At present, in the field of economics, the widespread use of mathematical models, intricate derivations of various formulas, and overreliance on quantitative analysis seem to have become important markers of the scholarly merit of academic papers. To some extent, these tendencies obscure the original purpose of economic inquiry, giving rise to a proliferation of studies that are technically sophisticated yet intellectually mediocre, ornate yet substantively hollow, and seriously disconnected from the complex economic phenomena of the real world.

Consequences of over-mathematization

Quantitative methods in economics were originally intended to make research more rigorous and precise, thereby providing a quantitative basis for formulating or improving policy. However, when economic research pursues quantitative analysis beyond its proper limits, a series of problems follows.

First, the readability of research findings may decline considerably. Many economics papers today are filled with obscure mathematical symbols and complex formula derivations, making their real meaning difficult to grasp for ordinary readers and even for some professional scholars. As a result, research findings remain confined to a narrow academic circle, cannot be effectively disseminated or popularized, and struggle to exert a positive influence on economic understanding across society.

Second, research can fall into the trap of “modeling for the sake of modeling.” In order to construct sophisticated mathematical models, some researchers impose overly simplified assumptions on real-world economic phenomena. These assumptions may hold under certain idealized conditions, but they often prove ineffective in complex real economic environments.

Third, standards for academic evaluation can become overly narrow. Within the current academic evaluation system in economics, the complexity of models, the granularity of data processing, and the sophistication of mathematical techniques often serve as important indicators of research quality. In pursuit of publication and career advancement, researchers are compelled to invest disproportionate effort in methodological refinement, becoming trapped in an endless contest of mathematical techniques. This rat race-like research culture not only consumes substantial academic resources, but also stifles in-depth and innovative reflection on real-world economic issues. Many valuable research approaches and perspectives are overlooked simply because they do not conform to the standards of quantitative research, gradually narrowing the horizon of economic inquiry and making breakthrough progress more difficult.

What really matters

As a discipline concerned with human economic behavior and socioeconomic relations, the core value of economics lies in explaining reality and guiding practice, not in the mere pursuit of mathematical elegance or formal logical consistency on paper. Strengthening theoretical abstraction and refinement, the essence of economic research, has become crucial to overcoming the current predicament.

Theoretical abstraction involves summarizing a large body of economic phenomena and data in order to distill conclusions that are broadly applicable and reveal underlying patterns. It requires researchers to engage deeply with all dimensions of real economic life, attending to the motivations of economic actors, the operating mechanisms of economic institutions, and the effects of economic policies. Through theoretical abstraction, complex economic phenomena can be transformed into accessible concepts and analytical frameworks, making economic research more grounded in reality and enhancing its communicative power and influence.

Theoretical refinement builds on theoretical abstraction by further deepening and elevating theory, strengthening its explanatory and predictive power. It requires researchers to think critically about existing theories and, in light of new economic phenomena and data, continually revise and improve theoretical systems so that economic theory can more accurately reflect the intrinsic characteristics of real-world economies.

Pathways forward

Strengthening theoretical abstraction and refinement requires efforts on several fronts. First, researchers should shift their research mindset and attach greater importance to in-depth investigation of real economic issues. They should not confine themselves to academic literature and data models, but should go deep into the front lines of economic activity—government, markets, enterprises, and other settings—to obtain first-hand materials through field visits, interviews, and other methods.

Second, it is necessary to intensify researchers’ theoretical training and improve their theoretical literacy. When analyzing complex economic issues, they should not rely solely on econometric tools as an academic shortcut, but should fully draw on the critical and reflective approaches found in political economy, the history of economic thought, and related fields. In this way, economic research can acquire both historical depth and practical acuity, enabling scholars to grasp economic patterns more precisely and provide deeper and broader theoretical support for addressing real-world economic issues.

Third, academic journals, conferences, and other platforms for scholarly exchange should also play an active role by placing greater emphasis on the capacity of research findings to explain real-world issues and inform economic practice. They should encourage interdisciplinary and cross-field research, provide more opportunities for the presentation of relevant findings, and promote exchange and cooperation between academia and practice.

Wei Jian is president of the Journals of Humanities and Social Sciences at Shandong University and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Shandong University of Philosophy and Social Sciences.