I did separate undergrad degrees in Economics and Philosophy precisely because they speak to different questions.
Economics tell us what is possible; philosophy tells us which outcome we should choose.
I think you were closer to the mark when you said
At it’s heart economics is both descriptive, prescriptive and normative
I would simply drop the normative part. Economics certainly attempts to describe the world, and in so doing it offers conclusions such as wedrifid’s: to get X, do Y.
The lack of the normative part can be seen in e.g. Steve Levitt’s finding that the availability of abortion caused a lagged decrease in crime. Is Levitt arguing that abortion should be more extensive? No—just describing the relationship.
In the same way, the actual science of economics doesn’t say X is good, whether X is the natural rate of (un)employment, free trade, public goods, whatever. Individual economists certainly do espouse these positions, for a variety of reasons. The actual claims of the science, however, take the form “X will allow people to move higher on their individual value scales.”
Whether these individual scales are “right” or even whether they are the only consideration in moral decision-making is the concern of philosophy, not economics.
The description you gave of economic theory completely ignores the origins of micro and macro economics, price theory and comparative economics.
The assumptions that underlie these disciplines are normative.
Steve Levitt’s finding that the availability of abortion caused a lagged decrease in crime.
Actually that is descriptive statistics. Just as I pointed out before—economics without normative conclusions is statistics.
Doubtful, but in your undergrad you might have read one of the following:
Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments
John Maynerd Keynes’ General Theory of Employment
John Kenneth Galbraiths Affluent Society
Marx’ Kapital
Even more doubtful Friedman or Rothbard
These are all philosophical works and serve as the foundations for the economics discipline. All detail first theories about how markets form and work, and second how to make these markets more efficient based on their own unique goal seeking behavior.
More than likely however you predominately used the Baretto Howland Econometrics, Joe Mankiw’s Microeconomics, Paul Krugman’s International Economics or some other such text which does not describe the assumptions which developed the theories behind standard economic concepts. Yes, full employment is in fact a normative conclusion.
I do not dispute that there is a significant descriptive aspect to economics, especially at the undergraduate level—Once you start to actually do economic analysis in real life, and public policy is a blatantly example, it becomes clear that it is indeed normative.
This discussion got off track however. What we are discussing now does not really add to the discussion at hand, and that is arguably of my own doing because I brought the point up. My reply originally was an attempt to refute a false dichotomy and perhaps I did not do a well enough job of pointing that out. So let me do that now.
Utilitarianism as developed and introduced by Bentham was devised as a way to measure the unitless “utility” for the ends of driving normative change towards hedonistic goals. It is possible to divorce the method from it’s origins and use the formulaic theory to simply describe a preference set. Doing this however only gives us a statistical metric firmly in the realm of mathematics, something which requires little knowledge of markets. Economists have used utility in both manners, more heavily using the latter in recent decades. Thus if you are using utilitarian theory normatively you are truly using the original economic theory, not simply the statistical methodology which was birthed from it.
People around here seem to use the terms interchangeably without proper context. When I see someone here say “maximize utility” either you you using Bentham’s hedonistic calculation method in which the goals are implicit and you mean maximize hedonistic happiness, OR you are using the divorced economic mechanization and are incoherent because you have not defined your goal seeking terms.
However interesting the question of origins in economics is, I was under the impression that we were talking about how it currently works, not how it was conceptualized decades and centuries ago.
I’d be fascinated to hear why you thought it doubtful that I’ve read those books (most happen to be included in the University of Chicago’s core reading requirement, and Friedman and Rothbard are obviously connected to the school); perhaps I’m insufficiently aware of the quality of economics education elsewhere. It’s just that none of those are being used in modern research, with the exception of Friedman’s technical papers—and the modern foundations of economics do not depend on them in the slightest. See e.g. Gary Becker’s 1962 paper which discusses how even the normal assumption of rationality on the part of consumers is unnecessary to the basic functioning of markets.
As an important note, the efficient functioning of markets, while often spoken of as a terminal value, has never in my experience actually been other than instrumental: efficient markets quite by definition are allowing greater progress along individual value scales than inefficient markets, though not necessarily as much progress as some further refinement (like regulation).
I suspect, however, that we are just using different definitions of the subject. It seems that you are primarily interested in the economics of public policy and in the value judgments that drive it. Indeed, you define out the very kind of economics that is most prevalent in modern departments (Berkeley perhaps excepted): mathematical models that seek to understand and predict how humans will act.
In short, I, and much of the modern profession of economics, hold little attachment to the origins of economic theory (though I am surprised that you didn’t include Smith’s Wealth of Nations in your list, being more directly foundational for economics through the 19th century). If you really wanted to get into it, economics goes back to Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, but surely we aren’t to believe that modern economics bears any similarity to ancient Greek household management theory. Economics, to match your phrasing, is statistics plus insights about how humans actually behave.
Finally, my thoughts on the dichotomy were expressed in a previous article here.
efficient markets quite by definition are allowing greater progress along individual value scales than inefficient markets, though not necessarily as much progress as some further refinement
Inefficient markets are great for increasing individual wealth of certain groups. I think Rothbard would disagree with the second point (regulation) - as would I.
In short, I, and much of the modern profession of economics, hold little attachment to the origins of economic theory (though I am surprised that you didn’t include Smith’s Wealth of Nations in your list, being more directly foundational for economics through the 19th century).
The wealth of nations was built on the philosophical foundations set in TMS it is even referenced as such with Smith labeling economics as the study of the nature of morality.
Indeed, you define out the very kind of economics that is most prevalent in modern departments (Berkeley perhaps excepted): mathematical models that seek to understand and predict how humans will act.
Explain to me how that is different than statistics. You cannot do economics without good statistics, but if it stops there, then you are a statistician; by definition. Just because you are discussing markets is irrelevant.
As I said in other responses, modern economics seeks to be little more than advanced statistics as you mentioned. You undoubtedly took econometrics so you will know what I am referencing. Masters level economics might as well be a masters of statistics currently.
The reason this is the case is because political economy was getting a bad rap around the time of the first U.S. depression (1893) and was being marginalized to the point of extinction. The result was that Thorsten Veblen, Alfred Marshall and others formed what we now call neoclassical economics in the late 19th century. At that point the basis’ and market theories implicit in the assumptions in each of the Smith/Marx/Mises camps. Further study from there revolved around either supply and demand, labor theory of value or time preference assumptions. The first example taking the broadest foothold.
Again, this is the stuff that economic philosophers debate and really has no relation to the original topic at this level.
I did separate undergrad degrees in Economics and Philosophy precisely because they speak to different questions.
Economics tell us what is possible; philosophy tells us which outcome we should choose.
I think you were closer to the mark when you said
I would simply drop the normative part. Economics certainly attempts to describe the world, and in so doing it offers conclusions such as wedrifid’s: to get X, do Y.
The lack of the normative part can be seen in e.g. Steve Levitt’s finding that the availability of abortion caused a lagged decrease in crime. Is Levitt arguing that abortion should be more extensive? No—just describing the relationship.
In the same way, the actual science of economics doesn’t say X is good, whether X is the natural rate of (un)employment, free trade, public goods, whatever. Individual economists certainly do espouse these positions, for a variety of reasons. The actual claims of the science, however, take the form “X will allow people to move higher on their individual value scales.”
Whether these individual scales are “right” or even whether they are the only consideration in moral decision-making is the concern of philosophy, not economics.
The description you gave of economic theory completely ignores the origins of micro and macro economics, price theory and comparative economics.
The assumptions that underlie these disciplines are normative.
Actually that is descriptive statistics. Just as I pointed out before—economics without normative conclusions is statistics.
Doubtful, but in your undergrad you might have read one of the following:
Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments
John Maynerd Keynes’ General Theory of Employment
John Kenneth Galbraiths Affluent Society
Marx’ Kapital
Even more doubtful Friedman or Rothbard
These are all philosophical works and serve as the foundations for the economics discipline. All detail first theories about how markets form and work, and second how to make these markets more efficient based on their own unique goal seeking behavior.
More than likely however you predominately used the Baretto Howland Econometrics, Joe Mankiw’s Microeconomics, Paul Krugman’s International Economics or some other such text which does not describe the assumptions which developed the theories behind standard economic concepts. Yes, full employment is in fact a normative conclusion.
I do not dispute that there is a significant descriptive aspect to economics, especially at the undergraduate level—Once you start to actually do economic analysis in real life, and public policy is a blatantly example, it becomes clear that it is indeed normative.
This discussion got off track however. What we are discussing now does not really add to the discussion at hand, and that is arguably of my own doing because I brought the point up. My reply originally was an attempt to refute a false dichotomy and perhaps I did not do a well enough job of pointing that out. So let me do that now.
Utilitarianism as developed and introduced by Bentham was devised as a way to measure the unitless “utility” for the ends of driving normative change towards hedonistic goals. It is possible to divorce the method from it’s origins and use the formulaic theory to simply describe a preference set. Doing this however only gives us a statistical metric firmly in the realm of mathematics, something which requires little knowledge of markets. Economists have used utility in both manners, more heavily using the latter in recent decades. Thus if you are using utilitarian theory normatively you are truly using the original economic theory, not simply the statistical methodology which was birthed from it.
People around here seem to use the terms interchangeably without proper context. When I see someone here say “maximize utility” either you you using Bentham’s hedonistic calculation method in which the goals are implicit and you mean maximize hedonistic happiness, OR you are using the divorced economic mechanization and are incoherent because you have not defined your goal seeking terms.
However interesting the question of origins in economics is, I was under the impression that we were talking about how it currently works, not how it was conceptualized decades and centuries ago.
I’d be fascinated to hear why you thought it doubtful that I’ve read those books (most happen to be included in the University of Chicago’s core reading requirement, and Friedman and Rothbard are obviously connected to the school); perhaps I’m insufficiently aware of the quality of economics education elsewhere. It’s just that none of those are being used in modern research, with the exception of Friedman’s technical papers—and the modern foundations of economics do not depend on them in the slightest. See e.g. Gary Becker’s 1962 paper which discusses how even the normal assumption of rationality on the part of consumers is unnecessary to the basic functioning of markets.
As an important note, the efficient functioning of markets, while often spoken of as a terminal value, has never in my experience actually been other than instrumental: efficient markets quite by definition are allowing greater progress along individual value scales than inefficient markets, though not necessarily as much progress as some further refinement (like regulation).
I suspect, however, that we are just using different definitions of the subject. It seems that you are primarily interested in the economics of public policy and in the value judgments that drive it. Indeed, you define out the very kind of economics that is most prevalent in modern departments (Berkeley perhaps excepted): mathematical models that seek to understand and predict how humans will act.
In short, I, and much of the modern profession of economics, hold little attachment to the origins of economic theory (though I am surprised that you didn’t include Smith’s Wealth of Nations in your list, being more directly foundational for economics through the 19th century). If you really wanted to get into it, economics goes back to Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, but surely we aren’t to believe that modern economics bears any similarity to ancient Greek household management theory. Economics, to match your phrasing, is statistics plus insights about how humans actually behave.
Finally, my thoughts on the dichotomy were expressed in a previous article here.
Inefficient markets are great for increasing individual wealth of certain groups. I think Rothbard would disagree with the second point (regulation) - as would I.
The wealth of nations was built on the philosophical foundations set in TMS it is even referenced as such with Smith labeling economics as the study of the nature of morality.
Explain to me how that is different than statistics. You cannot do economics without good statistics, but if it stops there, then you are a statistician; by definition. Just because you are discussing markets is irrelevant.
As I said in other responses, modern economics seeks to be little more than advanced statistics as you mentioned. You undoubtedly took econometrics so you will know what I am referencing. Masters level economics might as well be a masters of statistics currently.
The reason this is the case is because political economy was getting a bad rap around the time of the first U.S. depression (1893) and was being marginalized to the point of extinction. The result was that Thorsten Veblen, Alfred Marshall and others formed what we now call neoclassical economics in the late 19th century. At that point the basis’ and market theories implicit in the assumptions in each of the Smith/Marx/Mises camps. Further study from there revolved around either supply and demand, labor theory of value or time preference assumptions. The first example taking the broadest foothold.
Again, this is the stuff that economic philosophers debate and really has no relation to the original topic at this level.