Comments on: More Econ Bashing http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sat, 26 May 2012 19:17:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Bo http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-64056 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:37:26 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-64056 Thank you Nicolai – I would be happy to read this paper and since my baby daughter is behaving quite well it leaves me with oceans of time…

I was wondering when you would congratulate me on THAT achievement – it would seem that rather than waste an email on this topic you chose the economically rational solution to do it here :) No hard feelings!

]]> By: Nicolai Foss http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-64051 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:28:08 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-64051 Bo, Very good questions!
1) Ferraro, Pfeffer, Sutton or Bazerman and Malhotra unfortunately provide very little detail on the mechanisms (theoretical and historical) that have led to the alleged dominance of economics.
2) With respect to the point that economics may be important “because it works”, this is a main point of a recent paper by Teppo Felin and I that I am happy to send you if you are interested (and not too busy taking care of your newborn daughter; many congrats, BTW).

]]> By: Bo http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-64048 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:14:10 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-64048 Very interesting. Now, I wonder WHY it is that economic logic has led to an exclusion of these other (more worthy?) social (!)sciences (!)?. Could it be that homo economicus is at play? Could it be a self-selection mechanism – economics drive society not because it is evil but rather because, as a matter of fact, it is rational beviour that works..I wonder if the book deals with the reason why economics prevails or simply bashes it?

]]> By: michael webster http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-63991 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:49:36 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-63991 I see nothing in mainstream psychology that advances our understanding of how to prevent the type of frauds in Enron, Adelphia, Global Crossing, Halliburton, Xerox, Worldcom and Tyco.

And I would have never lumped them all together as counter-examples to the economic underpinnings of our current regulatory scheme.

Enron arguably disclosed their risks: nobody believed it.

Tyco simply allowed its CEO to loot it.

]]> By: srp http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-63968 Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:16:43 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-63968 The organ donation thing is particularly bizarre. On what alternate reality is there a legal US market in organs that almost every economist would endorse in one form or another? That entire policy area is blighted with moralistic (but immoral) ideas about “repugnant markets” and the like, driven by second-rate philosophers and self-appointed bioethics sages.

]]> By: Peter Klein http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-63942 Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:06:56 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/12/12/more-econ-bashing/#comment-63942 I look forward to reading the annual Psychological Report of the President (not to be confused with one “on” the President).

]]>