8年前のこちらの論文IDEASページ)では、欧州で経済大学院に米国式のPhDプログラムを取り入れた結果、専門バカを育成するようになってしまった、という調査結果を報告している(Mostly Ecnomics経由)。


As a contribution to the recent debate about graduate education in Economics, we have surveyed all students enrolled in the Stockholm Doctoral Program in Economics. We believe that this is a good representative of a strong European graduate program which in the early 1990's adopted a US-style structure. Our results show that students enter with a relatively broad academic background and an interest in social science and real world problems, but find that incentives within the program do not encourage participation in the policy debate. To the extent that graduate school is educating idiots savants it is not because students enter with no interest. Our results are remarkably similar to those found by Colander and Klamer (1987) in their survey of American graduate students in the late 1980's.
経済学の大学院教育に関する近年の議論への一助として、ストックホルム経済博士課程に入学した学生全員に対する調査を実施した。これは、1990年代に米国式システムを取り入れた有力な欧州の大学院教育課程を代表するに相応しい大学院と思われる。我々の研究結果によれば、そこに入学する学生は比較的多様な学歴を持ち、社会科学や現実世界の問題に興味を持っているが、入学後、大学院課程におけるインセンティブ構造が政策論議に積極的に参加することを良しとするものではないことに気付く。大学院が専門バカ*1を育成する結果に終わるのは、入学する学生が興味を持たないからではない。我々の研究結果は、1980年代後半の米国の大学院生を調査したColander and Klamer (1987)の研究結果と極めて良く似ている。

Mostly Economicsによれば、ここで言う「近年の議論」とは、前世紀末に欧州で始まったPost-autistic economics自閉症を脱却した経済学)なる運動を指すらしい。リンク先のWikipediaによれば、その運動で標的にされているのは、現在の主流派経済学との由。


The results from our survey tell us that the typical graduate student in Economics has chosen to obtain a Ph.D. due to a strong interest in the social sciences rather than out of an interest in mathematics or statistics. Our "representative European graduate student" has a wide educational background, rather than one confined only to the core subjects of economics, statstics and mathematics. Many graduate students have several years of studies behind them in humanities and other social sciences besides economics. They have entered a graduate program in Economics because they want to study relevant problems and they would like to participate in the public policy debate. Upon entering the Ph.D. program, however, they receive
clear signals not to do so. The weight put on learning tools and techniques gives neither the time nor any incentives for such side activities. This creates frustration and also forms beliefs about what is most valued within the profession. On the other hand, if one is serious about making changes, we believe that these facts also imply that students would respond quite favorably to an alteration of the incentive structure torward an increased weight on the study and understanding of actual problems and more encouragement to participate in policy debates.


Finally, it is important to emphasize that the views expressed in this article should not be interpreted as if we believe there is some conflict between rigorous mathematical- or statistical analysis and social engagement. On the contrary, we are strong proponents of a rigorous analytical approach to important social questions. We would even go so far as to say that formal modelling tools are one of the strengths of economics relative to other approaches. This does not, however, imply that relevance can be neglected, nor that methodology should not be discussed.

この点に関連してMostly Economicsは、スウェーデンの経済学者Assar Lindbeck小論に書かれた「we do not educate enough "two-legged economists", who both master analytical techniques and have a feeling for real-world problems.(我々の大学院課程では、分析技法を習得し現実問題についての勘も兼ね備えた『二本足の経済学者』を十分に育てていない)」という警告を引き合いに出している。また、後続エントリでは、同じLindbeckの小論から、「Economists "are like highly trained athletes who never run a race"(経済学者は『決してレースに出ない良く訓練された運動選手のようなもの』)」というサミュエルソンの言葉を孫引きしている。

*1:原文の「idiot savant」の元々の意味はこちらを参照。