I see what you are saying, however this is how I see them as “value judgements”.

” 1. The external benefits of different courses differ,
2. External benefits are not perfectly correlated with work placement.”

If someone was to define their external benefits as work placement – or something that is perfectly correlated with work placement – then they would be wondering why the hell I’m thinking differently.

Furthermore, if they defined their external benefit to only be over the idea of getting a degree – then my conclusion of differential funding would seem weird.

Now, when the external benefits are defined we can test for them, definitely – but people can really define external benefits however they want. I agree with you that it is KEY to argue about whether these external benefits are reasonable – but we need to discuss these differences in a transparent way before we can do that.

Many perceived external benefits aren’t observable so how can I test them?

I view it as a value judgment as I’m saying “this external benefits box, which I have a set of beliefs and values regarding, has this set of properties”. I can’t reach my conclusion about policies until I’ve stated that – and someone else could come up with another set of “external benefits” that support a whole different conclusion.

By separating out the external benefits in this way, the rest of the policy can be discussed in a fairly objective sense – namely, when someone comes up with their own framework for what constitutes external benefits and what they are, they can then turn around and say we should fund on the basis of that because the internal benefits are of course internalised. Only by making my own assumptions regarding the shape of external benefits was I able to make a conclusion in the second part of the post – and I wanted that to be transparent.

Also by doing this, I help people understand why they might disagree with my conclusion – without disagreeing with the general concept of funding only external benefits.

Also note that I am not saying that there can’t be “better” and “worse” assumptions about external benefits/costs – I just don’t think I’m anywhere near the position where I can pretend my assumptions are necessarily good.

Saying that differences among economists come down to value judgments is to say economics can’t say anything. We’ve a method that allows us to reach conclusions regardless of the values of the economists doing the analysis. I really hate the trend of throwing up “value judgments” as explanation for differences in results.

In Matt’s case above, I’d say “My starting assumptions” rather than value judgments. Because they’re falsifiable, because they don’t depend on his “world view” or anything fluffy like that. If X1 and X2 are true, then conclusion follows. They’re premises or assumptions, not value judgments. X1 and X2 can be intangibles, but they’re starting premises that are reasonably consistent with the existing literature as best I’m aware of it.

I agree that ruling out one point out of a set is a less extreme judgment than picking a single point. And I agree that testability does allow us to use data to improve the amount of faith we can have in a judgment.

However, these are the assumption that drive my conclusions – and no matter how well supported these assumptions are I will always call them “value judgments”, because of the role they play.

I do not see the term “value judgment” as negative in anyway – in practical terms it is really just saying that I have a core assumption that does not necessarily have universal support.

Excellent, have commented there. Good points.

Hi Ben, I believe you have edited your comment compared to when I first replied so I’ll just add a little more here 😉

Just as a note, I only call it a “value judgment” as I am trying to make clear what exact assumptions I am making that are implicitly different from the other guys. Then the reader can make up their mind about which set of assumptions they prefer.

For me value judgment is a very wide term, and the purpose of using it is just to show that there can be debate regarding assumptions. I do not want to push through and say “the world is like this, suck it” – which is how I feel it would come off if I wasn’t clear about what assumptions I am differing on when I come up with a different conclusion.