On Three Non‐Ideological Consequences of Specialisation among Economists

Abstract

With the process of continuous specialisation within economics and with its incessant subdivision into different schools, the practitioners of the discipline are becoming more and more alienated from each other. The need and opportunity to communicate are disappearing. When a dialogue takes place, one side is often unable to hear the other. And even when the other side is heard, it is simply not understood. No attempt is made to explain the causes of such compartmentalisation among economists. Rather, the aim is to underline the three non‐ideological consequences of specialisation within the economics profession. The effects of a mutual misunderstanding are: (1) various names are used to define the same concept; (2) the same name is employed to describe different notions; and (3) the relative character of a given approach is not recognised. Several examples are utilised to underscore the major points. It is concluded that, unless generalisation supersedes fragmentation, no coherent picture of the economic world is possible.