In 2014, a group of economics students at the University of Manchester published a scathing open letter. They accused their own department of teaching a ‘single, narrow, and increasingly irrelevant’ version of the subject. The letter sparked a global movement, Rethinking Economics, which soon gave rise to a more pointed demand: decolonize economics.
Decolonizing economics is not about burning textbooks or banning Western thinkers. It is a critical movement that asks a simple but uncomfortable question: what if the discipline’s core ideas are not universal truths, but products of a specific, colonial history? This article unpacks what that means, why it matters, and what it could change.
The Colonial Roots of Economic Thought
Modern economics did not emerge in a vacuum. It grew up alongside European empire-building. Adam Smith wrote about the wealth of nations while Britain was expanding its colonial reach. John Stuart Mill, another founding father, worked for the East India Company for 35 years. These thinkers didn’t just happen to live in colonial times; their ideas often served colonial ends.
Classical political economy framed colonial extraction as natural and beneficial. Mill, for instance, defended British rule in India as a necessary step toward ‘civilization.’ Later, neoclassical economics stripped away historical context, presenting itself as a value-free science of rational choices. But the assumptions baked into its models—about self-interest, efficiency, and development—were shaped by a worldview that placed Europe at the center of progress.
The Problem with ‘Development’
After World War II, as colonies gained independence, a new field emerged: development economics. Its mission was to help the newly independent Global South ‘catch up’ with the West. But the framework was deeply flawed.
W.W. Rostow’s ‘stages of economic growth’ is a prime example. It portrayed all societies as moving through a linear sequence—from traditional to modern—with the United States as the endpoint. This narrative ignored how the West’s wealth was built on centuries of slavery, land dispossession, and resource extraction. It also prescribed a one-size-fits-all model of industrialization, failing to account for local contexts and histories.
Dependency theorists like Raúl Prebisch and Andre Gunder Frank challenged this narrative head-on. They argued that underdevelopment was not a starting point but a condition produced by the global system. The core (the West) exploited the periphery (the Global South) through unequal trade and financial mechanisms. Development, they said, was not about following a Western blueprint but about breaking free from colonial structures.
What Decolonizing Economics Actually Means
Decolonizing economics is a broad tent. It includes radical calls to rebuild the discipline from non-Western epistemologies, and reformist pushes to pluralize the curriculum. But several common threads tie these efforts together.
First, it means centering colonial history. Mainstream economics often treats colonialism as an externality—something that happened, but not something that shaped the discipline. Decolonial scholars argue that colonial extraction is not a footnote but a foundational force in the global economy. Understanding modern inequality requires reckoning with this history.
Second, it means diversifying the canon. Economics courses typically teach a narrow set of Western thinkers. Decolonizing the curriculum would include scholars from the Global South, like Ha-Joon Chang, Kate Raworth, and Ndongo Samba Sylla. It would also draw on alternative economic traditions, such as Ubuntu economics in Africa, Buen Vivir in Latin America, and Islamic finance.
Third, it means rethinking metrics and goals. GDP has long been the default measure of progress, but it ignores ecological destruction, unpaid care work, and wellbeing. Alternative frameworks, like Kate Raworth’s ‘Doughnut Economics,’ propose targets that respect planetary boundaries and social foundations. These are not just academic exercises; they have real policy implications.
The Pushback and the Stakes
Not everyone is on board. Some economists argue that decolonizing economics is politically motivated and threatens the discipline’s scientific rigor. They contend that economics has progressed by abstracting from context, and that ‘decolonization’ is a metaphor stretched beyond usefulness. This skepticism is not without merit—some calls for decolonization can be vague or performative.
But the movement is not asking to abandon all economic tools. As Ha-Joon Chang puts it, the goal is to recognize that economics is a ‘political argument’ dressed in mathematical clothing. By acknowledging its assumptions, we can make room for multiple perspectives—feminist, ecological, institutional, Marxist—that better reflect the complexity of real economies.
The stakes are high. International institutions like the IMF and the World Bank have long prescribed policies based on neoclassical models. When these fail, the consequences are borne by the world’s poorest. Decolonizing economics is not just an academic exercise; it is about who gets to define what ‘development’ means and who benefits from it.
A Movement in Motion
Universities are slowly responding. SOAS in London, Cambridge, and the University of Cape Town have introduced modules or reviews addressing decolonial perspectives. The American Economic Association has faced calls to diversify its leadership and programming. Student campaigns, like the 2020 ‘Decolonizing Economics’ movement, have pushed for curriculum reform.
But the work is far from complete. In most economics departments, neoclassical theory remains the default. The voices of scholars from the Global South are still marginalized. And the discipline’s methods—heavy on math, light on history—remain resistant to change.
Decolonizing economics is not a quick fix. It is a long, contested process. But as global crises—climate change, inequality, pandemics—expose the limits of mainstream thinking, the demand for a more plural, self-aware economics only grows louder.
Decolonizing economics is not about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is about recognizing that the discipline has a history—one steeped in colonialism—and that this history shapes what we study, how we study it, and who benefits. By questioning where economic ideas come from, we open the door to imagining new ones. The result could be an economics that is not only more inclusive but also more accurate in describing the world we actually live in.
Summary
- Decolonizing economics critiques the Eurocentric foundations of the discipline and seeks to pluralize perspectives and methods.
- The movement targets neoclassical assumptions, linear ‘development’ narratives, and the erasure of colonial extraction from economic history.
- Notable figures include dependency theorists like Prebisch and Frank, and contemporary scholars like Ha-Joon Chang and Kate Raworth.
- Practical changes include diversifying curricula, centering Global South scholars, and rethinking metrics like GDP.
- The movement faces skepticism but has gained momentum amid global crises and calls for institutional reform.
FAQ
Q: Does decolonizing economics mean rejecting all Western economic theory?
A: No. Most proponents do not want to discard all Western tools. They want to question the assumptions behind them and make room for alternative perspectives from the Global South, feminist economics, and ecological economics.
Q: What is the difference between ‘development’ and ‘decolonization’?
A: Traditional development economics frames the Global South as ‘lagging’ and prescribes Western models. Decolonization challenges this by centering colonial history and arguing that underdevelopment is produced by global structures, not a lack of Western-style policies.
Q: How can I learn more about decolonizing economics?
A: Start with works by Ha-Joon Chang (‘Economics: The User’s Guide’), Kate Raworth (‘Doughnut Economics’), and Jason Hickel (‘The Divide’). Look for syllabi from courses on pluralist economics at universities like SOAS or the New School.
Q: What are some examples of alternative economic frameworks?
A: Buen Vivir (from Latin America) emphasizes wellbeing and harmony with nature, Ubuntu economics (from Africa) focuses on community and reciprocity, and Islamic economics prohibits interest and emphasizes ethical investing.
Q: Why is this relevant today?
A: Mainstream economics has struggled to address climate change, rising inequality, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Decolonizing economics offers tools to rethink growth, value, and policy in ways that are more sustainable and equitable.