Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-bmzkg Total loading time: 0.212 Render date: 2022-07-01T23:31:19.133Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Economics is whatever the comparative advantage of economists is: a comment on Leeson (2020)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2020

Ryan H. Murphy*
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: rhmurphy@smu.edu

Abstract

Leeson (2020) objects to the conflation of economics with applied econometrics, and argues that economics instead should be thought of as the implications of the assumption that individuals maximize, i.e. rational choice theory. But, narrowly defining economics in terms of method demands that we ignore alternative theoretical frameworks which potentially hold explanatory power about topics thought of as economics, all for the sake of a definition. I suggest that applying rational choice theory and applying econometrics became the comparative advantage for economists relative to other social scientists by accidents of history. These comparative advantages largely persist. It is reasonable to call applications of both rational choice theory and econometrics to topics outside conventional economic topics ‘economics’ simply because these applications remain the comparative advantage of economists.

Type
Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alan, S., Boneva, T. and Ertac, S. (2019), ‘Ever Failed, Try Again, Succeed Better: Results from a Randomization Educational Intervention on Grit’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3): 11211162.Google Scholar
Boulding, K. (1941), Economic Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. (1964), ‘What Should Economists Do?’, Southern Economic Journal, 30(3): 213222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B. (2003), ‘Stigler-Becker versus Myers-Briggs: Why Preference-based Explanations are Scientifically Meaningful and Empirically Important’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 50(4): 391405.10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00031-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, D, DellaVigna, S., Funk, P. and Iriberri, N.. (2020), ‘Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(1): 269327.10.1093/qje/qjz035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlana, M. (2019), ‘Implicit Stereotypes: Evidence from Teachers’ Gender Bias’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3): 11631224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, P. E. (2010), ‘Economics Fit for a Queen: A Pessimistic Assessment of its Prospects’, Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 28(3): 209225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. (2019), Is There a Future for Heterodox Economics? Institutions, Ideology, and a Scientific Community. Northampton: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781789901597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, P. (2020a), ‘Economics is Not Statistics’, Journal of Institutional Economics.10.1017/S174413742000003XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, P. (2020b), ‘Logic is a Harsh Mistress: Welfare Economics for Economists’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(2): 145160.10.1017/S1744137419000109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1957), The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1966), Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume II: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath. Revised Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1973), Economic Analysis of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Young, A. (2019), ‘Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2): 557598.10.1093/qje/qjy029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Economics is whatever the comparative advantage of economists is: a comment on Leeson (2020)
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Economics is whatever the comparative advantage of economists is: a comment on Leeson (2020)
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Economics is whatever the comparative advantage of economists is: a comment on Leeson (2020)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *