|
Review of book by Stephen Payson by Samuel
Bostaph - Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 21, No 1, Spring
2018, pgs. 79-86
|
|
|
Reviewer Comment:
This is a favorable review of a powerful indictment of not only academic
economists but the entire academic professions in history, and other humanities
fields. The author zeros in on the pressure young undergraduates and Ph.D.,
candidates and even faculty members to Publish and Publish - in order to have
their articles then cited by others in a round of praise that will bring them
tenure and other advancement. For economists in particular Payson denounces the
requirement to build 'models' with the more arcane mathematical pseudo-validity
the better.
Readers can compare thit with Thomas Woods' article, also in the QJAE -
What Austrian Economics Can Teach Historians. And my review of it.
|
|
|
Thomas Woods - What Austrian Economics
Can Teach Historians
|
|
|
Steven Payson's central point is that
economists could provide valid advice if they would adopt a truly scientific
methodology. Of course Woods' central point is that Austrian School economists
are employing real scientific methods in contrast wtih historians and other
economists.
|
|
|
Payson also points out that economists have
attempted to be 'scientific' by engaging in theoretically based 'models' - that
is elaborate mathematical formula writing. Moreover, their purpose in
performing these exercises is to achieve as much publication as possible in the
favorite professional journals of other, like minded, economists who proceed
then to cite each others' articles in pursuit of tenure and academic
recognition. But all this back and forth does not advance real knowledge about
real problems.
|
|
|
Here is a quotation from Bostaph's critique:
"The cover of the book features a chessboard showinga simple 'fools mate'.
This seems appropriate as it is Payson's main contention that mainstream
model-building founders quickly when it is realized that most of this activity
consissts of making a few simple assumptions and then engaging in a rigorous
mathematical exercise to ''rediscover" them."... Little effort is
devoted to the rigorous derivation and defense of the assuptions, or to
assessing the reliability of the data on which they may be based." He also
comments that when real (natural) scientists use mathematics it is to further
understanding of the cause- effect relationships they are studying, not as a
substitute for results.
|
|
|
Payson strikes the core problem and Bostaph
repeats it. "Instead, graduate students in mainstream economics programs
study complicated mathematical models, constructed on the basis of a few
restrictive assumptions, and learn to model-build themselves with a view to
future publication in economics journals." No tests of the assumptions are
involved."
Of course Woods claims that history is to complex with too many claimed 'facts'
with which the economist must deal, hence restrictive assumptions are essential
and pure reason when applied is the key to understanding.
|
|
|
Bostoph also notes that Payson includes many
specific examples of this inherently faulty method. These include specific
presentations by leading economists in their professional meetings in which the
speakers specifically urge their young audience members to write with the
objective of obtaining as wide a publication as possible to receive
approbations. "The result is an academic culture that encourages and
sustains the subordination of research ends to means." Payson continues
with further negative critique on the whole publications game and the poor
ethics involved. He concludes with recommendations for significant changes in
the reserch methods themselves and more changes in the purposes for the
publications game.
Bostoph writes:" Payson would like a lot more than this to be done to
change the culture of academic economics."
Indeed, from my experience all the problems and faults that Payson describes
and Bostoph repeats apply throughout the academy, in history, sociology,
anthropology and others. And we should add that the motivation for the
undesirable conditions in academic research are not limited to gaining personal
advamcement and peer faim, but as much or more in gaining financial support for
their institutions and their expanded work and from favorable support from
politicians for their political policy agendas. And the same motivations and
unfortunate results have developed in the 'hard science' fields as well - for
instance climate research, environmental research, and other issues that
dominate public policy debate.
|
|
|
David Hackett Fischer - The Great Wave
- Economic historian Fischer devotes an appendix in his unique study of price
movements to expose and denounce the same academic faults as do Payson and
Bostoph
|
|
|
Lawrence White - The Clash of Economic
Ideas - Economics professor White describes the competition and conflict
among economists to gain attention through proposing alternative theories about
real world phenomena on the basis of theoretical reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|