Comments on: Those Right-Wing Economists

By: Constantine

Constantine — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:35:49 +0000

Great post, I see racial self-segregation all the time, and I want to investigate the issue more thoroughly.
I always find something new and interesting every time I come around here – thanks.

By: Organizations and Markets » Entrepreneurship and Business Education

Organizations and Markets » Entrepreneurship and Business Education — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:20:08 +0000

[...] Addendum: Another article in the same issue of the Chronicle asks — as we've discussed here, here, and here — if economics (agency theory, in particular) is responsible for Enron. Rakesh Khurana, Herbert Gintis, and Lynn Stout, while not exactly saying Yes, seem sympathetic to the idea. Michael Jensen, not surprisingly, demurs. [...]

By: catallaxy » How economists vote

catallaxy » How economists vote — Mon, 29 May 2006 03:14:10 +0000

[...] Some recent empirical evidence on economists’ political preferences which once again, deals a blow to the myth that they are stereotypical right-wingers (link via Peter Klein: The responses show that most economists are supporters of safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws. They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage. Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1. [...]

By: Esbern David Pontoppidan

Esbern David Pontoppidan — Sun, 28 May 2006 23:22:09 +0000

Dear Jung-Chin

Thank you very much! My exams are almost over so I’ll be sure to read it when I have a spare moment :-D

All the best

Esbern David Pontoppidan

By: Jung-Chin Shen

Jung-Chin Shen — Tue, 23 May 2006 01:55:49 +0000

oops. Sorry, the link of the paper is here: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleifer/papers/market_aea.pdf

By: Jung-Chin Shen

Jung-Chin Shen — Tue, 23 May 2006 01:53:32 +0000

Hi, Esbern,

I find an extremely interesting paper by Andrei Shleifer, which provides some clues for the question. Hope you find the paper is useful.

By: Bart Doorneweert

Bart Doorneweert — Sun, 21 May 2006 19:14:47 +0000

I came across a passage in Knight’s Ethics of Competition compilation which might “add” to the discussion. Knight quotes Fichte: “Was fur eine Philosophie mann wahlt hangt davon ab was fur ein Mensch mann ist”. But as Knight writes, “like most aphorisms this may be turned around without ceasing to be equally true”, i.e. the person one is depends on the philosphy one chooses.
No point made really, I know, but it shows what I think is the implicit need for taking up more issues of philosophy in economics

By: Esbern David Pontoppidan

Esbern David Pontoppidan — Fri, 19 May 2006 10:55:33 +0000

Dear Peter and Nicolai

I’m glad that I am supposedly wrong in my concern of the general use of MI within the economic sciences.

This should also, I think, make it easier to give an answer to Jung-Chins question:
“If a person’s political belief is largely a process of self-selection, how do we explain the person’s change in political beliefs?”, which I tried to do in my post.

By: Peter Klein

Peter Klein — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:10:12 +0000

Actually, I quite agree with Nicolai. I did not mean that the need for a "starting point" is itself the main justification for MI. I was merely trying to rebut the claim that the existence of "controlling powers" or other social structures invalidates the use of MI, which I took to be Esbern's concern. My apologies for clumsy phrasing.

By: Nicolai Foss

Nicolai Foss — Thu, 18 May 2006 21:47:31 +0000

Esbern,
I have to disagree with my co-blogger here. I think that MI is pretty meaningless if it is not ultimately grounded in ontological individualism.
One can build very nice formal theory, beginning from structures (perhaps á la Harrison White). Thus, the need to “start somewhere” is not, and would perhaps even say, emphatically not, the reason why social scientists endorse (and should endorse) MI.