Articles

“Seven Chinese think tanks ranked among the world’s best”

by

I had a chance to participate in this extended discussion on the future of think tanks as the director of the Asia Institute which was held in Beijing. The event, which was conducted in Chinese, was hosted by the Center for China and Globalization whose President Wang Huiyao was invited me to join the discussion. See the article below in China Plus.

pastreich at think tank conf beijing 2018.01.30

 

China Plus

January 30, 2018

“Seven Chinese think tanks ranked among the world’s best”

 

http://chinaplus.cri.cn/news/china/9/20180130/84907.html?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0#

 

Seven Chinese think tanks have been included among the world’s top think tanks in the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report, published by the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania.

Wang Huiyao is president of the Center for China and Globalization, one of the Chinese think tanks to make the list.

An advisor to the State Council, Wang Huiyao suggests more think tanks – as well as upgrades to the existing ones – are needed to help the government and the public make informed decisions amid unprecedented economic challenges.

“Think tanks will not survive if they don’t innovate. Think tanks are ‘idea factories’ that can influence’ public policies, which I think is very important. We are not consulting firms. Think tanks are non-profit and are supposed to provide better ideas for the public and the making of public policy.”

 

Ding Yifan is a senior researcher with National Strategy Institute with Tsinghua University.

He says think tanks today are faced with huge challenges amid mounting populist sentiment.

“Think tanks need to find ways to provide rational and comprehensive ideas to decision-makers. Decisions on public policy cover a wide range of aspect. Rational ideas can be hard to accept when there is an explosion of populism. Many global think tanks are faced with just such challenges.”

In China, most think-tanks are backed by the government or run through the country’s university system.

 

And while the rise in social media has seen these institutions faced with a new level immediate public scrutiny for their concepts, Liu Qian head of Greater China for “The Economist,” says its up to these institutions to rise above the noise to provide sound advice to policy makers.

” I think the most important thing for researchers is insight. The development of new media does have an impact on us. But we’ve found that while the public usually notes the latest news on twitter, facebook and other social media outlets, they invariably turn to us to see like what ‘The Economist’ says. In an era of information explosions, we spend a lot of time and energy on doing researches and investigation for a report. Although the public may sometimes be affected by various sentiments, they almost always realize the importance of insight and rational thought.”

 

Selected from a list of over 170 top think tanks around the world, seven Chinese think tanks on the list include China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, which is the best performer, ranking the highest among the Chinese groups on the list at 29.

The report shows the United States has the largest number of think tanks, at over 18-hundred, while China sits second with over 500, followed by the UK and India.

 

by

 

 중앙일보

“흥미 추구는 언론의 정도가 아니다”

2018년 1월 26일

임마누엘 페스트라이쉬

 

언론인 친구에게 물었다. 탐사보도가 급격히 줄고, 음식•패션과 정치인 신변에 대한 뉴스가 쏟아져 나오는 것에 우리 사회가 어떻게 대처해야 하느냐고. 내가 요즘 보도는 깊이가 없다고 하자 그는 독자들, 특히 젊은층이 긴 뉴스를 읽거나 보는 데 필요한 인내심을 갖고 있지 않다고 대꾸했다. 뉴스 소비자들이 재미가 있으면서도 길지 않은 것을 좋아하며 세세한 설명에는 금세 지루함을 느낀다는 얘기였다.

그런데 그의 생각은 틀렸다. 시민들이 긴 기사를 읽거나 사회의 변화를 보여주는 구체적 사례들을 살펴보는 데 필요한 집중력을 충분히 갖고 있지 않은 것이 지금은 사실일지라도 영원불변의 진리는 아니다. 시민, 특히 젊은이들이 그 정도의 인내력도 없다면 이는 우리가 중대한 위기에 직면해 있음을 의미한다. 사회가 병들었고, 이에 대한 해결책 마련이 급선무라는 것을 뜻하기도 한다.

우리는 시민들이 복잡한 이슈에 집중력을 발휘하며 사려 깊은 생각을 하는 능력을 다시 갖도록해야 한다. 시민들이 심각한 사안에 대해 집중하지 못하는 것은 안타까운 일이다. 미디어의 퇴보, 그리고 일반 시민들의 지적 능력의 쇠퇴는 정책의 수립과 이행을 어렵게 한다. 우리가 이런 방향으로 계속 가면 국가 운영에도 문제가 생긴다.

Read more

“Media as a way of understanding our world accurately” Korea times

by

 

Korea times

“Media as a way of understanding our world accurately”

January 27, 2018

Emanuel Pastreich

 

 

I ask a journalist friend how we should respond to the precipitous decline in investigative reporting and disturbing replacement of a calm presentation of the facts about policy by sensationalist news about food, fashion, and the personalities of politicians.

But when I explained the superficiality of reporting these days, the response I received is that readers (or viewers), and especially the young, do not have the patience to read anything too long. That is to say that the audience for media demands materials that writing must be entertaining and short, lest they be bored by the details.

But the whole assumption behind the response seemed so completely wrong that I was left speechless. The fact that citizens lack the concentration to read long articles, or probe into the details of how their society works is not a reality, like sun rising in the East, to which the media must adjust.

Rather that lack of patience among our citizens, and above all among our youth, is the greatest crisis we face and makes it impossible for our society to function and for us to make responsible long-term policy. It is a social ill whose solution should be our primary concern.

Rather, we must change everything else in order to restore to our citizens the ability to concentrate and to consider complex issues without resorting to the stimulus of social network memes, video games or gaudy gag shows. It is not an interesting fact of modern society that citizens have trouble concentrating on significant content, or remembering names and dates. Rather the degeneration of media, and decline in the intellectual sophistication of average citizens, undermines the formulation and implementation of policy and if we follow this path, Korea will become ungovernable.

It seems as if we assume that journalism is a process by which a product is produced, not unlike a candy bar, and it must be marketed so that consumers will buy it. The goal, it seems, is that people purchase appealing media products and that this process produces profit for media corporations.

But the profit from media reporting should be the least insignificant aspect of newspapers, magazines and television broadcasts. Rather the media must serve above all to provide relevant, carefully-researched information about what is happening in local society, and around in the world, in a systematic manner to citizens. The news needs to not merely relate what famous people did, but also present the historical background for contemporary events and explain the structure and the nature of the institutions of our country. Unfamiliar terms must be defined and the articles should be accessible manner for a broad audience.

The media should take the time to explain in detail the historical background behind current society. We must create a culture in which citizens have the patience and concentration to engage in a serious discussion about what the significance of the past is for the present and future. The media assumes that all citizens know what the World Bank or the United Nations are and how the functions. But this is not an honest approach to journalism. Most people have only the vaguest idea of what these organizations do. Moreover, even for those with real experience, the institutions have changed considerably over the last five years, demanding that we consider their nature because it is relevant to the story.

Our focus should be on producing a culture in which citizens take the time to read and to think about what they read, on establishing a culture in which the significance of narratives, rather than their entertainment value, is the highest priority. We must insist on such a culture from kindergarten through old age.

If anything, media should demand that the reader challenge himself, that he rise to the occasion and embrace the difficulty of understanding our complex society. In light of the rise of anti-intellectualism, and the decline of scientific analysis, in our current approach to governance and economics, we need to create a society in which people slow down, think about what they read and have the mental leisure to take ruminate on complexity.

Populism is not the result of politicians, but rather is the product of a self-indulgent attitude of the citizen, combined with indifference toward fact. Populism is disturbingly anti-scientific even as it embraces glitzy technology.

Such a bread and circuses approach to political and economic dialog in the media renders our citizens unable to put grasp the subtle factors that drive change in our society and to formulate policy in response. Political leaders feel compelled to create drama for the media and the process of formulating and implementing policy becomes a sideshow.

The question is how we can create a culture for the nation that encourages concentration and that allows citizens to engage in a sophisticated dialog with each other on the critical issues of our time

Encouraging our citizens to be more intellectual, for example, by showing them images of educated and thoughtful people in the media around them who wrestle with complex ethical questions, is a first step. It must be clear to our youth that being an informed citizen, rather than wealthy or powerful, is the only way to live a meaningful life. We must be patient enough and brave enough to observe our world as it really is. E. M. Forester wrote, “Either life entails courage, or it ceases to be life.”

If we need to significantly decrease the role of cell phones and on-line social media in Korea in order to achieve this goal of a reading public that thinks deeply about what it reads, we should not hesitate for a moment.

It is far more critical for Korea to have citizens who can comprehend the profound and complex social and environmental issues that they face today than it is for Korea to be a leader in the sales of smartphones.

The time has come to for us to focus on the essentials of creating a healthy society, starting by creating a media whose purpose is to engage citizens in the most sophisticated of intellectual dialogues, demanding that they rise to the challenge, rather than the media treating them like ignorant children. We have a responsibility to avoid being distracted from the crisis of our age by short-term thrills.

 

“외국인의 눈으로 본 대한민국의 가능성” 기쁜소식

by

주간기쁜소식

외국인의 눈으로 본 대한민국의 가능성

 

2018년 1월 5일

송미아 기자

 

한국의 역사와 전통을 사랑하는 임마누엘 페스트라이쉬 교수(53)는 미래 한국이 나아갈 방향은 우리 고유의 문화 속에서 발견할 수 있다고 말한다. 이번 주는 자랑스러운 대한민국 시리즈 2회로 임마누엘 교수를 통해 자랑스러운 대한민국을 재조명해 본다.

 

기적적인 경제성장 배후에 지적 전통 있어

“1950년대 대한민국은 아프리카 소말리아 수준이었다. 국민적 희생과 경제성장으로 지금은 10대 선진국 수준에 올라섰다”고 말하는 국민들이 많다.

이러한 국민들의 역사인식은 일제강점기와 한국전쟁부터 시작된다. 그래서 비극적인 과거를 벗어나게 한 끈기와 열정의 국민성이 그저 자랑스럽기만 하다.

그러나 미국인 임마누엘 페스트라이쉬(경희대 국제대학원 부교수, 한국명 이만열) 교수는 지금의 눈부신 경제성장의 배후에는 수백 년간 이어온 전통문화와 기술이 자리 잡고 있다고 주장한다.

임마누엘 교수는 1995년 하버드대 박사과정 중, 서울대 교환학생으로 왔다가 연암 박지원과 다산 정약용의 글에 감명을 받고 한국 전통사상과 문학에빠져들었다. 이후 한국인과 결혼하며 20년 동안 한국의 우수성과 가능성을 제시하고 있는 임마누엘 교수를 압구정동 카페에서 만났다. 상당한 수준의 한국어를 구사하는 모습에 내심 놀랐다.

그는 한국이 세계에서 가장 가난한 나라였다가 경제대국이 된 것이 아니라 제 2차 세계대전의 폐허를 딛고 일어선 독일과 일본처럼, 일제강점기와 한국전쟁을 견디고 새로운 중흥을 맞이한 것이라고 주장했다. “당시 한국과 소말리아는 절대 비슷하지 않았다. 비록 지하자원은 부족했지만 한국은 수천 년 동안 내려온 위대한 학구열과 학자 존중 전통이 있었다. 구호식량을 타기 위해 줄 선 사람 중에는 화학이나 기계공학 전문가가 있었고 국가 전략을 세울 지식인도 있었다. 1960년대 이후 이룩한 기적적인 성장의 배후에도 지적 전통과 함께 조선왕조 500년의 행정력과 정신이 있었다”고 자신 있게 말했다. 이는 우리 국민들도 간과하고 지나친 내용으로 인터뷰를 하는 기자의 얼굴을 부끄럽게 만들었다.

새로운 정책은 조선왕조 역사에서 찾아야

“한국정부가 새로운 정책을 구상할 때 미국이나 선진국의 시스템을 배워 혁신하려고만 할 뿐 조선의 전통에 대해서는 관심이 없는 것 같다”고 말하는 임마누엘 교수. 그에  따르면 조선시대의 △행정시스템으로는 왕과 정치를 비판하며 정확하고 객관적인 정보를 정리하는 정부기관이 존재해 조선왕조실록이 기록되었는데 이 시스템은 한국뿐 아니라 세계적으로도 모범이 될 수 있었다. 또한 △우수한 교육기관인 향교와 서원이 있었고 △인성함양을 위해서는 신분을 뛰어넘는 유대관계와 인간관계에 대한 해법을 제시한 예학이 있었다. 이는 현대인들의 예의기준으로 활용이 가능하다. 무엇보다도 △정신적으로는 널리 인간을 이롭게 한다는 홍익인간 정신을 토대로 한 선비가 이상적인 현대지식인상이 될 수 있다고 말한다.
그는 또한 “지속가능한 생태도시의 모델을 찾기 위해 해외에 갈 것이 아니라 20세기까지 완벽한 환경도시였던 한양을 연구하면 된다”며 1등 국가로 갈 수 있는 모든 가능성은 과거 한국의 문화유산에 있다고 말했다.

전통을 모르는 정체성 부재로 부정적 인식 만연

우리나라는 IT, 자동차, 가전제품 등 각종 기술에서 세계 일류를 달린다. 그러나 이를 가능케 한 집중력과 전략의 바탕인 문화와 전통은 자랑스럽게 다루지 않는다. 자신의 예술과 음식, 건축 등의 수백 년 역사를 막힘없이 풀어내는 유럽인들과 달리 역사적 전통에 무지한 우리는 엄청난 자산을 보유하고 있음에도 국제적으로 자신을 드러내는 데 소극적이다.
이에 대해 임마누엘 교수는 “한국인 대부분이 미국인보다 교육수준이 높은데도 자신의 입장을 표명할 용기와 아이디어, 비전이 없다. 한국인이 적극적으로 자신을 알리지 못하는 이유는 중화사상에서 영향을 받은 사대주의와 분단국가라는 심리적 부담감, 전통을 모르는 정체성 부재 때문이다”라며 안타까워했다.

일본이 식민통치를 정당화하기 위해 폄하하고 단절시킨 역사로 인해 재능 많고 열정적인 한국인은 자신에 대해 부정적이고 냉소적이며 서로 협력하기보다 경쟁하기에 급급하게 되었다. 임마누엘 교수는 “지난 50년만을 생각하지 말고 500년~800년간의 전통문화를 염두해 두면 대한민국에 대한 무한한 가능성과 충분한 잠재력을 인식할 수 있다. 자신의 정체성이 제대로 확립될 때야 비로소 한국은 국제사회에서 그 위상을 내세울 수 있을 것이다”라고 강조했다.

miasong@igoodnews.or.kr

“유엔 본부를 한국으로 옮겨오자!“ 다른 백년

by

다른 백년

“유엔 본부를 한국으로 옮겨오자!“

2018년 1월 2일

임마누엘 페스트라이쉬

미국의 유엔 분담금을 대폭 삭감하겠다는 트럼프 행정부의 결정은 예루살렘을 이스라엘의 수도로 인정하려는 미국의 입장을 유엔이 거부한 것에 대한 충격 및 이에 따른 보복이라고 대체로 해석된다. 그러나 니키 헤일리(Nikki Haley) 주유엔미국대표부 대사가 뭐라고 언급했건, 도널드 트럼프의 유엔 연설과 존 볼튼(John Bolton)이 일찍이 트럼프 행정부 하에서 했던 논평 속에는, 유엔을 통한 전 세계 거버넌스에서 미국의 참여를 획기적으로 축소하거나 아예 종료하려는 의도가 계속 시사되어 왔다.

미국이 국제사회를 실망시킨 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다. 글로벌 거버넌스를 향한 최초의 노력을 좌절시킨 것이 1919년 미국 의회의 국제연맹(the League of Nations) 비준 실패였고, 훗날 일본과 독일이 국제연맹을 용이하게 탈퇴하고 결국 파국적인 결과를 가져오게 한 것이 바로 신흥 강대국의 비극적인 의지 부재였다.

Read more

“Bring United Nations headquarters to Korea” Korea Times

by

Korea Times

“Bring United Nations headquarters to Korea”

January 1, 2018

Emanuel Pastreich

 

 

The Trump administration’s decision to reduce drastically the U.S. contribution to the United Nations was generally interpreted as payback after the stunning rebuke to the American decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
However, whatever US ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley may have said, there were plenty of hints in Donald Trump’s speech at the UN, and in comments by John Bolton early on in the administration, that it was the intention all along to limit drastically, or end, U.S. participation in global governance via the U.N.

This is not the first time the U.S. has disappointed the international community. It was the US Congress’ failure to ratify the League of Nations back in 1919 that undercut the effectiveness of that first effort at global governance. Tragically, it was this lack of commitment by a rising power that made it easier for Japan and Germany to pull out later, with catastrophic consequences.

Read more

“Being asked for money on Christmas” Korea Times

by

Korea Times

“Being asked for money on Christmas”

Emanuel Pastreich

December 24, 2017

 

It is perhaps one of the most hackneyed sermons that is regularly delivered by ministers on Christmas and it starts out with the words “what would Jesus say?” The sermon typically enumerates the sins of materialism and superficiality and demonstrates how they have reduced Christmas to a celebration of the senses and an indulgence of the ego. Most church-goers are entirely capable of listening to the sermon, nodding in agreement and then going out into a world of the most radical materialistic ideology without batting an eyebrow.

I never wanted to be a preacher, and I approach this topic with trepidation. But this year I feel oddly compelled by the deeply unhealthy trends I see in Korea, and in the societies of many nations, to suggest that this time it is not enough to talk about these problems in the abstract. This time we must take the first step in the right direction by confronting the truth.

I am afraid these days to walk in Gwanghwamun because I will encounter numerous people ringing bells for Salvation Army and looking at me with imploring eyes that demand that I make a donation. Or there are young people asking me to sign up for some program to give a fixed amount of money every month for some worthy cause or another.

I have given money on several occasions to these groups, but I have reached the limit.

No, it is not the limit. Nor is it the many articles that touch on the serious question of how much of the money given to “save the polar bears” campaigns actually goes beyond the bureaucracy.

The problem is a profound one. It is not merely that I do not always have spare change, or that I regret having to disappoint the young people who are out trying to raise money for good causes. Rather I am bothered by this feeling that if I made more money, if I could make a large donation of cash, I could do more good.

Such an assumption that having more money means we can do more good, however, is completely out of line with the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere in his sayings does he ever suggest that having more money will make one a more virtuous being. If anything, Jesus is best known for his statement that “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

There is so much that one can do to help other people, but the only option that is offered to us is the chance to give money to some organization with which we have no connection.

I have asked many of these groups about what I can do to contribute and invariably I am told that a monetary contribution is the only path. Like the indulgence in expensive presents and pricy Christmas vacations, such modern practices are distant from what we actually see in the teachings of Jesus which I naively associate with Christmas.

I was invited to give a talk for a Christian youth group recently at a fancy church in Seoul recently. The church, with its marble and soaring staircase reminded me of the Hyatt Hotel. The event was enjoyable and I was impressed by the ideas that some of the students expressed about how they would devote themselves to service. But at the same time, I heard a voice in my head demanding that I ask them why their church had to be so lavish, and why they had to attend such elite colleges.

Of course, to say something like that would be a condemnation of myself –which was no doubt the intention of that voice. I grew up in a family which had the financial means, and which provided me with the intellectual environment, necessary to attend excellent schools. Ultimately, the criticisms of what I saw all pointed back to me.

The next day, I stopped at Seoul Citizen’s Hall, the open space in the basement beneath the new Seoul City hall, for a few hours to finish my grading. I sat down on one of the padded benches towards the back that are open to the public. When the Citizen’s Hall opened five years ago, these innovative spaces were quite popular with young people who would hang out on the foam mattresses and converse.

I was startled to find this time that the space is now full of homeless people seeking shelter from the cold.

Let us be honest: the radical concentration of wealth is not just something happening far away in other countries, but is directly impacting Korean society as well — granted the media does not touch much on the plight of the poor. That gross inequity, which is only getting worse, should be the focus of our concerns for Christmas, and yet we spend our time pretending it does not exist.

I had a chance to speak with some of the homeless who gathered to keep warm in the Citizen’s Hall and I came away convinced that they were people who would not have been there a few years ago. You have to ask how long it will be before we will be joining them. I do not pose that question facetiously.

If Jesus were wandering around in Seoul, where do you think he would be?

Would he attending a  luxurious Gangnam Church, drinking a café latte in the lounge?

I doubt he would be allowed in.

Would he be buying perfume, or designer handbags, at a glimmering department store?

He would have neither the money nor the interest.

Jesus spent his time with beggars, outcasts and prostitutes, and he was shunned by the well-to-do in his time.

He would most likely have been on one of the back benches at the Citizen’s Hall, talking with the middle-aged woman with a sleeping bag and a bag full of assorted items who tried to sleep there, but was repeatedly asked to get up by a security guard.

It seems unlikely we can make any progress in addressing the increasing fragmentation of our society by giving bits of change to charity groups on the street.

Nor can we expect large grants from billionaires to solve our torments.

The world will start to change only when we are ready to engage and work with those who form the invisible classes around us, only when we say thank you to the people who make our food and clean our offices, and treat them as our equals; only when we show concern for the futures of the young people working in coffee shops. Only when we realize that the position in society that those others have has nothing to do with their merits or their qualities. Only when we think of them like family, like friends, only then will change come.

Might we be able to see people in a manner that is not monetary? Will we be willing to recognize that for all its convenience and thrills, the market economy has reduced people to things, products for consumption and disposal?

I would suggest that it will not be too many Christmases in the future that we will face an even bleaker reality if we do not face it now.

다른 백년 “트럼프가 승리한 이유, 미국 정치 3국지에 있다”

by

다른 백년

“트럼프가 승리한 이유, 미국 정치 3국지에 있다”

2017년 12월 22일

임마누엘 페스트라이쉬

 

민주당 대 공화당. 한국이 생각하는 미국의 정치 구조다. 그러나 이렇게 미국을 보면 지금 워싱턴에서 벌어지는 일을 이해하기 어렵다. 미국이 한국의 정치 담론에서 워낙 중요한 역할을 담당했기 때문에 미국 문화와 제도는 무조건 ‘선진’이라는 믿음이 고착화되어 미국에 대한 객관적 평가를 내리기 어려운 이유도 있다. 미국 제도가 쇠락하고 있음을 인정하면 그 동안 한국이 쌓아온 가치와 우선순위의 모순점이 드러나기 때문이다.

그러나 보다 직접적인 원인은 다른 데 있다. 한국이 미국의 정치를 보수 대 진보의 대립 구조로 보고 ‘싶어 한다’는 것이다. 믿음과 맞지 않는 사실이 발견되어도 결국엔 보수-진보의 이분법에 어떻게든 끼워 넣는다.

사실 미국 정치는 3개 정치 세력이 합종연횡(合從連橫)을 반복하는 삼국지에 가깝다. 트럼프가 대통령으로 당선되고 아직 탄핵 당하지 않은 것도 바로 이 삼각구도 덕분이다. 그럼 우리의 상식과 전혀 맞지 않는 미국판 삼국지 양상을 살펴보자.

영어 표현 ‘삼각 투쟁(three-way fight)’은 2006년 8월 3일 매튜 라이언스 (Matthew Lyons)가 블로그에 올린 논평 <적의 적을 지킨다(Defending My Enemy’s Enemy)>에서 시작됐다. 좌편향적이긴 하지만, 미국의 정치 현실을 정확히 짚어낸 글이다. 좌파와 우파, 억압과 해방의 이분법적 구조가 아니다. 글로벌 자본주의를 신봉하는 지배층과 혁명 좌파, 혁명 우파 등의 3개 진영에서 벌어지는 ‘삼각 투쟁’이다. 혁명 우파라고 하면 글로벌 자본의 지배구조를 다른 억압적 사회 질서로 대체하려는 극우파와 파시스트 등이 모두 포함된다고 그는 적었다.

Read more

“Prepare for North Korean terror in Gangnam” Korea Times

by

Korea Times

“Prepare for North Korean terror in Gangnam”

December 3, 2017

 

There has been a lot of hot rhetoric in Washington, D.C.and Seoul about how Trump and a pumped up U.S. -Korea alliance are going to “take care of” Pyongyang. But I fear that the thinking is fuzzy, if not delusional. North Korea, with extensive underground facilities built over the last fifty years, cannot be stopped by either a precision attack, or an all-out assault. Even if a suicidal Donald Trump dropped 50 atomic bombs on North Korea, he might permanently destroy the climate of Northeast Asia, he might be removed from office through a coup d’etat, but he will do nothing to even scratch the nuclear weapons North Korea is storing deep beneath the surface of the Earth. 

Read more

“Do Korean universities teach economics? ”

by

Korea Times

“Do Korean universities teach economics? ”

November 29, 2017

Emanuel Pastreich

 

Almost all of my undergraduate students take courses in economics and I greatly envy them for it. Sadly, I never had a chance to study economics as an undergraduate and do not consider myself to be qualified in the field.

So, in my ignorance, I started asking them questions related to economic phenomena during my classes on Korean and East Asian history.

But I discovered a remarkable fact about the study of economics in Korea when I made my questions to my students more specific about the impact of economics on politics and society: I found out that I had read more about economics than most of my students who had taken years of economics classes in college.

When I asked them about the fundamentals of economic theory, I discovered that in the course of their classes in “economics” they had not read any of the major works of Adam Smith, Max Weber, Karl Marx, John Keynes, or even contemporary critics like Thomas Piketty.

Read more