What are the economists? 
Eternal question, eternal controversy: what are the experts, especially economists? On the occasion of awarding the Nobel Prize in Economics, this question triggers whenever the same controversy: the economy is a science? If it is a science, why are there so many divergent opinions and contradictory?
note in passing that the debate is the essence of science (and politics) . We do not discuss ideology or commandments of a religion: it joins or not you believe or not, but it can not be discussed. Science - Whether natural, accurate or social - in advancing the debate and contradiction. Because science is open: what seemed impossible yesterday may become commonplace tomorrow.
However, the economy is crossing issues that transcend. The Economist has it so far to participate in public debates may endorse a partisan speech or otherwise remain above the fray and take the risk of never being heard or taken seriously? [1]
This debate is already very old, led by France on a proposal to reform the teaching of economics deal the finding of disaffection by the students from economics, particularly in favor of more training courses in applied business and management (which make the success of business schools or PSI). The major criticism concerns the evolution of economic science to an ever more abstract modeling it becomes understandable only by experts, even though economic issues challenge every day citizen. And precisely because the public debate bathes economic considerations, economics must be understood by the ordinary man, better integrated public debates and more likely to influence policies [2]. All sciences use modeling but modeling is never neutral. Yet modeling guides the decision and we too often forget that the model results are dependent on assumptions that we adopt to build them.
However, since its origins, the model economy occurs most often as a planning technique (like matrices Leontieff USSR) or regulation, bringing water to the mill of the leader (authoritarian planning) or interventionism (incentive regulation).
For example, the contemporary theory of economic growth based on sophisticated models that depict a "benevolent regulator" whose goal is to correct market failures. It will be understood that the modern state identifies itself fully to this "benevolent planner. However, these models are based on two critical assumptions that tend to become assumptions if we are not careful: first, that defects observed are indeed attributable to the market and secondly, that the control agent kind exists.
As long as we seriously consider the functioning of the economy on the field, we measure the fragility of such assumptions.
All controversies through economics oppose those who consider the "invisible hand" does not exist to those who consider that the "benevolent planner" is a chimera.
Without doubt we should resign ourselves to admit that neither the invisible hand of the planner or benevolent exist, which does not prevent the world economy turning. And yet it turns Galileo had said in his time! And if the world economy turns, it is important to develop appropriate instruments to understand. Or it will run without us.
[1] Reflections of ten economists on these issues already have been old together in a book edited by Daniel Klein, a professor of economics at Santa Clara University in California under the title What Do Economists Contribute ? New York University Press, 1999.
[2] P. Lemieux "What are the economists," Le Figaro-Economie of January 19, 2001.
