Analyses of economics curricula go back far in time, at least to 1950 when Newcomer analysed US economics programs which were starkly different from what is common today (Newcomer, 1950). There was no division between micro and macro economics. Mathematics and econometrics were not yet standard mandatory courses, although statistics was. Courses like public finance, money and banking, labour problems, corporations, international economics, business cycles, economic history, comparative economics, history of economics, and accounting were prevalent at the time with more than half of the universities offering these courses. Overall, there was substantially more diversity between the programs, giving students a broader range of options and types of economics to study. The standardisation of economics education had not yet occurred, which would over the following decades, and especially since the 1980s, replace reflective and real-world oriented courses with econometric courses (Siegfried and Walstad, 2014). For brevity, we focus here on more recent studies, starting with international comparisons before moving to various country studies.
Jatteau and Egerer (2017) conducted a study in collaboration with the International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics (ISIPE) network, into economics bachelor curricula in 13 countries, from Brazil and Mexico to Turkey and Israel. The study built on the method developed for the PEPS 2014 report, analysing program syllabi. The study found a dominance of “MMM courses”, macro, micro and mathematics, accounting on average for 40.4% of the study time (based on study credits). Far less common were reflexive courses like the history of economic thought, pluralist economic theory, and philosophy of science, and real-world economics with economic history and economic problems, which respectively only received 2.4% and 4.2% of study time.
A comparison between top-ranked US and European undergraduate economics programs found that the core is similar with substantial attention to quantitative methods, microeconomics and macroeconomics, although introductory principles of economics courses are considerably more common in the US than in Europe (Monteiro & Lopes, 2007). Differences are more apparent for electives than in mandatory courses. Electives in the US are more research-oriented and applied economics, while European electives are more interdisciplinary with attention to management, law, social sciences and computer sciences.
Undergraduate economics programs in India are found to have the typical course structure with micro, macro, and mathematics and a focus on markets, efficiency, neoclassical theory (Rethinking Economics India Network, 2022). At many universities courses in different perspectives, history, interdisciplinary knowledge, research methods, ethics and the philosophical foundations of economics are lacking. While all programs do offer elective courses on the Indian economy and context, they rarely contextualise this in the global inequalities between the global north and south. There is little gender diversity among the textbook authors and most come from the global north. There are a few notable exceptions where students do learn from a diverse range of economists and learn about institutions, different perspectives, global inequality, capitalism, and real-world knowledge.
Following the global financial crisis, economics curricula were reformed at most Chilean universities (Mautz, 2015). The emphasis on micro and macroeconomic theory and business courses was decreased, while the attention to the social sciences and humanities, quantitative methods, and open electives increased.
The French student group Pour un Enseignement Pluraliste dans le Supérieur en Économie (PEPS, 2014) analysed existing French economic curricula and propose an alternative curriculum. Rather than organising the program around techniques, they put real-world problems and questions at the centre of the program. Furthermore, the program is characterised by interdisciplinarity, theoretical and methodological pluralism as well as a focus on independent critical thinking. This study led to a government report containing advice on how to improve French economics education, which is described in the next section.
Urban & Rommel (2022) wrote a literature review of empirical studies on research, teaching, and policy advice of economics in Germany. They found that German economics programs had become more Americanised, with a curriculum structure similar to the U.S. model and a heavy reliance on American textbooks. Students' experiences highlight a focus on performance-oriented learning, driven by standardised curricula, which overshadows the diversity of economic research perspectives. This divergence between education and research underscores the need for a more reflexive and empirically oriented approach in education to address contemporary societal challenges, as advocated by recent recommendations from the German Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat, 2022).
An analysis of Italian economics programs, making use of course outlines and student surveys, found that students in the pluralist programs were more satisfied with their education, more aware of various topics related to the economy, and were more confident in their abilities as economists (Ciccotosto, 2018).
An analysis of Dutch economics programs, also mentioned earlier, found a relatively high level of homogeneity with an emphasis on quantitative methods and neoclassical theory (Tieleman, De Muijnck, Kavelaars, and Ostermeijer, 2018). Real-world and reflective courses on the other hand got considerably less attention in the curricula.
Finally, we turn to the UK, for which most recent curriculum reviews have been performed. The Institute for New Economic Thinking conducted an analysis of UK economics programs and found a striking similarity in the structures of economic degree programs (Wigstrom, 2016). There was a strong emphasis on theory and mathematics in microeconomics courses and a focus on application and policy in macroeconomics courses. Despite theoretically being more diverse, macroeconomics courses were found to heavily lean towards new classical macroeconomic thought with its focus on (hyper)rational expectations and the ineffectiveness of government policy. Additionally, it's noted that only two out of twelve universities mandate courses that delve into economics from a qualitative perspective, covering areas like history of economic thought, economic history, and philosophy of economics.
Econocracy: The perils of leaving economics to the experts (Earle et al., 2016) argued that we live in an econocracy, a society in which improving the economy has become the main purpose of politics. In such a society, the way economists are educated is of paramount importance. A bestseller, it was written by three young economics graduates who had been instrumental in the formation of the international student movement Rethinking Economics, in particular by co-founding the Post-Crash Economics Society in Manchester.
Based on an analysis of UK undergraduate economics courses and their course outlines and exam papers, they argue economics education is currently not fit for purpose. The excessive focus on neoclassical theory amounts to a monopoly of thinking that, they argue, can even be defined as indoctrination, as it discourages independent critical thinking and promotes unquestioningly accepting claims and reproducing earlier beliefs. They make the case for economics in the form of a pluralist liberal education with attention to multiple theoretical perspectives, real-world issues, inductive approaches and empirical evidence. Furthermore, they argue for the democratisation of economic policy debates, in order to make sure everyone’s interests, values and insights are considered rather than only those of a small group of economic experts.
Local UK Rethinking Economics chapters have conducted similar studies of the programs of Durham University, University of Manchester, and Cambridge University (Svenlén, Sargent, Tyler, & Pedersen, 2018; The Cambridge Society for Economic Pluralism, 2014; The Post-Crash Economics Society, 2014).