by Peter Radford takes down the "economic science profession."As an academic, I approach the issue somewhat differently. There is nothing inherently "wrong" about specialization and methodological choices. The problem arises begins with naming and extends to capture of an epistemological territory. Conventional "economics" has managed to capture an academic field based not on more successful explanation but rather as a result of acquiring the power to sideline competitors, some of whom have been more successful in explanation. This is done by enforcing particular methodological rules on the specious justification that they have proven "superior" and "that the debate is now over.""Let a hundred flowers bloom." If mathematicians want to pursue the study of economic modeling, why not? But to
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
New Economics Foundation writes Is the Labour government delivering on its promises?
Robert Vienneau writes Why Is Marginalist Economics Wrong?
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
New Economics Foundation writes Whose growth is it anyway?
Peter Radford takes down the "economic science profession."
As an academic, I approach the issue somewhat differently. There is nothing inherently "wrong" about specialization and methodological choices. The problem arises begins with naming and extends to capture of an epistemological territory.
Conventional "economics" has managed to capture an academic field based not on more successful explanation but rather as a result of acquiring the power to sideline competitors, some of whom have been more successful in explanation. This is done by enforcing particular methodological rules on the specious justification that they have proven "superior" and "that the debate is now over."
"Let a hundred flowers bloom." If mathematicians want to pursue the study of economic modeling, why not? But to regard that approach as justifiably exclusive and to manage to impose it through power relationships is madness from the intellectual point of view. Of course, it is highly rewarding from the stance of economics, since it leaves all the choice positions in academic and related fields involving economic advice in the hands of those wielding the power as a group.
It is well-known how at the time of the financial crisis the then reigning queen asked her majesty's economists how they had all missed its onset. But nothing has changed.
The Radford Free PressThe Price of Economics
Peter Radford