that's a good article, but it misses the worship of mathematics. NC
economics is seen as "scientific" because it is mathematical ("math is
the language of economics"). The use of math is the economist's white
lab coat. For example, there was a debate between Jamie Galbraith and
Paul Krugman in Bob Kuttner's magazine about 10 years ago. PK
interpreted Galbraith's critique as involving a rejection of math,
even though that wasn't what JG was saying at all. The hierarchy of
economic journals and department that Pilkington talks about is
bolstered by the way in which the "top" journals require the use of
math. A lot of the math is unnecessary: a typical article by Gary
Becker, for example, has a very simple point that need not be
explained in math.
Of course, it's more than math per se. The only acceptable "models"
are equilibrium ones (with unique and stable equilibria). Qualitative
analysis, which should be complementary to quantitative analysis, is
discouraged.
For my take on the sociology of the economics profession, see
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/JD-2002-AutisticEcon.pdf
> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/philip-pilkington-neoclassical-economics-and-the-foreclosing-of-dissent-the-inner-death-of-a-social-science.html
--
Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you
should at least know the nature of that evil.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
