The phrase “economics is the queen of social sciences”, attributed to the famous economist Samuelson, although it is perceived as an emphasis on the importance of economics in social sciences, is actually important in terms of understanding the interdisciplinary role of economics. In an understanding where economics is at the centre as a way of thinking, it is possible for an economist to put forward different and solution-producing suggestions for all sub-disciplines of economics as well as for many fields such as law, political science, urbanisation, architecture, industry, etc. A critical and solution-oriented way of thinking, in which economics is at the centre, can only be gained as a result of a laborious study that cannot be achieved only with a bachelor’s degree.
As a society, we have a point of view that reduces all issues to “diplomas/degrees” due to our inability to fully understand what “merit” is, which is put forward as one of the biggest issues of Türkiye. This wrong perspective prevents the “competent” and “expert” person from being distinguished at first glance in the education system that raises an “army” with undergraduate degrees but incomplete education, which causes “diploma inflation”. In addition, it also leads to a lack of consensus on “how an economist should think” and “how he/she should produce solutions”. For example, the “economist”, who is very valuable and very difficult to train, disappears in a great noise as one of the hundreds of thousands of economists trained (!) even in open education faculties in our country. Moreover, millions of people having “economics” degree and the public perception of economics as consisting only of finance and macroeconomic indicators lead to the fact that the economist is unable to propose solutions to the problems of the country or the voice/word/idea of the economist who proposes solutions is not heard. One of the biggest obstacles in front of the economist is that the economist’s “toolbox” is empty, which is also a situation unique to our country.
What makes economics the queen of social sciences is that it is a discipline that can provide solutions with the help of mathematics by using data, which is the “economist’s toolbox”. The most important element that will make the solution proposals of economics healthy is data. If the data cannot be obtained correctly, neither the issue can be defined correctly nor a correct solution can be proposed based on this data. Therefore, the fact that TurkStat, which was established to obtain the data that constitutes the economist’s “toolkit”, produces questionable and non-transparent data makes many economic analyses, macroeconomic interpretations and forecasts for the future erroneous. When the only thing the economist can do is to “make assumption” on the basis of this data, which is doubtful to be correct, a well-intentioned but imperfect work emerges, which is disconnected from reality.
In order to explain the importance of the data issue from an economist’s point of view, we can question to what extent the speeches/comments/analyses/solution suggestions based on the data of the ratio of minimum wage earners to wage earners in Türkiye are related to the realities of the country. Due to improperly designed tax policies, even white-collar workers such as lawyers, physicians and engineers, who actually earn much more labour income, are shown as minimum wage earners. It does not seem possible for an economist to make an accurate analysis of the labour and labour market by using data that has no connection with the truth about people with low labour income in order to ensure that employers pay lower insurance premiums and income tax. In this regard, it is not easy to say that not only TurkStat but also alternative data sources produce reliable data in Türkiye. In fact, if we could add “big data”, which digitalisation has made available to us as a boon, to our “toolbox”, it would be possible for economists to make accurate analyses. In this way, we can realise that the ideas and thoughts of a radical segment – a microculture – that emerged from echo chambers do not represent the mass, that analyses should not be made accordingly, and that politics/law/media should not be designed from echo chambers.
However, this echo chamber phenomenon has an impact not only on the issues that are stormed in the country, but also on those who are supposed to make independent and objective comments. Very few “expert” and “competent” economists are trying to find and guide their way in the darkness of data. Economists who cannot admit that the government has done the right thing even if the government has done the right thing, and economists who cannot say that the government has done the wrong thing even on the slightest issue constitute the majority. As such, there are economists who are divided into camps around the current government that governs the country and the government candidates who aspire to govern the country, who speak/stay silent according to their camp, who speak/stay silent in order not to offend the camp they are close to or a small minority, or who explain the interests of that small minority/camp to which they feel connected as if they were the interests of the masses, instead of really talking/solving the masses’ issues.
Analysing and offering solutions to the issues of “unassigned education faculty graduates”, “stray dogs” or “levy on rent increase” with free market conditions opens the door to social lynching, especially in social media. Consequently, the economist who wants to express his/her ideas prefers either to remain silent or to speak like and as much as all other economists on the priority issues of the society. In order not to attract the reaction and anger of any camp or to avoid saying things that may not be liked by any group, he/she stays in the “safe harbour” by not meddling into and repeating what other economists are stating.
Both in economics and in other disciplines, the risk that data obscurity poses to society is far beyond what political decision-makers think. In this respect, it is clear that the “relatively” safe harbour for individuals is an uncanny harbour for the society in general.
