Two different Tylers talk about the Tyranny of the Majority.
Earlier today:
I like Joel’s book but I think he is far too pessimistic about the prospects for diversity in the modern world.
But when discussing the different flavors of economics:
The very existence of heterodox economics brings benefits. A
personal anecdote will suffice. My first two publications were both in
heterodox journals: the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and the (institutionalist) Review of Social Economy.
These articles lifted me into a top graduate school and financial aid
(can you imagine how confused the admissions committees were to see a
GMU undergrad with an apparently leftie publication record?). I would
not have had comparable success at Econometrica.This tale relates to the value of diversity more generally. We will
miss much of the value of diversity by simply listing a bunch of
diverse elements and evaluating them one-by-one. Diversity brings
broader benefits by allowing people to use niches as ladders to further
steps, frequently into the mainstream, or in my case into another
niche. Diversity is also a form of insurance, and of course it doesn’t
always pay off. Finally many excellent mainstream or sometimes even
right-wing economists started with an intense interest in social
justice, often gleaned from heterodox writings. Vernon Smith was once
a socialist, and George Stigler was early on a trust-basher.Yes the profession is getting better but we also are losing too much
diversity in terms of schools of thought. The diminution of the
Austrian School, as an organized and intellectually alive phenomenon
seems to me a shame, even though I don’t believe in a unique Austrian
method. Heterodoxies encourage the mainstream to be more philosophical
and more self-reflective.Sometimes intellectual inefficiency is efficient, and my remarks about heterodox economics should be taken in this light.
The emphasis is mine. As is the question: Isn’t the second Tyler describing the Tyranny of the Majority? If so, what are the Waldfogel-ian fixed costs that are preventing all the different flavors of economics from flourishing?
I don’t think it’s the tyranny of the majority. I think it’s just that the “consumers” of economists, universities, don’t demand heterodoxy. Maybe heterodoxy is actually a public good, with high costs for the individual heterodox economist and benefits dispersed among the orthodox economists.
Burn.
I think he’s speaking up for diversity. But that doesn’t mean he would describe the current situation as “tyranny,” nor that he would blame it on “the market.”
Isn’t anyone troubled by the idea that there are schools of economic thought? There are no schools of physics thought.
How are ideologies compatible with the claims that economics is a science?
Robert Beard and Ed are exactly right…
Schools of thought are an essential part of a science’s development. Physics was full of all sorts of weird competing ideas two hundred years ago. And that was a good thing, because there really was no way of knowing who was going to be right in the end. Structure of Scientific Revolutions and all that.
Economics is a relatively young field, still working with its own equivalent of phlogiston and aether. All the social sciences are, really. Though I’d say economics is furthest along.
That’s not a criticism, there needs to be bunk research in order for the field to expand.
First, to the extent there was a market imperfection that delayed a lot of “heterodox” insights from entering the mainstream, that’s probably because you don’t really have a market in ideas in economics. You have a quasi-market where the market value is imputed based on the assessments of people who have some recognition in the field. That probably does create a bias away from new insights. In this case, “preference externalities” are built directly into the quasi-market.
TGGP,
Yes. There was a paper some years ago by William Brock and Steven Durlauf
in Economic Theory about schools of thought. Involved nonlinear, mean-field
dynamics, with tipping points playing an important role. More generally,
it supported the idea that there may be a tyranny of the majority.
David Zetland, how is experimental economics related to sociology?
I guess my comment on the last post was at the wrong place. Never mind. . .
There are schools of though in Physics, and you do not want to stand between too gentlemen advocating for different interpretation of the string theory — there are even in Maths, and I am not just talking about æsthetics, but actual disagreement on hard-to-prove conjectures. Each have arguments, however neither is compelling enough.
I believe it is both a curse and a blessing to have new schools having to rely on other discipline to justify their existence: more original intake indeed, but it sounds like a proof of the current prejudice to me.
There are several models and many observations about the social ties among the scientific community, but I’m not sure this is what you mean when you say “economic theory”.
> The problem with economic “schools” is that they claim
> more than they have a right to do so. Many people feel
> this is because they are driven by ideology not science.
> There are schools of political thought, but no one thinks
> this is science.
Well: firstly, political science is a science, however you name it. Orckam, Pascal or anyone who defined science never said it had to be either unanimous or exclusively based on greek-letter maths. You sound American, and I can understand having a science explain you current political situation is daunting — but in civilised countries, we do not mean “theory† as an equivalent of: “The other guys are loonies, but to prove them wrong in the polls, we need more airtime.†
Actually, I’d love to have references for what you consider unacceptable schools, because I can give you the name of five major non-mainstream economic results that have decisive political impact, *with proven experimental results*; not considering them would be “claim[ing] more than they have a right to do so†. I’m not saying they are to be taken as the Gospel and can’t be proven wrong, just that they match the scientific criterion, and that dismiss them as “non-science” and “opinion” is dangerous, cruel and unscientific at best. I’m saying they deserve major publication, and before claiming they are wrong, you should publish or quote several papers of similar quality detailing why.
Actually, I’d love to name five of them now:
1. Piketti, on firing employees and ROI; some of his papers are opinion: not these.
2. Keynesian economics. Last time I checked, he helped resolve the ’29 crisis, made a fortune out of King’s College assets and made fantastic points about investors behaviour on a stock market and the impact of liquidity. Try to publish anything with his works as a reference now.
3. Aglietta: most of what I know of.
4. Marchal et al. on the formation of an ‘unemployable’ category
5. Boyer & Orléan: everything from either.
If someone writes something you dislike, and base his sayings on observations, then it is you who has an opinion — and bad news: it is likely inaccurate.
癌症 肺癌 胃癌 è‚癌 肾癌 食é“癌 å宫颈癌 乳腺癌 åµå·¢ç™Œ ç›´è‚ ç™Œ ç»“è‚ ç™Œ 皮肤癌 甲状腺癌 胰腺癌 å‰åˆ—腺癌 膀胱癌 骨癌 鼻咽癌 脑瘤
pandora bracelet charms sale at pandorabraceletdiscount.com
Comments on this entry are closed.