I believe economics is to political science as biology is to medicine: a fundamental prerequisite. In fact, I believe they are so connected that I challenge anyone to think of one example of a public policy that fails to have some economic impact and, reversely, some economic occurrence that doesn’t have some impact on politics.
Take for one example, straight from my economics textbook this semester, a luxury tax Congress enacted in 1990. The tax was put in place to raise revenue from the wealthy on expensive “non-essential” items such as private yachts, planes and luxury cars. On the surface this policy seemed logical. However, the demand for these items was rather elastic, meaning wealthy consumers were willing to simply put their money elsewhere rather than pay extra because of the tax. The burden of the tax fell mainly on the middle class and blue-collar workers who built the yachts and planes when their businesses were hindered by the drop in sales.
Unsurprisingly, Congress repealed most of the tax in just three years after witnessing the results. A more contemporary example is the Affordable Care Act. The ACA is chock-full of economic theories about how to provide higher-quality, cheaper insurance for more citizens through the private marketplace. The ACA and healthcare reform is without a doubt one of the biggest American political issues of the 21st century, and without at least a basic knowledge of economics, it is virtually impossible to understand.
I write this article as a call to action to the Department of Political Science to not just offer, but instead require economics courses to students seeking a political science degree. Currently, only three of the seven political science pathways require any economics courses. These three only require one course, Fundamentals of Economics, EC 205, which is the most rudimentary economics course at N.C. State. I propose that, at the very minimum, all the political science pathways require EC 205, which would only entail replacing one social science elective (out of four), and which three concentrations already do. Michael Struett, an associate professor of political science, agreed with me about the importance of economics and the need for a requirement of at least one basic economics course for all political science majors.
“Economics and politics are fused in many ways,” Struett said. “Economics is the study of the production and allocation of resources, and political science is the study of how societies make choices about how those resources are divided. To understand political processes, you have to understand economics, and to understand the dynamics of real economies, you have to understand the role of politics.”
Besides the minimum proposal, what I truly believe will be best for students, is if the program required EC 205, EC 202 (Macroeconomics) and EC 302 (Intermediate Macroeconomics). An intermediate understanding of macroeconomics would enrich the high quality of the political science program and knowledge of students immensely.
I feel strongly about this because the way I see it, political theory represents why we think certain ways about how a society should be, while economics represents one tool for how to practically apply theories to society. This also helps shape theories further as we see how they apply to the real world.
A broad set of policy implementation tools is vital to any student of politics because even the strongest theories are worth nothing if one has no method of practical application. Karl Marx’s theory of communism, created with an understanding of the economic forces that drive class structure, ultimately failed in the Soviet Union because of an inability to follow a few basic economic principles.
Additionally, Keynesian economics, founded by the famous economist John Maynard Keynes, provided Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression with a practical method of application of his own theory, which said the Federal Government should not sit idly while the nation was consumed by an abysmal economic downturn.
Keynesian economics is undoubtedly one of the most influential theories of the 20th century, and it influences how governments deal with recessions and public finance. It continues to play a huge role in public policy and an understanding of this and other economic theories will help political science students significantly.
The political science program already does a fantastic job of providing a foundation in political theory and government systems, and in no way do I propose increasing economics courses at the expense of these classes. I do feel strongly, though, that the Department of Political Science, along with the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, should do a better job of prioritizing which requirements outside of the major courses are most important to a political science degree, because as it stands now, there are certain academic areas required, such as literature and foreign languages, that are of less importance than some areas that are not required, such as economics.
Economics has taught me that market decisions send signals about what is important to actors in society. When the government imposes a high tax on cigarettes, it is attempting to send the signal that we should consume fewer of them. When football fans pay an exorbitant price for Super Bowl tickets, they send the signal to the NFL that they value that game very highly. When the political science program requires very little or no economics courses to graduate, it sends the signal that economics is of little or no importance to politics and government.
From a survey I conducted of the political science faculty, eight of the nine responding professors ranked economics as a more complementary academic area to political science than other areas that are currently required for the degree. Further, on a scale of five levels of importance to political science, from not important to extremely important, eight of the nine professors rated economics as either very important (level four) or extremely important, and again higher than other academic areas currently required. Obviously they do not actually believe that economics is of no importance to politics, so why do they continue to send this signal?
