Flunking economics?

Economists are in revolt over President Clinton's health care reform proposal. Many contend that the Administration is abandoning free-market principles and embracing price controls that could have disastrous consequences. But others argue that traditional rules of supply and demand don't apply to the health care sector.     

The history of economics as economics?

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the current decline of the relationship between economics and the history of economics, and proposes a framework called the panorama-cum-scenario model for the practice of the history of economics. Starting with the Hegelian thesis that the history of economics is economics itself, the paper argues that such a relationship is necessary but not sufficient because the history of economics is a metatheory addressed to economic theory. The history of economics needs a panoramic view of the subject and a scenario for the construction, interpretation, and evaluation of the system of economics. The panorama-cum-scenario model enables us to work on the history of economics not only by historical and rational reconstruction but also by global reconstruction. Nietzsche's anti-Hegelian viewpoint and Heidegger's hermeneutical standpoint are useful for identifying the role of historical research in developing economic knowledge based on the panorama-cum-scenario model. Several approaches to the history of economics are examined in light of the panorama-cum-scenario model. Schumpeter's history of economics is interpreted as an example of the panorama-cum-scenario model.     

Transforming economics into what? Heterodox economics and critical realism

The volume under review consists of comments on critical realismby heterodox economists. This paper addresses a number of themesfrom the book, e.g., history and reflexivity, sometimes expandingon the authors' comments on critical realism, other times respondingto them on behalf of critical realists. It considers the goalsof critical realism and ask to what extent the book furthersthem. It concludes that the high level of abstraction at whichcritical realism operates encourages those commenting on itto do so at a similarly high level of abstraction. As it stands,critical realism and the contributions to the book are too divorcedfrom the concerns of concrete economic theorising to be of greatuse to practising heterodox economists.     

Why culture in economics?

This article responds to the points raised by Deirdre McCloskey, Emily Chamlee-Wright, Rob Garnett and Solomon Stein in the symposium on my book Understanding the Culture of Markets (Routledge 2013).     

Was Keynes a Realist?

Lawson (1989a) has interpreted Keynes as a philosophical realist, adhering to the view that the economy has a constant inner structure. Against this it is claimed below that, although Keynes speaks about realism, it is not in this sense, but in the common sense way of referring to actually observable entities of an economic model. In addition, it can be shown that Keynes's views can be interpreted as instrumentalist—he emphasises characteristics such as usefulness and convenience, besides and instead of truth. Thus, truth and truthlike concepts do not, in Keynes's thinking, have the paramount position that they have in realist philosophy.     

Sociology of economics or sociology of economy? theoretical-methodological arguments for sociological economics

This paper makes a proposal for reintroducing sociological or social economics into contemporary economic science. Such a reintroduction is proposed to be substantive, by analyzing the social structuring of the economy, and formal, by including sociological/social economics in the current (JEL) classification system of economic disciplines (code A.15). Both epistemological and ontological arguments can be presented to support the proposal. Epistemological arguments invoke the presence of essential components of sociological economics in the development of economic thought, and ontological arguments stress the role of social factors in economic life. In this paper I present primarily epistemological (theoretical-methodological) arguments for sociological economics, and secondarily ontological ones. I show that the present designation, sociology of economics, is something different from sociological or social economics in that the former refers to economic epistemology (knowledge) and the latter to economic ontology (reality). I conclude that, in addition to a sociology of economic science, we need a sociology of economic life. There is nothing surprising in the habit of economists to invade the sociological field. A major part of their work—practically the whole of what they have to say on institutions and on the…[social] forces which shape economic behavior—inevitably overlaps the sociologist’s preserves. In consequence, a no man’s land or everyman’s land has developed that might conveniently be called economic sociology … [or sociological economics] (Schumpeter 1956:134). The author is grateful to two anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.     

International migration and real wages: is there any neo-classical ambiguity?

"Recent research has shown that while labor emigration increases the nominal wage rate, the impact on the real wage rate remains quite ambiguous. The present paper reexamines the issue under the standard two-factor, two-commodity international trade model normally employed for this purpose. The principal finding of this paper is that once the problem is correctly formulated and analyzed, introducing utility-maximizing consumers, no such ambiguity exists. Indeed, labor emigration always leads to an increase in the welfare (real wage) of labor in the source country."     

What is specific about evolutionary economics?

Ever since an “evolutionary” perspective on the economy has been suggested, there have been differing, and partly incommensurable, views on what specifically this means. By working out where the differences lie and what motivates them, this paper identifies four major approaches to evolutionary economics. The differences between them can be traced back to opposite positions regarding the basic assumptions about reality and the proper conceptualization of evolution. The same differences can also be found in evolutionary game theory. Achievements of the major approaches to evolutionary economics and their prospects for future research are assessed by means of a peer survey.

Whatever happened to Marshall's industrial economics?

Industry and Trade and the works on industrial economics by the Cambridge school – Chapman, Macgregor, Robertson, Lavington, A. Robinson and Florence – are usually neglected as if they were devoid of theoretical relevance. By contrast, the author argues that Marshall's evolutionary model, centred on the continuous interplay between innovation and standardization, inspired original research on localization, business size, coordination costs and industrial combinations. The paper also suggests that Marshallian ideas on the growth of firms and the structure of industrial organization are coming back in contemporary evolutionary theories of the firm.     

Was Spanish fiscal policy sustainable?

Was unsustainable fiscal policy one of the reasons for the recent crisis in Spain? This is tested by examining how the government’s primary surplus is reacting to the debt-GDP ratio. Using different models for the explanatory variables and the consideration of the correct detrending method led to the result that Spanish fiscal policy reacted to higher debt by increased surpluses, and thus was sustainable. To deal with structural breaks in the models, firstly, a dummy for the recent financial crisis was added. Secondly, a Kalman (J Basic Eng 82(1):35–45, 1960) filter model allowing for time-varying coefficients was estimated to cope with remaining breaks. The reaction of Spanish fiscal policy on debt was found to be decreasing over time. However, it was still significantly positive, showing sustainability.     

Can feminist thought make economics more objective?

Feminist research is often perceived to be less objective than conventional research on the grounds that the latter is value-neutral and the former is not. This essay shows that a major problem with the familiar standards for maximizing objectivity that permit such a conclusion is that they are too weak. They have no resources for detecting widespread cultural assumptions, values and interests, such as the androcentric ones to which feminist work draws attention. Good method works by identifying cultural values that differ between researchers or research communities. However, since androcentric values are often culture-wide, something more rigorous than only conventional good methods evidently are needed for researchers to be able to identify them.Thus feminist research does not introduce political assumptions, values and interests into research fields that are otherwise value-neutral; it identifies the ones that are already there. Rejecting the debilitating relativist stance usually seen as the only alternative to conventional standards for maximizing objectivity, feminist thought increases the objectivity of research. This essay reviews recent arguments in both conventional and feminist philosophy and history that support this analysis, and shows how it leads to the construction of stronger standards of objectivity than the conventional only “weak objectivity” that is dependent upon the neutrality ideal. Paradoxical though it may appear, “strong objectivity” requires the kind of conscientious socially situated production of knowledge characteristic of feminist work in economics.     

Empirical constitutional economics: Onward and upward?

Empirical constitutional economics has made a huge leap forward over the last decade. Interesting insights into the effects of constitutions have been discovered. Rather than summarizing the state of the art, this paper identifies some of the current shortcomings and proposes a number of extensions. It calls for recognizing additional constitutional institutions as explanatory variables, as well as the incorporation of additional dependent variables. Its major emphasis is, however, on calling for the next logical step in this field, namely to endogenize constitutions.     

Do economics journal archives promote replicable research?

Abstract. All the long‐standing archives at economics journals do not facilitate the reproduction of published results. The data‐only archives at Journal of Business and Economic Statistics and Economic Journal fail in part because most authors do not contribute data. Results published in the FRB St. Louis Review can rarely be reproduced using the data+code in the journal archive. Recently created archives at top journals should avoid the mistakes of their predecessors. We categorize reasons for archives' failures and identify successful policies.     

Sustainability economics: Where do we stand?

Environmental economics, which is a branch of resource economics – the environment as a scarce resource – is essentially about market failures, the costs of pollution and pollution abatement, and the economics of regulation. Sustainability economics includes the problem of maintaining economic growth, while reducing pollution and/or its impacts, with special attention to the linked problems of energy supply (not to mention the supply other exhaustible resources), climate change and – most urgently – fossil fuel consumption. There is a need for integration of resource and environmental economics under a new rubric, sustainability economics.     

What is considered deception in experimental economics?

Experimental Economics - In experimental economics there is a norm against using deception. But precisely what constitutes deception is unclear. While there is a consensus view that providing false...     

What can econophysics contribute to financial economics?

Econophysics presents itself as a new paradigm and a new specialty (or even a discipline), using various models and concepts imported from condensed matter and statistical physics to analyze financial phenomena. Financial economics is becoming more and more concerned by the emergence of econophysics because this new field deals with the economic reality. In this perspective, one might ask “What can econophysics contribute to financial economics?” After emphasizing the main differences between financial economics and econophysics, this paper will show that these two disciplines can be complementary. I then provide some research themes from econophysics that could be a source of inspiration for financial economists to broaden their theoretical framework.     

How is development economics taught in developing countries?

A survey of instructors and data collected from course syllabi and examinations are used to examine how the subject of development economics is taught at the undergraduate and master's levels in developing countries, compared to undergraduate classes in the United States. Topic coverage, teaching approach, and means of assessment all differ from that in leading U.S. economics departments. Development economics is taught largely as a theoretical subject coupled with case studies in developing countries, with few courses emphasizing use of data or empirical methods. Limited financial resources, the educational level of students, and low involvement of instructors in research are considered as explanations for the way the subject is taught in developing countries. The authors conclude with suggestions for improving teaching of development economics.     

Why do scientists cheat? Insights from behavioral economics

Abstract

Based on a review of the books by Wible (2014), Stephan (2012), and Lanteri and Vromen (2014), I discuss three different ways in which behavioral economics can enrich the understanding of scientific misbehavior. First, behavioral economics suggests that economic theories of scientific misbehavior, such as the one by Wible (2014), should consider moral costs of cheating, i.e. costs that arise from an individual’s desire to do the “right thing.” Second, behavioral economics demonstrates several ways in which the features of the reward scheme in science,as described by Stephan (2012), can favor cheating. Her conclusion that shirking is rarely an issue in science seems optimistic. Third, behavioral economics indicates that individual characteristics matter for cheating. According to Lanteri and Vromen (2014), economists possess different characteristics than other researchers. Hence, the reaction to incentives may differ across disciplines. Considering these insights is important to assess how a goal such as the pursuit of truth can be achieved efficiently.     

A quantitative turn in the historiography of economics?

ABSTRACT

Quantitative approaches are not yet common among historians and methodologists of economics, although they are in the study of science by librarians, information scientists, sociologists, historians, and even economists. The main purpose of this essay is to reflect methodologically on the historiography of economics: is it witnessing a quantitative turn? Is such a turn desirable? We answer the first question by pointing out a ‘methodological moment’, in general, and a noticeable rise of quantitative studies among historians of economics during the past few years. To the second question, all contributors to this special issue bring relatively optimistic answers by highlighting the benefits of using quantitative methodologies as complements to the more traditional meta-analyses of both historians and methodologists of economics.