An excellent contribution to the debate above, and I virtually agree with everything you’ve said. I hadn’t initially understood your differentiation between positivist and normative economics, but after that good explanation, I am very clear :).

Another interesting area to look at that relates to this is the debate in wider philosophy (not just in economic philosophy) regarding the relative importance of individual preferences versus society/community-wide ones. Indeed the liberal versus communitarian debate of the 70s, 80s and 90s between John Rawls et al and Communitarian philosophers, which really challenged the universalisation of value-laden methodological practices in philosophy, sociology and politics, let alone economic policy preferences.

I side firmly with the communitarian side of the debate, which unfortunately lost out against the liberals, and thus adds to the unorthodoxy of my views regarding research and analytical methodology of economic systems. I very firmly follow these principles when conducting academic research where compatible

“reading that wikipedia piece he mentioned would suggest that is indeed attacking the methodology”

I like Milton Friedman would have disagreed (with his methodology hat on), given that he laid out the current concept of empirical positivistsim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism_

Ultimately, the debate between the historical school (empiricists and inductive) and the marginalists (logic based and deductive) calmed down so much during the late-50s because both realised that the other one had a point. As a result, economists have tried to stick to ‘positivist’ assumptions in both the deductive and inductive sense in order to incorporate both schools of though. I guess part of the debate here might be on what qualifies as a ‘fact’?

Hi Oliver,

“Economics as a discipline, like any other social science or any science at all for that matter, is dominated by emotion, normative/value-assertive assumptions and politics”

What we are trying to tell you is that ‘economic science’ is based on positive assumptions – the application of economic science is where normative assumptions come into play. I have also read a lot of PAE’s stuff, and they seem to be annoyed with the arrogance and implicit value judgments in much economic education – that is a fair criticism where such biases are in place.

In a sense we are of differing opinion because of grammar – you wish to criticise the normative assumptions that some economists make, we believe that ‘economists’ try to separate value judgments and facts.

“It might make you realise that non-comformity to mainstream economics doesn’t make you an idiot, as you’d clearly like to think.”

I don’t think thats what any of us are saying – I just think we have differing ideas about what ‘mainstream economics’ is. Yes it is neo-classical in terms of method – but that does not ensure the policy conclusions that were tied to the neo-classical method in the 70s. This is the difference between the positivist frame that all economists follow vs the normative frame that some economists on TV etc believe.

And regarding your statement about unorthodox means you’re more likely to be wrong, well, that’s the sort of thing that the PAE movement objects to. Labelling people as being wrong for having divergent viewpoints from your own, particularly on areas that are relevant to economic policy, and you will rightly be accused of talking shit :P.

I am sure that most economists don’t admire Milton Friedman, but quite frankly, saying that neo-liberalism is not the dominant ideology at economics departments in New Zealand, including Auckland, seems rather ‘misinformed’ to me. Have you ever read the works of Bruce Jesson or Brian Easton?

I don’t think that non-conformity makes you an idiot, plenty of orthodox economics started out as unorthodox (like any science). I do think that on average being unorthodox makes you far more likely to be wrong than right. There’s a reason that ideas become mainstream, it’s usually because they’ve been successfully tested. Again, this just strikes me as a truism for any subject.

This from Marginal Revolution was a good response to a article about heterodox economics in the NY times last year. It expands on the point rauparaha made initially about what economists actually believe. I’m dubious that NZ uni econ departments are hotbeds of neo-liberalism either.

Sorry if I did take it a bit personally – I was reading and responding in a rush and it did seem like I was being taken the piss out of and labelled as being not educated on economics simply because I don’t conform to within your own understandings of it (which the odd time before on the blog I have felt like – it may just be my hyper-sensitivity in debating economics off-line when I am used to being the only person in a room who doesn’t oppose neo-liberalism! 😛 ).

To clarify my own stance (one that could easily be gained my reading my own blog a few posts back): do I think I am mis-representing classical/neo-classical economic theory? No. Do I think that classical/neo-classical economic theory is hegemonic in debates on economic these days? Yes. Do I think that economics departments in New Zealand are dominated by neo-liberal approaches? Absolutely. Do I think that if we are to continue this discussion you guys should read a couple of short pieces about the post-autistic economics movement ( http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/Camproposal.htm ) ? Yes.

Economics as a discipline, like any other social science or any science at all for that matter, is dominated by emotion, normative/value-assertive assumptions and politics (in the sense of the negative personal and group collective behaviour definition of the word). The thrust behind many of my criticisms of economics currently in general are built around the same criticisms that the Historical School had of their contemporary opponents in terms of their understanding of economic systems and the models they created to understand and rationalise how they functioned.

CPW, I profoundly apologise for not conforming to your view of ‘modern economics’. You’d do well to read the Cambridge Proposal for the Reform Economics – http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/Camproposal.htm . It might make you realise that non-comformity to mainstream economics doesn’t make you an idiot, as you’d clearly like to think.