the superiority of economics ...

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

.... and of economists?

For unclear reasons, I've had conversations with three of my Econ. Dept.
colleagues (out of nine in the department), in which they've asserted that
either economics or economists are superior to those of other social-science
disciplines. One of these actually reads works by non-economists as part of
his research.

My traditional response has been: but sociology has a more difficult subject
matter than economics (or for that matter, physics). So it's no surprise
that sociology often comes out with fuzzy stuff, just as econ. produces more
fuzzy results than physics.

Another problem, of course, is that economists define "superiority" in terms
that favor their own profession (a standard self-promotional technique).
Econ. is really good at quantification and at the creation of idealized
models that simplify reality to get a handle on complex reality. But how can
economists claim to be superior to those who delve into topics that _can't_
be quantified and _shouldn't_ abstract from the details, such as
intellectual history or much philosophy?

(I could also go on and on concerning the inferiorities of economics, such
as the positively neurotic obsession with equilibrium states rather than
dynamic processes and the artificiality of the distinction between economics
and other social sciences. But I won't.)

Lately, I've been wondering about the social-psychological basis of these
claims of "superiority." Why make this kind of outrageous claim at all? Is
it because we're working at a liberal arts college and have to rub shoulders
with all sorts of theologians, social scientists, etc.? does our
department's status at the bottom of this University's hierarchy invoke
feelings of inferiority that encourage such assertions? But I feel that
economists as a profession feel superior to non-economists.

Interestingly, when dealing with this issue, economists shift away from
their training, which tells them that they should look at comparative
advantage. In comparative advantage theory, one doesn't say that England is
"superior" to Portugal or vice-versa, but that each is relatively good at
different things. One country is "superior" in the standard presentation,
but (huzzah! huzzah!) it ends up in the model that this superiority is
irrelevant to the behavior of the economy! These economists are
unconsciously invoking an absolute advantage theory that they consciously
reject.

Of course, absolute advantage is the way of the capitalist world (as opposed
to the economist's blackboard), as Anwar Shaikh and others have pointed out.
So the economists are actually being _realistic_ (within the context of
capitalism). Standard economics methodology _is_ favored by academia and
business. What's bizarre is the implied claim of objectivity concerning
feelings of superiority.

any thoughts?

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine