Here's a small piece I've sent to Econ Journal Watch for a special issue they are running called 'Economic Notes from the Underground', (here's the call).
The idea is to bring together case studies of preference falsification in the economics profession. Preference falsification occurs when an individual publicly expresses a preference which may be unrelated to the preference they would express in a secret ballot. One of the key papers in this area is Kuran, 1987 (Subscription required).
When I read the call, it struck me immediately that many economists, through their teaching, publicly profess a certain type of economics called neoclassical economics, even though, to greater or lesser degrees, they might not privately support the policy prescriptions mainstream economics would favour.
Here's the abstract of the piece, you can download it at the link below.
Abstract: Today's macroeconomics courses are built around Solovian and Romer-style growth theories, and micro founded equilibrium macro models of the `real business cycle' variety (Barro, 2007, Romer, 2000). Hewing to a syllabus with such an intellectual structure is a derogation of my personal and professional views as an economist. This short, confessional note explores the activity of teaching what one does not believe, and argues this is preference falsification writ large. The act of teaching equilibrium business cycle theories to students who take these theories out into the world and act upon them there is, I believe, socially destructive. Yet many economists engage in this public activity contra their personal preferences. One solution is judicious use of the syllabus, in order that a broad church be maintained.
Right click this link to download the paper.
Related articles
- Galbraith on Mainstream Economics
- Did economists let the world down?
- Economics - FAIL
- Objective and Subjective Value
doesn't seem to be a link Stephen
Thanks Gerard, sorted! Have you time for a chat today or monday?