The decline of a great institution

Delhi School of Economics once had Dr Manmohan Singh, Amartya Sen as professors. But it has failed to acheive its potential

Manmohan Singh turned 87 a few days ago. Inevitably thoughts turned to the only real exposure I had to him, which was 49 years ago at the Delhi School of Economics (DSE). He taught our class international trade. For all of four months, I think.
 
Inevitably, thoughts also turned to how so many of those who taught there at the end of the 1960s went on to great things — none more so than Dr Singh and Amartya Sen — while how, as an institution, its reputation declined.
 
As Jean Dreze pointed out in an essay published in the book about DSchool back in 1995, it simply failed to achieve its true potential, which could well have been comparable to many international institutions that specialise in economics.
 
I have often wondered why this happened. Between the early 1970s and now, the shortage of staff increased due to unfilled teaching posts but the capability of the few who are there now is not in doubt. To be sure the classes have become much bigger. But there has not been any dilution in the level and rigour of teaching. The standard of examination has also not been diluted.
 
Wages of cussedness
 
So what went wrong? Why has DSchool fallen off the charts?
 
When you peel the onion of explanations, the real reason eventually emerges: The university is squarely responsible. There has been near-zero cooperation from it for close to 40 years.
 
And that points to a more serious problem in our system. Universities give research a lower priority. They focus, as they must, on expanding teaching.
 
It is now evident that DSchool made its biggest mistake in the latter half the 1950s, when it gave up its autonomy and became a department of the University of Delhi. The Indian Statistical Institute, in contrast, refused to do that and has maintained its reputation for excellence. As Jean pointed out in his essay, it has retained its “monastic” quality. Its focus has been on research. In DSchool it’s been the opposite because it’s part of the University of Delhi.
 
But it’s not just between the two stools of teaching and research that DSchool has fallen. I have another theory about this.
 
This is that it has been unable to choose between two contrasting intellectual traditions in economics, one British-European and the other American. The former emphasised analytics while the latter emphasises empirics.
 
When VKRV Rao set it up, India was a bastion of the Oxbridge-LSE ways of thinking about economics. That continued till the end of the 1970s. Its only genuflection in the direction of the US was the sudden and wild swing towards the use of advanced mathematics, which Paul Samuelson had introduced into the discipline at the end of the 1940s.
 
Basically, before the 1980s, an economic theory had to be proved by the use of mathematical techniques of proof. Although this method drove lesser mortals up the wall, it had one huge merit: It forced great intellectual clarity in analysing economic issues.
 
This level of clarity just could not and cannot be substituted by non-mathematical techniques. There was and is no room for waffle.
 
Enter the Yanks
 
The American way, in contrast, is to demand a proper bang for the buck. This has meant proof by data rather than by mathematics.
 
That’s fine because the corrective was much-needed in the face of excesses by theorists. But it created a peculiar problem in India.
 
In the absence of proper data, economists at DSchool, research-wise, were left high and dry. Publications got reduced to a trickle. Soon personal as well as institutional reputation began to suffer.
 
Many professional economists left the country altogether. Others joined professions where deep research was not required. A third lot had to make do with whatever was there — the think-tanks.
 
This, in my (possibly wrong) opinion, has caused a dilemma at DSchool. They don’t know what to emphasise in their teaching: The old European/Oxbridge way or the new American data way.
 
Which leads to the question: Should DSchool seek autonomy and focus on research, leaving behind its identity as the department of economics which the university can keep?
Indeed, this question must be faced by not just DSchool but all universities: Should they delink teaching and research? I believe they should. And this should happen not only in economics but in all disciplines.
 
Otherwise we can expect the remaining centres of excellence also to go the DSchool way, not knowing whether they are fish or fowl. Even worse, having to face the caprices of politically appointed and politically oriented vice-chancellors who confuse status with the power to act arbitrarily.
 
There are far too many of them now reminding one of the saying in Hindi: Bandaron ke haath mein heeron ka haar.