Economic Theory of the “Classboard”: Between Reality and Simulacrum

In 2023–2024, the journal Problems of Economics initiated a discussion on the content of economic education in Russia. Articles by prominent Russian economists — including A. A. Auzan (with co-authors A. A. Maltsev and A. A. Kurdin), A. V. Buzgalin, A. I. Kolganov, A. E. Shastitko, L. M. Grigorieva, V. L. Tambovtsev, and L. S. Grebnev — were published as part of this discourse. While the discussion covered a broad range of issues, it primarily centered on economic theory in its various forms. However, participants overlooked a key issue: subjects like the history of economic thought, political and economic history, and philosophy have largely disappeared from economists’ training. This article seeks to address a fundamental question: Is modern economic theory a simulacrum — akin to the political economy of socialism — or does it still provide an adequate reflection of reality? The authors argue that the recent political and economic crises, which have marked the end of globalization and led to increasing fragmentation, serve as a direct refutation of the long-dominant modernization theory. They conclude that, unlike applied disciplines such as finance, statistics, and management, economic theory as an independent field has ceased to exist in any meaningful way. As a result, discussions about what should be taught in economic theory courses become largely irrelevant — since, in practice, nearly anything can be taught under that label. To move beyond this simulacrum, it is proposed to reframe much of economic theory as part of the history of economic thought, which would help reduce ideological bias among instructors. Additionally, incorporating a course on the philosophy and methodology of economics would equip students with the tools to analyze contemporary ideological frameworks and, if necessary, create their own market-driven simulacra.