Invisible Handcuffs: Unchaining Economics

Shloka Murarka is an economics Masters student, former activist with Rethinking Economics and now board member of the new UK Association for Quality Economics, AQE, an initiative she helped to launch this year — and the focus of this episode. Keynes is quoted as having said that “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Well, if that’s true, then the youth protesting around the world are ultimately protesting the ideas put in place by those “practical men” (and let’s face it, they are still mostly men), in service to defunct economic ideas that area clearly no longer serving us. From the streets of Paris, Brussels, Mumbai — young people are demanding an education, and an economy that serves their futures. But how can we expect new economic ideas that can meet their needs if the subject itself cannot attract — and importantly, retain — the very people most in need of them? Keynes also said he one way hoped that economists would be thought of as, “humble, competent people — more like dentists.” Could requiring economics to meet certain standards - much like dentists and other “vocations” — be part of the solution? That’s the thinking behind the new AQE — a new accreditation for UK universities. Because, despite economics liking to frame itself as a”hard” science doing “positive” research with “neutral” tools, of the some 200 accreditation bodies that exist for various subjects in the UK, there is not, as yet, a single standard for economics. The AQE sets out to change that. Shloka joined me to discuss how it came about, and what she and her colleagues hope it will achieve. If you care about economics system change, as Shloka says, economics education is key to that, so especially, but not only, if you are in the UK — I highly recommend checking out the AQE and considering joining. See links in the show notes for more. And if you enjoy the episode, do please like and subscribe and share in your networks. Thank you to Shloka for the brilliant interview and everyone involved at AQE for this important work!

In our first season we explored the various problems with the discipline of economics and how they relate to our crises. In season two we’re starting to dive into the various ways — given all its flaws and given mounting frustration with the status quo — economics seems to resist reform. One of the ways is in the institution of education, the university, itself. That's the topic of discussion with our guest in this episode, Jennie C Stephens, Professor of Climate Justice at the University of Maynooth in Ireland and author of the acclaimed open source book Climate Justice and the University: Shaping a Hopeful Future for All. After starting out in the natural sciences, Jennie tells of how she became frustrated with the 'technical' solutions to climate change, and shifted instead to dedicating her research to climate justice. Part of that research has taken her to exploring the role of the university itself and how it upholds the extractive, fossil fuel economy. Much of that comes back to the economic model of the past decades, infused by neoclassical/neoliberal economic thinking. We discuss how universities have become increasingly financialised and how many universities, even the most elite, rely heavily on private donors and corporate partnerships, with Jennie citing research she’s undertaken into the role of fossil fuel funding in energy and technology departments in some of the most prestigious universities around the world. But as we also get into, it’s not just private funding. Public funds, where they do get directed towards education, also often go towards the same kinds of extractive industries. We talk particularly about how that is playing out in Ireland right now, one of the data centre capitals of the world, where public research funds are increasingly being funnelled towards AI and not towards, say — figuring out ways to live without fossil fuels. We end by discussing visions of the role the university could play — if it took on its of contributing to the common good. Find out more and join the movement here: https://climatejusticeuniversitiesunion.org/ If you enjoy this episode please share it far and wide, sign up for future episodes and ad-hoc articles at invisiblehandcuffs.com, where you can also opt for a paid subscription if you'd like to support this project and our efforts towards making a documentary. Thank you for listening! ...

Our guests this episode, which kicks of Season 2, are Stefan Pühringer and Theresa Hager of the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria. We recorded this conversation at the end of the summer 2026 and are releasing it a few weeks later, during a week in which many European universities are opening their doors for a new wave of students. Which makes it an apt episode to start with because, it is all about the influence of economics education on our mindsets, on our imaginations, and how this in turn feeds through into what we as a society believe is possible in the face of multiple, overlapping crises — from climate change through to cost-of-living crises and raging inequality. Stefan and Theresa work across two heterodox institutes: the Institute for the Complete analysis of the Economy and the Social Ecological Transformation Lab. Both seek to embed economics in society and in ecology, and to explore what both alternative economic approaches as well as other disciplines can offer in meeting today’s challenges. A common response by mainstream or neoclassical economists of anyone critiquing their field is that the said critic just doesn’t understand economics. Or indeed, that many of the critiques are only commons to introductory courses and that if you gone to do a masters or a PhD then you would encounter more nuance, more real world tethering. Well, both Stefan and Theras actually studied neoclassical economics to PhD level and they retained their criticisms so much so that they have effectively dedicated their academic careers to trying to reform economics from the ground up. Not only do they argue that those more advanced degrees are not necessarily any better are — citing for example the lack of reform since the financial crisis, or the shocking lack of interest in top journals to publishing anything about climate change. But they also argue that those introductory courses, the ones this week and next many young people across Europe and the Northen Hemisphere will be offered not only as part of their economics degrees but perhaps if they are study the humanities, law, accounting, finance even engineering — that these are actually the most formative. Their own research has shown economics 101 affects students’ political views and their understanding of societal challenges. We also address the on-going problem of gender bias in economics with woman and people of a non-male and also non-white, non-middle class background being least represented. About how competition in the higher education system but in particular in economics is partly to blame. Women respond differently to the competitive pressure to publish in those top journals. While for those who stay and fight their way to the top are often the ones who have, willingly or not, conformed to the neoclassical stereotype. As such, just having a few leading women economists doesn’t necessary mean we’ll see reforms, because they have often been trained in the same neoclassical mindset. And so we cannot just focus on trying to attract more women into the discipline absent a change in how economics is taught and practiced. If it doesn’t embrace pluralism of thought, and allow for more critical engagement, more critiques of fundamental assupmptions around say the sanctity of economic growth, or capitalism as the only possible system. This was a really valuable and insightful conversation. If you want to learn more, I’ve added links in the show notes.

In what way might economists’ flawed understanding of progress be driving the many risks we face today? This episode's guest is Luke Kemp, Research Affiliate at the Cambridge Center for the Study of Existential Risk and author of the best-selling, critically acclaimed book Goliath’s Curse, The History and Future of Societal Collapse. Luke actually trained and worked as a climate economist. Indeed he was drawn to researching civilisational collapse when he saw that climate economic models were tending to look only at average trajectories and not so-called tail risks — these are the worst case outcomes which may have a smaller probability, but could be potentially catastrophic. But to understand civilisational risk he realised he had to define what civilizations actually are. And this is where his work actually becomes highly relevant for understanding the ways in which economics is going wrong today, and how we might be able to fix it. Many of us, not just economists, equate civilisation with progress. That Hobbesian idea that life was nasty, brutish and short until the civilising force of states and empires came and liberated us. But when Luke started to dig into these periods he found contradictory evidence. Rather than being times of human flourishing, health and wellbeing actually tends to fall overall, while ecological degradation, resource conflicts, inflation, violence all tend to rise. So they were not really civil times in the sense we might understand the word today — but structured around what Luke terms dominance hierarchies - dominance of humans over nature, men over women, rich over poor, master over slave. It might have been good for elites, who got to hoard all the wealth and power — but not the broader population. Indeed, when these civilisations fall, most people tend to be better off. Hence Luke developed his preferred term: Goliaths. Well, today Luke claims we’re living in a Global Goliath, the period that effectively started with the industrial revolution. And this is where we make the link with economics, because much of economics takes the hockey-stick view of human progress as effectively starting a few hundred years ago, with industrialisation, which led to this massive expansion in the global economy, in wealth and so-called progress. And no doubt, a lot of good has come out of it. Especially since WWII life expectancy, nutrition etc has improved. But again, that’s not the whole story. Luke has found that for much of the industrial revolution, like past “Goliaths”, life was pretty terrible for most people, in many ways worse than before. It wasn’t until democratic struggle — labour movements, suffragettes, civil rights movements — that populations more broadly were able to benefit from the innovation, from this “progress”. So what does that mean for today? In my earlier discussion with economist Steve Keen we talked about how economists’ obsession with innovation as the key driver of growth overlooked that all technology requires energy. Luke's analysis helps us see that part of the reason why economists ignored and continue to ignore energy and nature stems from the idea that we can dominate nature, as well as a view of history effectively written by elites who have benefited from innovation and growth. Not only do such models ignore nature, but they ignore the social movements so critical to ensuring that innovations benefit people more broadly. And they also ignore the externalities —because each technology brings new problems. And yet today we still see economic models betting on innovation as the core means of producing growth, with growth overall necessarily assumed to be good, whatever the risks — not least as concerns AI — Luke's latest area of research, which we get to towards the end of the discussion. If you enjoy this episode, please like and share far and wide and consider a free or paid subscription at invisiblehandcuffs.com.

Our latest episode of Invisible Handcuffs I was delighted to be joined by Bhumika Muchhala, Political Economist and Senior Advisor at Third World Network as well as Part-Time Faculty at The New School. Our discussion centres on the problem of Eurocentrism in economics, and its impact on a region where neoliberal economics is arguably doing most damage: the Global South. Eurocentrism refers to the global dominance of western ideas and ideologies in economics and by default — in our international trade and financial institutions. In our discussion Bhumika argues that while the violence and looting of political colonisation in the Global South (home to 80-88% of the world’s population, spanning central and southern America, Africa, central and south-east Asia) may be over — it has been replaced by 'economic colonisation'. We talked about one institution in particular — the IMF — with Bhumika explaining this is a ‘kitchen table’ issue in the Global South, even though it is countries in the Global North — especially the US and Europe — that hold most sway, with the lion’s share of voting rights and powers to appoint its leadership. This Euroecentric dominance shows up in IMF loans conditions couched in terms like ‘market liberalisation’ and ‘fiscal discipline’ — whose lineage can be traced back to neoliberal economists like Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. These conditions force austerity on countries already struggling to provide basic services, while demanding ‘investibility’ like cuts to labour protections, corporate taxes and environmental red tape. In short, they underpin extraction and ongoing ‘unequal exchange’ — the transfer of cheap resources and labour from South to North thanks to permanently weakened currencies and a need to sell resources for foreign currency to pay back their loans. As Bhumika explains, this is then compounded by western credit rating agencies who downgrade countries as soon as public spending rises, even if the cause stems from elsewhere (like Covid-related healthcare spending). This drives up the cost of debt and puts countries at risk of default, forcing them back to the IMF. And thus, the vicious debt-austerity cycle repeats. The numbers on debt stress in the Global South today that we discuss are truly shocking with debt repayments in many countries now vastly outstripping spending on health, education, public infrastructure or welfare — let alone climate. And yet that’s even not the worst part. Because according to Bhumika, also a decolonial feminist scholar, the real ‘shock absorbers’ of IMF- and market-imposed austerity are women, with Bhumika also explaining the 'triple jeopardy' of diminished access to essential services, loss of livelihoods, and increased unpaid work and time poverty. We end by talking about the need not just for economic justice but epimestic justice. This means enabling a plurality of though schools both in economic thinking and in knowledge creation more broadly. Bhumika ends by giving her view on some possible issues around which we might be able to unite, across Global North and South. This episode marks the first in a set that will delve more deeply into the ways in which the neoliberal status quo in economics is upheld and reinforced. You can stay tuned for more episodes by subscribing at www.invisiblehandcuffs.com.

How can philosophy of science help us in the fight to reclaim economics? That is the topic of discussion in our latest episode of Invisible Handcuffs, where I was delighted to be joined by leading a social-ecological economist Clive Spash. This discussion brought a whole new language to problems with economics that I have long sensed, but been unable to put into words. We delve deep into philosophy of science which Clive argues is crucial not just for deconstructing mainstream economics - which Clive says is literally walking us into disaster - but also, if we wish to build a new economics that can offer viable alternatives to the extractive and exploitative economies we have today. We also take time to discuss Clive’s route into ecological economics via environmental activism, and then later, to social-ecological economics which integrates social justice, incorporating aspects such as ethics, decolonialism and care. We also discuss links with other heterodox economics disciplines with Clive explaining how he hopes social-ecological economics could become a unifying social science that informs new approaches seeking to meet genuine needs within the earth’s finite limits. – Note, this episode comes after a short and partly unplanned break due to heatwaves and other unforeseen personal circumstances. For the summer we’re going to be switching to a biweekly schedule and will also be posting ad-hoc context related to our upcoming documentary. To be sure to receive the latest content to your inbox you can sign up at www.invisiblehandcuffs.com. This also helps the algorithm ensure others find out work.

This week we discuss the need to overthrow the current economic paradigm, and what a new one could look like, with Professor Steve Keen. Steve is a prolific writer, teacher, blogger and vlogger, known as one of few economists to have predicted the global financial crash and a thorn in the side of mainstream or neoclassical economics for over 50 years. A former professor of economics at Kingston university in the UK, today you’re most likely to find him on YouTube or one of his weekly online seminars talking about the crisis of capitalism and the various flaws in mainstream thinking that have led us here, as well as the new real world-tethered economics he is trying to build. I first came across his work when researching why the world had ignored the Limits to Growth. Steve had uncovered deep flaws in climate economics, the strand of mainstream economics used by to inform climate policies for governments around the world for decades, including to set spending priorities and carbon pricing. The godfather of climate economics, William Nordhaus, was also one of the core critics of the Limits to Growth. But while that study had warned of a potential collapse in civilisation this century, a trajectory we appear to be on track for, Nordhaus’ own model, developed two decades later model found quite the opposite. And yet it would be his model that would set the template for others, with Steve and I agreeing that this is a core reason for the decades and indeed ongoing delay in tackling the crisis. We talk about why economists in particular prefer the story that capitalism and technology will always save us even as they continue to exclude energy, without which no technology is possible, from their models. Let alone a habitable climate. We also link this to economists' misunderstanding of money creation which leads to chronic underinvestment in public goods, while private money creation (ie credit) stokes bubbles, inflates asset prices and will likely cause the next crisis. A health warning - this interview gets a bit technical in places, with Steve discussing some of the maths behind both mainstream models as well as the alternatives he is building. He even uses a software he’s developed, to explain his approach to real world economics. You can watch the video of this podcast on YouTube @invisible-handcuffs. I also include links to Steve’s Patreon site, his online course and other resources he mentions in the show notes. If this episode leaves you with more questions than answers do leave a comment on which ever platform you are viewing or listening to this episode. You can also subscribe and sign up for updates at invisiblehandcuffs.com. Many thanks to Steve for joining us for this insightful and wide-ranging episode.

My guest this week is Emma Holten. Emma is a feminist economist from Denmark and the author of a best-selling book, Deficit. Feminist economics, as Emma explains, is the study of the unhidden but vital work of ‘reproduction’ - that textured, often unquantifiable work that goes into making everything else in life, including economic life, possible: care, repair, love, friendship, compassion. But, that which doesn’t lend itself to being monetised and moulded into the kinds of models used by economists today, which have to prove their contribution to economic growth, but without which, no economic growth would be possible. Emma was motivated to become a feminist economist after a life-saving stay in hospital made her acutely aware of the value of care that is so fundamental to human survival, let alone economic survival, but often missing from economic models. As she put it, every euro she earned and contributed to economic growth following that week is directly attributed to the care she received, often from nurses on close to minimum wage. In this interview we talk about the ‘origin story’ of modern economics, starting in the enlightenment era and how early (male) economists wanted to be able to make clean and neat rational models just like the Newtonian physics. The messy work of care, mostly done by women, didn’t make the cut. More intriguing - and importantly - though is how this is upheld today, how we have arguably gone backwards in the past decades, as neoliberal ideology has captured mainstream economics. Models like cost-benefit analyses, used across government departments, are predicated on being able to prove the short-term, upfront ‘return on investment’, not the longer-term, often hard-to-measure but crucial benefits of reproduction. Even where care work is paid, thanks further injustices hidden in our economic systems and models, it is often underpaid. This is possible partly because, enabling more (white) women to ‘join the professional workforce’ has required a hidden army of unpaid or underpaid (black, brown, migrant) women taking on the work of care. As such, the very ‘liberal’ movement that was meant also to liberate women and minorities, ends up reinforcing these very injustices. We end by discussing reactions by the economic mainstream. How, thanks to a generation of economists who have been schooled only in the orthodoxy, such economists are not used to have their assumptions challenged - leading to quite wild reactions to Emma’s book. Challenging these assumptions, Emma says, requires all hands on deck - within and outside of the heterodox economics movement. Find out more about Emma’s work here: https://www.emmaholten.com/ You can listen to our first two episodes and find out more about our project here: https://www.invisiblehandcuffs.com/

This podcast is all about freeing ourselves from the chains of economic orthodoxy: the set of ideas that drive most decisions in governments, institutions around the world and thus are also underpin our crises. But where do these ideas come from, and why do they persist? What might alternative schools have to offer? And if such alternative perspectives could offer solutions, why are they not more widely taught? That is the topic of this week’s discussion with Professor John T Harvey of Texas Christian University. Unlike most economics student John was fortunate enough to have been exposed to a range of thought schools in his own economics education, which, as he explains, made him want to be an economics professor. He then went on to write a textbook on the various economic thoughts schools, mainly, as he discovered none existed. In this episode we discuss some key schools and how they compare to the 'neoclassical' school, from Marxisim to (post-)Keynesianism, Institutional, Feminist and Ecological Economics. John makes the point that education, especially in social sciences, should be all about questioning, critiquing, and exploring alternative points of view. Yet in economics, particularly as it is taught in high schools and at undergrad today, there is no such debate. Students are presented with mathematical models and abstract formulae as if they are natural laws and 'assumptions', like individualism and profit-maximisation, are treated as universal even though they may not reflect the values or cultures of much of the human population. John and I discuss some of the outcomes: disengagement, self-selection bias and an economics which is among the least diverse of any discipline. We also get into the history of why this is - why, despite growing critiques, neoclassicism persists; the confluence of historical factors and the ways in which various incentive systems, like journal and university rankings, uphold it today. We end by discussing what can be done, from ensuring that heterodox economists keep fighting to 'keep ideas alive', to the role of student movements, to what we can achieve by engaging directly engaging with decision-makers and the broader public. Find out more about John's book here: https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/contending-perspectives-in-economics-9781789900484.html?srsltid=AfmBOoqCNYwAcSxGx6lwVMmKD6J9fnSmIqB4WmOZ52H_9LVB1czks618

In this inaugural episode of Invisible Handcuffs, host Katy Shields speaks with economist Kate Raworth, author of 𝘋𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘯𝘶𝘵 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴: 𝘚𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 21𝘴𝘵 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵. Doughnut Economics seeks to change not just the goal of our economies - away from endless growth, towards thriving within the planet's limits. It is also a call to transform economics as a discipline. Because mainstream economic models - which drive decision-making across our institutions - are effectively neoliberalism operationalised: markets = good, states = bad, nature or care - well, who cares? So this means, to address this century's challenges, we need a very different kind of economics. Doughnut Economics draws on decades of alternative ("heterodox") fields of study, as well as new perspectives which, because they challenge the status quo, are neglected by the mainstream. To many — me included— it was the first introduction to such thinking — and it was a revelation. We talk about the impact the book has had around the world since publication nine years ago, the many ways people are picking it up and running with it, but also the barriers — especially academic, but also institutional, political, cultural. Kate then offers her thoughts on what needs to happen to really break those chains, including some very helpful tips for our own project. Whether you have read Doughnut Economics or not, we hope you'll find this episode both informative and inspiring. --- Show notes: Doughnut Economics: https://www.kateraworth.com/ Doughnut Economics Action Lab: https://doughnuteconomics.org/ The Hidden Business Majority, by LSE and Wholeloops Labs: https://www.jenimiles.com/research/post-growth-business-report Rethinking Economics: Is UK Economics Education Fit for the 21st Century?: https://rethinkeconomics.org/blog/reports/uk-national-report-is-economics-education-fit-for-the-21st-century/ Tipping Point: The True Story of the Limits to Growth: https://tippingpoint-podcast.com/ -- If you enjoy this episode, please like, subscribe and considering sharing in your network. You can also sign up for free updates, and find other ways to support us, at www.invisiblehandcuffs.com.