The Experts below are selected from a list of 53556 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Iain Hampsher-monk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Market for Toleration: A Case Study in an Aspect of the Ambiguity of ‘Positive Economics’
    British Journal of Political Science, 1991
    Co-Authors: Iain Hampsher-monk
    Abstract:

    Liberal apologists for the free market commonly claim for it the virtue of promoting toleration by eroding – through financial penalties – economically irrelevant ‘discrimination’. This claim is contested both by a consideration of a range of evidence from economic anthropology and by a critique of the conceptual position held to sustain it. Anthropological evidence suggests that ‘perfect’ markets frequently generate long-term non-contractual dyadic ties which undermine the one-off spot-contract constitutive of the ideal market. Furthermore, the pursuit of such ties often follows and so reinforces ethnic or religious distinction. Conceptually, the liberal argument's validity hinges on the assumption that market actors prefer to maximize money-holdings rather than express intolerance or maintain discrimination. This assertion is not only empirically false, but, if true, would ironically undermine the liberal claim that free markets are ‘neutral’ with regard to actors' preferences. Thus, libertarian claims about the effect of the operation of the market can only be sustained by violating their own theoretical premisses.

Edward Mariyani-squire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Critical reflections on a realist interpretation of Friedman’s ‘Methodology of Positive Economics’
    Journal of Economic Methodology, 2017
    Co-Authors: Edward Mariyani-squire
    Abstract:

    Uskali Maki has offered an innovative scientific realist account of Milton Friedman’s 1953 essay, ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, which directly challenges the dominant instrumentalist interpretation. This paper offers critical reflections on Maki’s approach and interpretation. It is argued that Maki’s method of rereading-rewriting the text is problematic; that an unforced instrumentalist account of unrealistic assumptions can be extracted from the text itself; and that seemingly realist passages can be plausibly read as expressing an instrumentalist stance.

  • Reassessing the paradigm of Economics: Bringing Positive Economics back into the normative framework [Book Review]
    2012
    Co-Authors: Edward Mariyani-squire
    Abstract:

    Review(s) of: Reassessing the paradigm of Economics: Bringing Positive Economics back into the normative framework, by Valeria Mosini (2012), Routledge, London and New York, pp. 164, Hardback: ISBN 978-0-415-57511-9, Ebook: ISBN 978-0-203-80684-5 RRP: AUD 115.

  • Valeria Mosini (2012): Reassessing the Paradigm of Economics: Bringing Positive Economics Back into the Normative Framework
    Economic and Labour Relations Review, 2012
    Co-Authors: Edward Mariyani-squire
    Abstract:

    Valeria Mosini (2012) Reassessing the Paradigm of Economics: Bringing Positive Economics Back into the Normative Framework Routledge, London and New York. pp. 164 Hardback: ISBN 978-0-415-57511-9 Ebook: ISBN 978-0-203-80684-5 RRP: AUD 115 Reassessing the Paradigm of Economics is primarily focused on Milton Friedman's methodological pronouncements and practices. Valeria Mosini seeks to show that Friedman's methodology, and particularly his claim that Economics can be a purely 'Positive' science, serves a highly partisan policy agenda--namely, 'the neoliberal paradigm. Mosini also argues that Friedman's methodology deserves special attention today because his claims of objectivity for neoliberal policies are partly responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. Reassessing the Paradigm thus extends the boundaries of methodological analysis beyond its usually abstract and sometimes arcane terrain. Mosini shows that methodological reflection is important not just because Economics should strive to be scientifically objective. Methodological reflection is important because pronouncements on 'correct' method by economists can facilitate specific ideological agendas that powerfully influence economic policy and thereby affect millions of lives. In general terms, Mosini shows that if one doesn't come to grips with Friedman's methodological claims, one cannot fully come to grips with the neoliberal paradigm they support. Although this insight has probably been intuited by most economists, heterodox and mainstream alike, it has not been explicitly argued for at great length. Although I agree with Mosini's goal and her general conclusions, I think some of the arguments deployed to reach those conclusions are contestable. In the remainder of this review, I will outline Mosini's arguments chapter by chapter and offer some critical comments along the way. The criticisms are not fatal, but should at least give one pause. The book comprises six chapters (plus a lengthy introduction). The first four chapters focus on Friedman's methodological claims and the effect they have had on the general contours of academic Economics. In the light of these chapters, the last two chapters attend to aspects of the neoliberal paradigm and Friedman's role in its construction and defense. Chapter One examines the 'logical consistency' and 'validity' of the core of neoliberalism as exhibited in Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics. Mosini boils Essays' most famous piece, 'The Methodology of Positive Economics' (hereafter F53) down to four propositions: (1) The only objective test of a Positive theory's worth is its predictive success; (2) The realisticness of assumptions is not a test of a theory's worth because all theories inevitably contain unrealistic assumptions; (3) Evidence can only disprove a theory, never prove it to be true. Because of the 'contradiction' between (1) and (3), a final element is required: (4) 'somewhat arbitrary' additional criteria (simplicity and fruitfulness) are required in order to choose between rival theories. Mosini argues that Friedman's economic writings in Essays are logically inconsistent with F53's doctrines, chiefly because his theories are 'hypothetical' (meaning solely counterfactual) and his predictions so vague as to be unfalsifiable. She also notes that Friedman's Positive analyses usually entail substantial institutional changes which fall within the purview of normative, not Positive Economics. With respect to 'internal validity', Mosini finds that Friedman's arguments for neoliberal policies are informal and are not rigorously empirically established (being merely plausible, not probable). Further, F53 is 'externally invalid' because it is incompatible with the methodological positions of contemporaneous scientists and philosophers (Henry Margenau, Percy Bridgeman and Stephen Toulmin). There are, I believe, problems with Mosini's approach to F53. …

Eduardo Pol - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A theorem on the methodology of Positive Economics
    Cogent Economics & Finance, 2015
    Co-Authors: Eduardo Pol
    Abstract:

    AbstractIt has long been recognized that the Milton Friedman’s 1953 essay on economic methodology (or F53, for short) displays open-ended unclarities. For example, the notion of “unrealistic assumption” plays a role of absolutely fundamental importance in his methodological framework, but the term itself was never unambiguously defined in any of the Friedman’s contributions to the Economics discipline. As a result, F53 is appealing and liberating because the choice of premises in economic theorizing is not subject to any constraints concerning the degree of realisticness (or unrealisticness) of the assumptions. The question: “Does the methodology of Positive Economics prevent the overlapping between Economics and science fiction?” comes very naturally, indeed. In this paper, we show the following theorem: the Friedman’s methodology of Positive Economics does not exclude science fiction. This theorem is a Positive statement, and consequently, it does not involve value judgements. However, it throws a wrenc...

  • ECONOMIC METHODOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY & HISTORY | RESEARCH ARTICLE A theorem on the methodology of Positive Economics
    2015
    Co-Authors: Eduardo Pol
    Abstract:

    1 * Abstract: It has long been recognized that the Milton Friedman's 1953 essay on economic methodology (or F53, for short) displays open-ended unclarities. For example, the notion of "unrealistic assumption" plays a role of absolutely fundamental importance in his methodological framework, but the term itself was never unambiguously defined in any of the Friedman's contributions to the Economics discipline. As a result, F53 is appealing and liberating because the choice of premises in economic theorizing is not subject to any constraints concerning the degree of realisticness (or unrealisticness) of the assumptions. The question: "Does the methodology of Positive Economics pre- vent the overlapping between Economics and science fiction?" comes very naturally, indeed. In this paper, we show the following theorem: the Friedman's methodology of Positive Economics does not exclude science fiction. This theorem is a Positive state- ment, and consequently, it does not involve value judgements. However, it throws a wrench on the formulation of economic policy based on surreal models.

Eric Schliesser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Galilean Reflections on Milton Friedman's 'Methodology of Positive Economics', with Thoughts on Vernon Smith's 'Economics in the Laboratory'
    Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2007
    Co-Authors: Eric Schliesser
    Abstract:

    The article examines in detail the argument of M. Friedman as expressed in his famous article «Methodology of Positive Economics». In considering the problem of interconnection of theoretical hypotheses with experimental evidence the author illustrates his thesis using the history of the Galilean law of free fall and its role in the development of theoretical physics. He also draws upon methodological ideas of the founder of experimental Economics and Nobel prize winner V. Smith.

  • Friedman, Positive Economics, and the Chicago Boys
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2007
    Co-Authors: Eric Schliesser
    Abstract:

    In this paper I investigate two denials in Milton Friedman's Nobel Lecture (1976). The first is [i] the denial that 'Economics and its fellow social sciences' ought to be 'regarded more nearly as branches of philosophy.' The second is [ii] the denial that Economics is 'enmeshed with values at the outset because they deal with human behaviour'. I show that Friedman's appeal to his methodology in the Nobel lecture fails on conceptual grounds internal to Friedman's methodology. Moreover, I show that the failure is related to a broader systematic problem: when properly understood, Friedman's methodology shows that Positive Economics is (in a non-trivial sense) enmeshed in values. In order to account for Friedman's overreaching, I turn to the charged social context regarding Friedman's purported involvement with the Chicago Boys, who were then serving Chilean Dictator Pinochet. I conclude by explaining why I re-open the old chestnut of values in Positive science. The episode allows me to raise a question of fundamental import about the relationship between expertise and society.

  • galilean reflections on milton friedman s methodology of Positive Economics with thoughts on vernon smith s Economics in the laboratory
    Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2005
    Co-Authors: Eric Schliesser
    Abstract:

    In this article, the author offers a discussion of the evidential role of the Galilean constant in the history of physics. The author argues that measurable constants help theories constrain data. Theories are engines for research, and this helps explain why the Duhem-Quine thesis does not undermine scientific practice. The author connects his argument to discussion of two famous papers in the history of economic methodology, Milton Friedman’s “Methodology of Positive Economics,” which appealed to example of Galilean Law of Fall in its argument; and Vernon Smith’s “Economics in the Laboratory.” While the author offers some criticism of Friedman and Smith, most of the article is a friendly reinterpretation of their insights.

  • Galilean Reflections on Milton Friedman’s “Methodology of Positive Economics,” with Thoughts on Vernon Smith’s “Economics in the Laboratory”:
    Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2005
    Co-Authors: Eric Schliesser
    Abstract:

    In this article, the author offers a discussion of the evidential role of the Galilean constant in the history of physics. The author argues that measurable constants help theories constrain data. Theories are engines for research, and this helps explain why the Duhem-Quine thesis does not undermine scientific practice. The author connects his argument to discussion of two famous papers in the history of economic methodology, Milton Friedman’s “Methodology of Positive Economics,” which appealed to example of Galilean Law of Fall in its argument; and Vernon Smith’s “Economics in the Laboratory.” While the author offers some criticism of Friedman and Smith, most of the article is a friendly reinterpretation of their insights.

Daniel M. Hausman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Bond between Positive and Normative Economics
    Revue d'économie politique, 2018
    Co-Authors: Daniel M. Hausman
    Abstract:

    This essay clarifies the relations between Positive Economics and mainstream normative Economics. If rationality can be characterized by conditions on preferences and choices and, in addition, people are, to a reasonable degree of approximation rational, then economists can invoke the theory of rationality to explain choices. If people are also, as in Positive Economics, largely self-interested and reasonably well-informed, then their preferences will also indicate their level of well-being. Modeling both choice and welfare in terms of rational preferences thus unites Positive and normative Economics. In explaining market outcomes in terms of individual choices, explaining choices by preferences, and taking preferences to indicate well-being, economists who are concerned with welfare defend a normative theory that piggybacks on their Positive theory. This traditional mainstream normative theory is problematic, but because of its unity and its connection to Positive Economics, it is also very powerful.

  • Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy: Ethics in Positive Economics: Two Examples
    Economic Analysis Moral Philosophy and Public Policy, 1
    Co-Authors: Daniel M. Hausman, Michael S. Mcpherson
    Abstract:

    Although some economists have envisioned the possibility of a value-neutral normative Economics that merely investigates the consequences of policies for the satisfaction of preferences, most would be willing to concede that moral judgments do play a role in normative Economics. For that reason, they might also concede that when evaluating policies economists should pay attention to matters of ethics. But when it comes to Positive Economics – the attempt to predict and explain economic outcomes and processes – few economists see any role for ethics. Although it is possible (even in Economics) to investigate features of the world without evaluating them, it is often hard to do so. When matters of Economics bear strongly and immediately on people's interests, those interests and the moral considerations that are relevant to them are likely to influence the questions economists ask and the answers they defend. Because of this, it is important to understand the values that are at stake. Familiarity with moral philosophy can help here. Although values will be most obvious in debates over practical policy questions – consider debates over energy policy, prescription drug benefits, agricultural policy, or tax policy – moral considerations can have a much broader influence. We shall show this influence in two examples. Both concern matters of fact about economies that bear on policy questions. The first example, which concerns whether there is any involuntary unemployment, is likely to seem odd to readers who are not familiar with Economics. How, one might ask, could anybody doubt that some people are unable to get a job? We shall shortly see. Whether workers are unemployed voluntarily or involuntarily seems to bear on the question of what sort of unemployment compensation they should be paid, but its normative implications and presuppositions go deeper. The second example, which involves Paul Samuelson's overlapping generations model, might appear to have no bearing on policy; but as we shall argue, its normative implications have in fact driven what is purported to be a purely theoretical debate in Positive Economics. Is Unemployment Involuntary? “MacroEconomics” – which treats the institutions and processes governing the economy as a whole – was born during the worldwide economic depression of the 1930s with the publication of John Maynard Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money .

  • Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy: Rationality in Positive and Normative Economics
    Economic Analysis Moral Philosophy and Public Policy, 1
    Co-Authors: Daniel M. Hausman, Michael S. Mcpherson
    Abstract:

    Positive Economics is concerned with the explanation and prediction of economic phenomena, while normative Economics is concerned with evaluating economic policies, practices, and states of affairs from a moral stand-point. Rationality is a normative notion concerning how people ought to choose, prefer, or reason, so it may seem surprising that it plays a large role in Positive Economics. Since rationality is different from morality, it may also seem surprising that rationality plays a large role in normative Economics. But in fact rationality is ubiquitous in both Positive and normative Economics. Rationality and Positive Economics People's preferences are rational if they are complete and transitive, and people choose rationally if their choices are determined by their preferences. If one adds to this theory of rationality the generalization that consumers are to some extent rational and that they prefer more commodities to fewer, then one has the central principles of the Positive theory of consumer choice. Similarly, the traditional theory of the firm maintains that firms or entrepreneurs are rational and that they combine inputs so as to maximize the difference between revenues and costs. Though the theory of consumer choice and the theory of the firm make additional claims, they both take the theory of rational choice to be the theory of actual choice. Positive Economics on both the consumer and the producer side can be formulated without using the word “rational.” Rather than first defining “rational” and then stating that individuals are rational, one can assert that the preferences of individuals are complete and transitive and that individuals choose whatever affordable bundle of commodities they most prefer.