Life Among the Econ

Published in the Western Economic Journal in 1973, Axel Leijonhufvud’s Life Among the Econ is a
comical article outlining the discipline of economics, and the scholars that practice it, from the
perspective of an anthropologist. Professional economists are treated as a tribe known as “the Econ”
and ensuing tribal analogues are produced throughout the piece to characterize the group’s unusual
behavior.

While describing the “caste and status” structure of “the Econ”, Leijonhufvud remarks how “status
relationships do not seem to form a simple hierarchical ‘pecking order’”…and that “in societies with a
traditional pecking-order…an equilibrium develops in which little actual pecking ever takes place”. By
these comical observations Leijonhufvud’s point is that within academic economics, there is little
respect given on behalf of young economists toward their experienced colleagues. Or, if there is such a
recognized hierarchy, it is so stringent that little mobility is allowed—those at the top of the academic
ladder don’t easily give in to the desires of their lower-ranking counterparts, a practice that “carries no
formal sanctions.” At the time of writing, Leijonhufvud had solely worked for UCLA, so perhaps this
commentary is uniquely directed toward his fellow bruins (highly unlikely...).

In any case, Leijonhufvud later writes that hierarchy not only emerges generationally, but also between
various fields of research, “A comparison of status relationships in the different ‘fields’ shows a definite
common pattern.” For “the Econ”, the relative respect given to varying fields—the word they usurp for
what we commonly understand as a caste—is contingent on their use of “modls”, referring to the
development of various economic models existing in academia today. Moreover, “modls” produced by
different fields are not equally acknowledged by all—Macro and Micro Econs hardly appreciate, or even
understand, the “modls” produced by the other. Within this allegorical language it’s hard to miss
Leijonhufvud’s point that there is little interdepartmental understanding and collaboration in
economics, at least during the early 1970s. Like common cultural misunderstandings, these gaps allow
members of various schools of thought to quickly denigrate members of competing schools without first
recognizing the context in which those schools, or “fields” as Leijonhufvud aligns them with, operate.

Returning to his earlier critique of the generational pecking-order, Leijonhufvud further develops his
theory of “grads, adults and elders”. For “the Econ”, the young adult, or “grad”, is not accepted into the
community until he produces a “modl” of sufficient complication for the master he or she works under.
Yet, this rite of initiation does not end with one initial acceptance—in order to maintain one’s
membership one needs to continually produce “modls”, lest you be “turned out of the ‘dept’ to perish in
the wilderness”. This cultural demonstration is, of course, Leijonhufvud’s commentary on the incessant
need to publish new economic models within academia to sustain one’s faculty position in an economic
department. And yet, ironically, Leijonhufvud will later note that these models rarely apply to the real
world, though they are still the basis by which “Econs” look down upon Sociogs and Polscis (sociologists
and political scientists). In defense of this practice among “the Econ”, Leijonhufvud argues that it
actually doesn’t matter much whether “modls” work (“the Implementarist issue is no longer seen as
productive”) so long as they are filled with significant beliefs (this practice is particularly present among
the “Math-econ”, the priests of “the Econ”).

Leijonhufvud ends his comical caricature by recognizing that, because of the aforementioned practices
surrounding ineffectiveness of “modls”, “The prospect for the Econ is bleak.” While they are growing at
increasing rates, most of them are quite poor and not self-sustainable. And yet, “the Econ remain as of
old a proud and warlike race”, which is all to say that economics as a primary discipline among the social
sciences is dwindling even though members of its community do not want to recognize it as such. Sure,
“the Econ” had inspiring routes, but they have since exhausted their resources and trust with those on
the outside and collapse from within has already begun—more and more “Econs” are reduced to
vagabonds with no true community to call home.

^ Leijonhufvud, Alex (Sep 1973). "Life Among the Econ". Western Economic Journal. 11 (3).