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.     

The Rejection of Qualitative Research Methods in Economics

Abstract:

The article analyzes the status quo of qualitative methods in economics. While a majority of economists consider knowledge of empirical research methods to be of considerable importance, it must be noted that qualitative research methods are scarcely implemented in economic publications. Given all the advantages of qualitative research methods, the reasons and processes responsible for the rejection of qualitative research methods in economics must be empirically identified and further discussed. To gain insights into the perception and application of qualitative research methods in economics revealing the status and representational patterns in qualitative social research. I addressed professors, editors of economic journals, and postdocs from Germany to access economists’ functional orientations and interpretative patterns, in order to establish preliminary indicators with regard to the subject-specific perspectives and the underlying scientific conceptions of economists. My findings reveal a fundamental rejection of qualitative research methods in economics due to methodological critique, a nomothetic world view and missing career opportunities. The article intends to initiate a discussion about the missing opportunities of the methodological contraction in the economic profession.     

Philosophy of Economics Rules: introduction to the symposium

ABSTRACT

Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik’s account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange that could improve our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik’s Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.     

Between mathematical formalism,normative choice rules,and the behavioural sciences: The emergence of rational choice theories in the late 1940s and early 1950s

Abstract

This paper discusses why mathematical economists of the early Cold War period favored formal-axiomatic over behavioral choice theories. One reason was that formal-axiomatic theories allowed mathematical economists to improve the conceptual and theoretical foundations of economics and thereby to increase its scientific status. Furthermore, the separation between mathematical economics and other behavioral sciences was not as clear-cut as often argued. While economists did not modify their behavioral assumptions, some acknowledged the empirical shortcomings of their models. The paper reveals the multifaceted nature of rational choice theories reflected in the changing interpretations and roles of the theories in those early years.     

Calls for change. The scientific status of economic theory and the future of democracy: A review of three recent contributions

Abstract

After the last financial crisis, economic theory and economists have largely lost their credibility. Not having been able to foresee and explain the recession, they have clearly shown that a deep methodological reform of the discipline is necessary. With its restrictive assumptions and the self-referentiality of formal models, mainstream economics has indeed become highly unrealistic and therefore unable to face the deep and evident problems of capitalistic society. The books reviewed in this paper try to criticize economic theory from three closely related points of view: the technical drift that has endangered democracy and annulled the role of citizens in public choices, the sometimes obscure role of economists and the way through which articles of low scientific relevance are published, and finally the decisive role of the Nobel Prize in economics to legitimize the market turn begun in the 1970s. Considering such a discouraging picture, it is necessary to ask whether there is still hope for reforming economics and if, possibly returning to the classics of economic thought, it is still possible to carry out a struggle based on ideas and not on dogmatic prejudices.     

INTRODUCTION / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN US UNIVERSITIES AND THE WORLD / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN UK UNIVERSITIES / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN CHINA'S UNIVERSITIES

Abstract

These Explorations, by eight authors from Canada, China, the US, and the UK, examine the current status of women in economics (with an eye mainly toward their status in the academic branch of the profession). The four sections of the work analyze results of surveys that show the distribution of academic positions among women economists in universities in Canada, the UK, the US, and China. The work also provides a short history of the development of committees and groups interested in furthering the status of women in the economics profession and suggests ways to improve the efforts of such groups and the status of women economists.     

Is Economics Responding to Critique? What do the UK 2015 QAA Subject Benchmarks Indicate?

Abstract

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education provides subject benchmarks which inform but do not determine the content of university and college academic programmes in the United Kingdom. These are revised every few years and have recently been completed in economics for the first time since the global financial crisis. Given the extensive criticism of mainstream economics since the crisis, one might anticipate the benchmark revisions to be extensive. However, this has not been the case. This article explores why this is so. The analysis may also be considered of broader significance because the conditions under which the review has occurred involve general processes that will be familiar, albeit with local variation, to heterodox economists elsewhere. In the conclusion, a more fundamental reconstruction of the benchmarks is provided. These will also be of interest as general orienting statements for a different kind of economics.     

THE CITATION IMPACT OF FEMINIST ECONOMICS

Abstract

Feminist economics is a transformative project. However, transformation generates resistance. Feminist economics can be deliberately excluded, co-opted through an uncritical application of rational choice theory, or ignored. And feminist economics can be listened to: when the United Nations consults feminist economists; when feminist economists publish in widely read journals; when a student finds inspiration in a Feminist Economics article. All of these are ways feminist economics can, and has, influenced the profession. After ten years of discourse, it is possible to take stock and assess the impact of feminist economics. This article provides a partial assessment through a consideration of citations of the journal Feminist Economics, describing its impact on mainstream economics, heterodox economics, and other disciplines. While the overall project of feminist economics encompasses much more than just one journal, studying the citations for Feminist Economics is a first step toward assessing the influence of the entire corpus.     

Richard H. Thaler: A Nobel Prize for Behavioural Economics

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview of Richard Thaler’s career and the contributions to behavioural economics that earned him the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. It focuses on his role in exposing and making sense of empirical anomalies in orthodox economics, his analysis of mental accounting, and his work with Cass Sunstein on the notion of libertarian paternalism and the ‘nudge’-based behavioural approach to economic policy. It then considers his contributions critically and explores how, unlike previous behavioural economics, Thaler succeeded in getting his new approach to behavioural economics accepted by mainstream economists.     

How modern economics learned French: Jacques Drèze and the foundation of CORE

The Center of Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), founded in 1966, was one of the channels through which economic modelling practices were imported from the USA to Europe. Officially modelled after the Cowles Foundation for Economics Research, it reflected Jacques Drèze's broad experiences in the USA during the 1950s when modelling techniques were not yet anchored in disciplines. CORE gained an international reputation, however, through the rather exclusive community of Neo-Walrasian economists represented by Werner Hildenbrand, Jean Gabszewicz, and Gérard Debreu. After this community modified the disciplinary divisions at CORE, the influence of CORE on continental economics occurred mainly through disequilibrium economics, which still represents a “French accent” in modern macroeconomics. At the same time, operations research and econometrics prospered at CORE while receiving scant attention from economists. This essay tells the story of how CORE changed continental economics through the unique career path of its founder, Jacques Drèze.     

Slonimsky's view on Antoine-Augustin Cournot∗

Abstract

In 1878 the Russian Liudvig Zinov'sevich Slonimsky published a lengthy article on the mathematization of economics. To defend the legacy of applying mathematics in the study of economics, he made ample uses of both von Thünen and Cournot's works. The article published in Russian and in the Russian Vestnik Evropy (Journal of Europe) has passed virtually ignored by economists. This notes gives a complete account of Slonimsky's references to Cournot's work.     

The changing face of mainstream economics

This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully developed, it is beginning to take form and is centered on dynamics, recursive methods and complexity theory. The foundation of this change is coming from economists who are doing cutting edge work and influencing mainstream economics. These economists are defining and laying the theoretical groundwork for the fundamental shift that is occurring in the economics profession.     

When Italian economics “Was Second to None”. Luigi Einaudi and the Turin School of Economics

Abstract

The article is dedicated to the work of a group of economists that was an important expression of a fertile season of Italian economics, in the period from the mid-1890s to the end of 1930s, which developed around the figure of Luigi Einaudi, and earlier, around that of his master Cognetti de Martiis. This School expressed a range of thought of high value in the political and economic sphere. In the economic field, the School established a fertile relation between historical–empirical work and economic theory; in the political field it investigated the relation between freedom and economic order.     

Whither the history of economic thought? Going nowhere rather slowly?∗

Abstract

The paper argues that economics is not a perfect selection mechanism that preserves each and every economic idea that is valid and useful and jettisons all ideas that are not. The teleological view of the subject cannot be sustained. Therefore the task of the history of economic thought cannot be limited to the study of the past from the present state of economics. Another important task is to study the present state of economics from the standpoint of past authors in order to see what has been gained and what lost in the course of time. The history of the subject is a treasure trove of ideas. The history of economic thought may play a useful role by preserving valuable ideas which otherwise would fall into oblivion. To foster the subject is therefore also in the interest of general economists.     

Rights and wrongs of economic modelling: refining Rodrik

ABSTRACT

This is a critical discussion and proposed refinement of the inspiring account of the successes and failures of economic modelling sketched in Dani Rodrik’s Economics Rules. The refinements make use of a systematic framework of the structure of scientific modelling. The issues include distinguishing the discipline of economics from the behaviour and attitudes of economists as targets of normative assessment; nature and sources of success and failure in modelling; the key role of model commentary; model transparency; purposes and audiences of modelling; the nature of critical assumptions; negligibility, applicability, and tractability in modelling; the possibility of generally applicable models; and economics fundamentalism. The proposed refinements submit sharper formulations for some of Rodrik’s ideas and supplement others, but they also reveal tensions and relieve some – not yet all – of these.     

The Legal-Economic Nexus from the Perspective of New Institutional Economists and Original Institutional Economists

There are two institutional economics approaches to law and economics. New institutional economists prescribe that arbitrators foster efficiency in setting economic disputes and original institutional economists focus on creating reasonable values – that is, balancing efficiency and justice. Disequilibrium between desired efficiency and perceived fairness triggers agency and is a source of coevolution of law and economics.     

Continuity and change: Mapping the community of economists in Greece (1944 to 1967)

Abstract

This paper combines quantitative, biographical and qualitative data to trace out the structure and dynamics of Greece's post-war community of economists, and explore its implications for the country's economic discourse. Greek economics was a state-centred profession whose fate was intertwined with that of the post-war developmental state apparatus. Most economists were employed in universities, the civil service or banking, with substantial interpenetration between branches. This configuration of professional constituencies, in conjunction with the structural features of each institution, conditioned the form and content of economic discourse. Professional and ideological cohesion went hand in hand, whilst substantial degrees of vertical and horizontal control by senior members further fostered consensus and increased professional sclerosis. Nevertheless, evidence from a new database of economic journal publications suggests that a substantial realignment took place in the late 1950s and 1960s, as a younger generation of scholars – most of them educated in the post-war UK/US, and affiliated with the newly established Centre for Planning and Economic Research – entered the scene.     

Rethinking Trade and Development: A Developmentalist Perspective

Abstract

In one of the longest lasting debates in economics, mainstream economists still basically rest their position regarding trade and development policies on the static principle of comparative advantage, while relying on fancier econometric techniques to find empirical support. This paper draws attention to dynamic considerations, first emphasizing Smith's observation that there was more scope for division of labor in manufactures than in primary production. Prebisch noted that primary products generally have lower income elasticity of demand than manufactures. In a global context where some countries undertook industrial development ahead of others, these would generate the trade patterns that Ricardo predicted. Investment would flow from the industrial center to the periphery to augment primary production as Mill anticipated. Through the dominance of backwash over spread effects, international inequalities would widen à la Mrydal. International dualism, especially in a technological sense, would be aggravated à la Singer. To counter such uneven development, developmentalists such as Hamilton, List, Prebisch, Myrdal, and Singer advocated technological acquisitions and industrial development on the part of the less-developed countries or regions. Contrary to mainstream portrayal they did not simply advocate protectionism. Instead, their policy suggestions were nuanced and sophisticated, and included both non-trade and trade instruments, means of building technological capabilities, and (for those writing after World War II) considerations of how to sensibly direct and regulate the activities of multinational corporations. These policy ideas appear to neatly link up with those drawn from case studies of East Asian development undertaken by some researchers that are outside of the economics mainstream.     

Austrian economics at the cutting edge

Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream. What I call the “heterodox mainstream” is an emerging new orthodoxy. The five leading characteristics of the emerging new orthodoxy are bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition, and evolution. When listed in this order, they suggest the acronym BRICE. The Austrian school is also an example of BRICE economics. The shared themes of BRICE economics create an opportunity for intellectual exchange between Austrians and other elements of the heterodox mainstream. Although Austrians should engage the heterodox mainstream energetically, they should also defend the essential elements of an early version of neoclassical economics, elements at risk of becoming half-forgotten themes of an earlier era. These elements are supply and demand, marginalist logic, opportunity-cost reasoning, and the elementary theory of markets. JEL Codes A14, B50, B53 This text is an edited version of a talk given in Washington, D.C. on 19 November 2005 at the SDAE annual dinner. I thank persons present at that time for a helpful discussion. I also thank William Butos, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, and Peter Lewin for useful comments on an earlier draft.     

Regional Papers of Interest to Economic Educators

Using data collected from graduates who attended four large public universities in 1976, 1986, or 1996, the authors investigate the relationship between studying economics and civic behaviors. They compare students who majored in economics, business, or other majors, and by the number of undergraduate economics courses completed. Coursework is strongly associated with political party affiliation and donating money to candidates or parties, but not with voting in presidential, state, or local elections, nor with the likelihood or intensity of volunteerism. Business majors are less likely to engage in voting and volunteering. More economics coursework is usually associated with attitudes on policy issues closer to those reported in surveys of U.S. economists, while attitudes of business majors are more like those of general majors than economics majors.