analysing hundreds of thousands of paintings or use their models to try to explain the origins of crime or drug addiction. One reason for this meteoric rise to an all-pervasive discipline is the language used by economists.

Since the 1950s, economics has increasingly relied on mathematical and formal arguments. However, as the Turkish economist Dani Rodrik aptly put it, this is not because economists are particularly clever. Instead, they are not smart enough.

Relationships expressed in mathematical formulae are clearly defined. Nobody needs to discuss what a formula means, whereas the purely verbal arguments of Karl Marx are still the starting point of numerous debates among committed students.