Re: Public/Private

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Ian - sorry, I think that part of the quote "and which only an economist
can discuss with any real hope of reaching a successful outcome" to be
fair requires some context. Fraser was speaking of social scientists,
not of all people. So he was criticizing Robbins for trying to push out
of the field of economics questions which were in Fraser's view
important economic issues. Also, Fraser goes on to say how Robbins'
definition of "science" will ultimately exclude other social scientists
and philosophers from asking these important questions as well, if they
want theirs to be a "science." Robbins says that only the "charlatan and
the quack" will ask these questions.

The point here is the narrowing of the object of study of "economics" to
some narrowly defined "economy" that is purportedly autonomous of any
socio-political elements. Politics is "exogenous", etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Murray [mailto:seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:42 PM
To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Public/Private

----- Original Message -----
From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>


Jim -

The idea that there is a 'dis-embedded' "economy" was promoted by people
like Robbins, who used the terms "endogenous" and "exogenous" in the
same way that many mainstream and heterodox economists use it today.
Robbins argued that economics should be concerned only with "what is"
and should be "entirely neutral between ends": "Economics is in no way
to be conceived as being concerned with ends."  Robbins further asserts
that if does not abide by his rules, then theirs is not a "science."  As
one contemporary critic of Robbins put it:
We have seen the result of Professor Robbins' attempt to provide such a
demarcation; how it led him to exclude from the notice of economists, at
least in their professional capacity, various topics which are important
in themselves, and which only an economist can discuss with any real
hope of reaching a successful outcome.  Such are, outstandingly, all the
many questions affecting the goal of economic policy-the desirability of
equalizing incomes or abolishing private property in the means of
production, for example; the possibility of establishing greater harmony
of interests than at present exists between entrepreneurs and the
community as a whole, and the methods whereby this might be
accomplished; the advantages or disadvantages of organising the economy
on a communist or co-operative basis.  If Professor Robbins has his way,
the economist will ignore these questions. (Lindsey Fraser, 1932).

Fraser, Lindley M., 1932, "How Do We Want Economists to Behave?,"
Economic Journal, Vol. 42, No. 168, (Dec.), pp. 555-570.

Robbins, Lionel, 1932, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of
Economic Science, London: Macmillan.


=========================

Ah, so the demarcation problem should only be managed by economists and
the disagreement amongst them [at the time of Robbins, anyway] still
rests
on the assumption that only economists "can discuss with any real hope
of
reaching a successful outcome" the larger normative issues of means and
ends. Hello, elitism......


Ian