There is political economics and there is real and practical economics. The difference is vast and drawing a dichotomy between the two would be tantamount to writing a love letter that must take several pages.
Succinctly put, political economics has a political interest as the very epicenter. Such economic decisions or analysis are done for political capital or political interest. There are few political-economic decisions that may come somewhere close to practical economics.
Many political leaders who use the economy as their springboard to pursue their political escapades or advance their political power life span have developed the penchant to infecting many unsuspecting citizenry who may not have the privilege of research. They (such politicians) are so infectious that when they churn out or bandied their misleading conclusions, they are taken as the undiluted facts in place of the absolute truth. They do it stylistically cunningly, to win the spirits and bodies of their preys herein, the ordinary citizen.
In major decision-taking on the economy, the short term conveniences them and they relegate the medium and long terms. It is because they are interested to satisfying and advancing their political interest. They know many decisions that are long term, do not yield short them dividends. Many countries who are short term centered in economic decisions always have cyclical economic predicaments.
The issue of humongous borrowing, budget deficit, under revenue performance, growing inequality, among others, have become so predominant among many states because of political-economic decisions that were short term oriented. These cyclical challenges have often persisted except that it takes another political economics to manipulate them for political-economic favour as well as enhance electoral fortunes.
Eamonn Butler's postulation is perhaps a vindication of my assertion on the differences that exist between political economics and real, practical economics.
Indeed, Eamonn asserts that most politicians engage in deceptive and selfish economics which are by far, a variance to real and practical economics. He, thus, puts the understanding of economics by many politicians to question and that fundamentally incites doubt on the economic analysis and postulations from politicians.
He clearly opined that "Many of our politicians have been brought up on textbook economics that has an idea of "perfect" markets in which all producers are identical, prices remain fixed, and supply and demand always balances. No such world could ever exist. It is the very imperfections of that market that drive economic life towards constant improvement, progress and efficiency"
In effect, I need not reiterate the indisputable fact that, this has been the problem of this country except to add that such politicians are, as in our case, unable to sustain their own principles. It is good to read to understand the behavior of these political opportunists who are often fixated on what they claim to have learned without any consideration of emerging practical dynamics.
In another edition, which I will write soon, I shall make an attempt to describe real cum practical economics and juxtapose the same with political economics.