4 ms·
Exactly. The relevant question for those bemoaning policy implementations of economic theories is, "If not guided by economics, then by what?" Personally, I p
by ethbro 7y ago
Exactly.
The relevant question for those bemoaning policy implementations of economic theories is, "If not guided by economics, then by what?"
Personally, I prefer a discipline which attempts to treat its subject matter scientifically, even if the sum of experimentally proven knowledge is small. Psychology runs into the same difficulties.
But with both (or biology, or high-energy physics), I don't hold it over their practitioners that their subject matter is elusive to experimental inquiry. One does the best one can.
- naasking 7y agoThe problem is when our incomplete understanding is used to justify inadequate policy, simply because that's the part of the problem we understand. For instance, deregulating industries because markets are generally more efficient, thus disregarding whether that particular market naturally leads to monopoly. It sometimes leads to regulatory capture and whack-a-mole problem solving that are wholely inadequate.
- gbacon 7y agoLikewise there is the problem of central banks capturing the academy by lavishly funding their sycophants and cutting off researchers critical of their methods or policies. The conflict of interest is obvious, but nearly the entire field pretends it does not exist.
- sprafa 7y agoBehavioural psychology has actually given us a lot of the insights that have now been been expanded into behavioural economics, which is the only branch of economics that has some predictive power (and this in my view makes it scientific). So psychology has issues but I feel like a lot more science to it than people expect, if you look into the right circles.
- throwaway18468 7y agoThere is definitely some science in economy, psychology, history, etc. The science of social engineering.