Mon Dec 12 10:19:45 EST 1994
================= ECONHIST.TEACH POSTING =================
The following is reposted from the Teach-Econ network. Much of the
discussion pertains to the teaching of Economic History, as well.
Robert Whaples
***********************************************************************
>Finally, a quick word on efficiency. Statements to the
>effect that this policy or that policy will cause everyone
>to be better off or some people to be better off and no one
>worse off are not normative. They can be true or false.
>James Peery Cover
*****************************************************************
Dear James
Why is it that statements such as these need be positive.
It seesm that some of the most important economic ideas have always
come from a viewpoint that is normative. If you check Colanders
Principles book
it seems to me that he recognizes that economists
are normative and that there is nothing wrong with being so. I
know that I am normative and carry a lot of views into any type
of teaching or research I conduct. The very things that we teach
are oftern determined by normative views we hold.
I would like to hear you feelings on the issue. I would
also like to hear the feelings of the rest of the group
Thank you
Lore Rice
The University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
*********************************************************************
In response to Loren Rice's "I would also like to hear the feelings of
the rest of the group":
I consider myself to be quite heterodox with very strong affinities for
institutionalism (but not new instittutionalism). I believe that the
positive-normative dichotomy is largely a false one--a proposition that
institutionalists have been arguing for many decades. Very early on
(day 1 or 2) I offer Nietzsche's ".....there are no facts, only
interpretations" as a point of departure for discussing this issue.
I always also read to them the following passage from Gary Zukav's
_The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics_ (p. 310)
"Reality" is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what
we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we
perceive depends on what we look for. What we look for depends upon
what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we
perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what
we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.
*-------------------------------*------------------------------------------*
| Brian Eggleston, Ph.D. | |
| Associate Professor and Chair | "It is by invisible hands that we are |
| Department of Economics | bent and tortured worst." |
| Augustana College | |
| Sioux Falls, SD 57197 | Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra |
| egglesto at inst.augie.edu | |
*-------------------------------*------------------------------------------*
***********************************************************************
>I do not consider myself a positivist in a philosophical
>sense. If truth is what we want it to be true, then there
>cannot be any scholarly discourse.
I agree with James Cover on this, but for those who don't:
The distinction between positive and normative economics is
something like the distinction between the news columns and the
editorial columns in a newspaper. We all recognize that there
may be opinion in the news columns and reporting in the editorial
columns -- but the reason for having the distinction is to help
the reader and the writer agree on an implicit set of
expectations. The reader expects to see a balance among
conflicting views in the news columns, but has no expectation of
balance when reading an opinion column. The reader expects it to
be, well, opinionated. In a similar way, there are value
judgments in (and around) "positive economics," and there are
often empirical observations in "normative economics." But the
labels are still useful so that reader and writer agree on
whether the basic task is to discover something about the world
-- or not.
So even if you think the distinction between positive and
normative economics doesn't work, it can be a useful convention
to let the student or reader know what's coming.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wood
James Madison University Voice: (703) 568-3243
Department of Economics Internet: fac_wwood at vax1.acs.jmu.edu
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 411 Showker Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
I write to comment on the issue of ethics and economics. There is, I
believe, a dimension of this issue that in some sense transcends the
standard discourse of positive v. normative. In that discourse the question
with respect to the role of ethics is debated in the positive v normative
terms of efficiency versus the fairness (of initial endowments,
policies, and outcomes). But there is another more fundamental question of
ethics that does not lend itself to this demarcation from efficiency. That
is the question as to what kind of social ethics must be in place if the
market system is to function with all the elegance we advertise under the
brand name "Invisible Hand". We can turn to the parent of our company for
an answer.
The foundation of Adam Smith's ideal liberal (small l) vision
of a free market economy coordinating the choices of autonomous individuals
in an efficient and thus socially fruitful way is the assumption that all
of those individuals must share a common definition of and commitment to
justice. Obviously not society had or even can reach that limiting case, but
Smith believed that humankind could approximate that case as various societies
evolved. He believed that social evolution could be a maturation process, but
that the development of social maturity depended on values coevolving with the
material conditions of society. For any given society the possibility of
maturation depended on and is limited by the degree to which that
society is capable of developing and inculcating more mature social values.
There some powerful and terribly neglected lessons embodied in Smith's vision.
If there is a serious weakness in the story we tell our students, it is
our failure to note the fundamental importance of this common ethical
commitment. Often students leave with the Mandevillian notion that greed
is good instead of the more rich Smithian notion that self-interest,
properly balanced with justice and benevolence, is a wonderful spring for
constructive competition and thus for realizing the best of our individual and
social potential.
Jerry Evensky
Syracuse University
for a bit more on this see my piece in the Journal of Economic Perspectives
(Spring '93, pps 197-205) entitled "Ethics and the Invisible Hand"
***********************************************************************
I agree that many of the results we get in economics are
untestable. Writers like McCloskey (1985) and Summers(1993) seem to
me to be arguing very persuasively that economics (and I would think
any science) is about argument and persuasion not 'testable' proof.
The 'what is' (as opposed to 'what should ') aspect of positivism is
I believe a useful distinction. Introspection makes it obvious
to me that reminding myself to focus on the positive aspect (ie to
focus on 'what is') protects me from confusing wishing with analysis.
I might add to this argument by example or survey but such
introspection is of course untestable.
Brendan O'Rourke
Dublin Institute of Technology
Mountjoy Square,
Dublin 1,
Ireland.
borourke at comad.dit.ie
============ FOOTER TO ECONHIST.TEACH POSTING ============
* To post a message to this list, send it to ECONHIST.TEACH at cs.muohio.edu.
* To get all the messages posted to this list only once a day, send the
message "set ECONHIST.TEACH mail digest" to lists at cs.muohio.edu.
* To view past posting to this list, look in the directory "List Archive"
in the Cliometric Society Server. The address is: cs.muohio.edu.
* For more information and instructions, send the message
"info ECONHIST.TEACH" to lists at cs.muohio.edu.
====================================================