Re: the superiority of economics ...

[Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:21 AM 12/12/97 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>... 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.

Jim:

Based on single exchange with an economists on what consitutes an
'explanation' in social science, I came to a conclusion that at least some
American economists differ from sociologists quite significantly on that
issue.  For most sociologists, explanation is an empirical inquiry into
causation (identifying ideally sufficient and neccessary conditions
producing an outcome under investigation) -- but for my economist colleague
that was a sheer waste of time.  His understandig: to explain was to make
things happen which, upond further inquiry, meant social engineering: making
people follow the laid from above rules of efficient behavior.

In the same way, a person who develops train schedules would consider a
question of the type "can the fact that the train for Chicago departs five
minutes before the train for Philadelphia be considerd as evidence that
there is a causal connection between these two events?" a sheer nonsense.
They know that one train departs after another because they designed it in
such a way, not because of some "causal link."

My colleague considered that mode of "explanation" far superior to not only
that used in other social sciences, but to the methods of historical
economics (popular in Germany and other European countries) as well.  His
proof: no economist of influence does this kind of stuff (i.e. historical
economics) anymore.

This is perhaps one of the purest manifestations of the Foucauldian notion
of knowledge-power -- it makes people _subjects_ (in the most literal sense
of the word) of economic knowledge-power.  It is the superiority felt
perhaps by Dr. Mengele who was the master of life and death of his human
"subjects."

Regards,


wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
sokol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax:   (410) 516-8233