Twitter | Search | |
Beatrice Cherrier
The notion that economics is value-laden is either trivial or dangerous, writes here: I completely disagree with how he frames the debate
Reply Retweet Like More
Beatrice Cherrier 9 Jan 18
. is reacting to recent Guardian pieces, as well as to this blog post by Sheila Dow :
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 9 Jan 18
. seems to believe "econs endorsing value-ladeness"= "basing their analysis on assumptions that reflect their values." This is wrong Endorsing value-ladeness= being explicit abt society/clients value conflicts & choices made to guide analysis
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 9 Jan 18
No economist ever suggested his/her own value should guide his work, but that some value should be chosen & embedded in analysis (though cost-benefit weights, a social welfare function, a non-envy criterion, inequality target, whatever).
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 9 Jan 18
up to the 1980s, economists openly discussed methods to identify collective values & embed them in models (justice, fairness, welfarism). Less so now. Contra , I believe this silence raises risk of econ analysis being captured by politicians rather than lower it
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 11 Jan 18
Though I'm not convinced by Brian's proposed alternative, I kinda agree w/ diagnosis. My sense is that econ studying optimal taxation or welfare consequences of cycles don't really consider what they are doing as "normative" proper, b/c they use objective functions like SWF...
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 11 Jan 18
... that are "conventionally" accepted (b/c tractable?) & that could be ≠. So they feel their scientific neutrality is preserved b/c they didn't have to make a choice. But 10y of using same weights or even representing objective with SWF has ethical consequences
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 9 Jan 18
there are so many negation in the sentence that I'm not sure what the point is. Can you restate it in more simple terms?
Reply Retweet Like
Reginald Glenn ♨️ 9 Jan 18
Why do you disagree?
Reply Retweet Like
Beatrice Cherrier 9 Jan 18
short version in the short thread Long version in the post mentioned
Reply Retweet Like
Juan Jiménez A. 9 Jan 18
It is strangte that he tries to use a normative / positive distinction using medicine, that as a 'practical art' is deeply normative (even if all agree with that normativity, medicine is pro-health)
Reply Retweet Like
simon wren-lewis 9 Jan 18
Again this is a rather trivial use of normative. Contrast statistical findings that smoking causes cancer, with decisions about who should be rationed in the NHS. The normative content of the first is trivial compared to the second.
Reply Retweet Like