Social Economics in the Years Ahead: An Economist's Perspective

Abstract

The present age is sometimes characterized as one in which appearances matter more than substance. Even while expressing my dismay over this development, would like to begin by expressing some concern over a particular appearance, namely, our title. Precisely what do we mean by economics? What we have generally had in mind is a determination to study the economy as a creation and, as importantly, as an institution able to be shaped by collective action. The problem with our choice of titles is that it may function to provide undeserved rhetorical points. Economics is awash in language that has technical meanings within the discipline but value-laden connotations outside. The political right gains undeserved points when it champions free markets, makes reference to th tax burden and characterizes any government action as interference with the market. The political left gains equally undeserved points when it champions progressive taxation (a mathematical feature becomes conflated with historica inevitability). To call ourselves social economists may well constitute a similar rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Certainly to the non-economists our title must sound good (socialism might be a word that has fallen on hard times, but social is as well respected as ever). But among other economists, the name choice runs the risk of unnecessarily alienating ourselves. How, after all, would economists no members of our organization be likely to respond to the straightforward question, Are you a economist? A typical response would likely go somewhat as follows: I consider my discipline to be a science, a discipline having as its purpose the uncovering of regularities of a certain class of human behaviors characterized, at least partly, by the fact that such behaviors occur in a context. While never felt the need to append the adjective, suppose am a economist. It would be difficult to counter this claim. If we wish to have a reputation as an alternative to mainstream economics, we should perhaps consider choosing an identifying title that is not a title our opponents would wish to claim for themselves (Marxists do not run this risk, nor do Austrians). raise this issue for consideration but see little to be gained by proposing other possible titles. Having raised this issu of appearances, will now move on to some to some matters of substance. Social economists have historically been in opposition, but precisely what it i we oppose can be more problematic than it might at first seem. Probably most common is an adversarial stance toward the profession itself, a belief that the mainstream theory that purports to capture the essential nature of economic processes and to assess these processes normatively is lacking somehow, unable to model what we strongly suspect is really there and equally defective in it prescriptive role. But also frequently encountered is a critical stance with regards to the economic system itself. It is important to recognize that opposition to the economic system is logically distinct from opposition to the discipline that studies this system. Only under certain assumptions would opposition to the one entail opposition to the other. These assumptions deserve to be carefully considered because it does seem to be a permissible generalization to say that economists tend to experience both sorts of adversarial stances simultaneously, toward the subject's practices and toward the functioning economy. As one possibility, it might be believed that the economic order is in large measure created by economists and that as a consequence a critique of the profession is simultaneously a critique of the actual functioning economy. Such a position would envision economics (at least the mainstream version) as extraordinarily powerful, as creating what it claims to be merely observing. As another possibility, one might see the economy and the economics profession as tightly linked, with a criticism of the one being at the same time being a criticism of the other, not because of the profession's strength in molding reality, but because of its regrettable tendency to pander to received views. …