Value judgments and economics expertise
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper tackles the problem of the demarcation of value judgments in economic expertise. Is it possible to disentangle values from facts, or neutral scientific assertions from value-laden judgments, in the context of economic expertise? If not, why not? And if it is, under what conditions? First, drawing on concepts from analytic philosophy, the paper highlights the interdependencies between descriptive, evaluative, and prescriptive judgments. Second, drawing notably on social studies of science, the paper proposes a definition of ‘expertise’, and translates this into a list of successive stages wherein these different types of judgments are involved. A backward analysis of these stages is provided in order to identify where values stand, and who holds them. Third, reconsidering the positions of neutrality in economics (Mongin 2006), the paper defends the ‘weak non-neutrality’ view in the context of expertise, and concludes with reflections on what could be done to address the problem of democratic legitimacy raised by the difficulty of demarcation. Key-words: methodology, value judgments, prescription, evaluation, recommendation, expertise, neutrality, demarcation . JEL-Code: A13, B41, D63 ∗ Université de Lyon, Lyon, F-69007 France; CNRS, GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne, Ecully, F-69130, France; Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne, F-42000, France. Contact: [email protected], (33) +4 77 42 13 61. † This paper was first presented as a public lecture to the Economics Department of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, on 20 February 2012. I wish to thank all those who attended the lecture, and in particular Richard Ashley, Sheryll Ball, Michael Moller, and Aris Spanos for a constructive discussion. I am also grateful to Maurice Salles, and especially to Valérie Clément and Philippe Mongin, for reviewing a previous version of this paper, and to Ben Young for help in preparing the manuscript. This research was made possible thanks to Nick Tideman’s invitation to Virginia Tech, the donor of the Virginia Tech grant for economic methodology, and the Welfare Economics grant linked to the Chair Université Jean Monnet and CNRS. The usual caveats hold. 1 ha ls hs -0 08 03 55 2, v er si on 1 22 M ar 2 01 3
منابع مشابه
Value Judgments and Value Neutrality in Economics *
The paper analyzes economic evaluations by distinguishing evaluative statements from value judgments proper. Building on this basis, it compares four solutions to the value-neutrality problem in economics. After rebutting the strong theses about neutrality (normative economics is illegitimate) and non-neutrality (the social sciences are value-impregnated), the paper settles the case between the...
متن کاملباورپذیری اطلاعات: از آغاز تا عصر دیجیتال
Purpose: the present paper aims to describe the history, dimensions, and research and application areas of information credibility especially in the web information environment. Methodology: reviewing related literature in communication, sociology, information science and computer science. Findings: credibility is a multidimensional and expansive concept for which an agreement has not been re...
متن کاملRhetoric and Economics in the Estate Tax Debate
In this paper, we evaluate and critique ten principal claims made in recent debates on the estate tax, distinguishing five types of statements: facts, rhetoric, value judgments, economic reasoning, and informed speculation. Economics can not fully resolve the debate because economic knowledge is inconclusive and because value judgments help determine optimal choices. Nevertheless, economic anal...
متن کاملEconomists’ Odd Stand on the Positive-Normative Distinction: A Behavioral Economics View
This chapter examines economists’ indefensible attachment to the positive-normative distinction, and suggests a behavioral economics explanation of their behavior on the subject. It reviews the origins of the distinction in Hume’s guillotine and logical positivism, and shows how they form the basis for Robbins’ understanding of value neutrality. It connects philosophers’ rejection of logical po...
متن کاملExpertise and the Wisdom of Crowds: Whose Judgments to Trust and When
The Wisdom of Crowds describes the fact that aggregating a group’s estimate regarding unknown values is often a better strategy than selecting even an expert’s opinion. The efficacy of this strategy, however, depends on biases being nonsystematic and everyone being able to make a meaningful assessment. In situations where these conditions do not hold, expertise seems more likely to produce the ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2013