Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Ryan H. Murphy (a1)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Email: rhmurphy@smu.edu

References

Hide All
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.
Boulding, K. (1941), Economic Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
Buchanan, J. (1964), ‘What Should Economists Do?’, Southern Economic Journal, 30(3): 213222.
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.
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.
Carlana, M. (2019), ‘Implicit Stereotypes: Evidence from Teachers’ Gender Bias’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3): 11631224.
Earl, P. E. (2010), ‘Economics Fit for a Queen: A Pessimistic Assessment of its Prospects’, Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 28(3): 209225.
Hodgson, G. (2019), Is There a Future for Heterodox Economics? Institutions, Ideology, and a Scientific Community. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Leeson, P. (2020a), ‘Economics is Not Statistics’, Journal of Institutional Economics.
Leeson, P. (2020b), ‘Logic is a Harsh Mistress: Welfare Economics for Economists’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(2): 145160.
Popper, K. (1957), The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
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.
Posner, R. (1973), Economic Analysis of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Young, A. (2019), ‘Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2): 557598.

Keywords

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

  • Ryan H. Murphy (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed