Exploring the Misconceptions Surrounding Economics' Scientific Nature
Written on
There's an intriguing evolution in economic thought from the early belief in rational selfishness as the primary motivator of economic behavior, to a later perspective that recognizes a more complex interplay of altruism and instrumental rationality.
The Foundation of Egoism in Classical Economics
John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, prominent figures in early economic theory, maintained that the scientific legitimacy of economics, as well as the success of capitalism, relies on the premise of rational self-interest among consumers and producers. Mill famously asserted that economics is built upon a "model" of humanity that aims to acquire the maximum benefits with minimal effort.
He articulated that economics, or "political economy" as it was known in the 18th century, does not encompass the entirety of human behavior shaped by societal influences. Instead, it focuses on individuals as wealth-seekers capable of evaluating the most effective means to achieve this goal:
> "Political Economy considers mankind solely engaged in acquiring and consuming wealth, aiming to illustrate the actions prompted by this single motivation."
Mill justified this narrow scope by arguing that such an analytical method is essential for scientific inquiry:
> "When an effect relies on a combination of causes, these must be examined individually to predict or influence the outcome."
In a similar vein, Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" posits that capitalism inadvertently serves societal interests, as economic agents pursue their self-interests. Smith emphasized that individual actions, while not aimed at promoting the public good, often lead to beneficial societal outcomes.
The assumption of egoism in economic behavior is further supported by Lionel Robbins' influential definition of economics, which depicts it as the study of human behavior concerning ends and scarce resources. This perspective implies a Malthusian view of competition for limited resources, fostering a mindset focused on personal advantage.
Yet, despite the apparent ruthlessness of this competitive landscape, the evolution from feudalism to capitalism is often framed as a progressive transition.
The Shift to Neoclassical Economic Utility
Later neoclassical economists moved away from strict egoism, proposing a more neutral framework for economic decision-making that embraces diverse subjective preferences. Economic rationality, in this view, becomes a means to optimize various goals rather than strictly self-interest.
Britannica outlines this shift by differentiating neoclassical rationality from earlier notions of egoism:
> "While no singular definition of rationality exists across economic theories, the neoclassical view sees it as maximizing subjective utility—one's personal desires. This notion allows for preferences that may not solely be self-serving."
In neoclassical economics, rationality is described as the tendency to choose the most preferred option, diverging from the broader societal connotation of being reasonable or sensible. Thus, even seemingly irrational actions could be rational within this framework.
As Robbins emphasizes, economic analysis hinges on relative valuations, accepting varying motivations—whether altruistic, selfish, or otherwise—as given without delving into their origins.
This emphasis on subjective value marks the distinction between neoclassical and classical economics, as the former prioritizes consumer perception in determining product value.
Establishing Scientific Status in Economics
Two primary approaches have emerged to bolster the scientific status of economics. Classical economics analyzed phenomena through historical and sociological lenses, while early neoclassicists like Walras and Jevons shifted focus to abstract mathematical models.
For instance, they rationalized why diamonds command higher prices than water despite water's greater utility through the concept of marginal utility, emphasizing supply levels over inherent usefulness.
These early neoclassicists, influenced by developments in physics, viewed the economy as a mechanical system that achieves equilibrium through individual calculations of utility maximization. They advocated for minimal government interference in market dynamics, presenting economics as a rigorously quantitative science.
Historian Philip Mirowski notes that the rise of neoclassicism in the 1870s was fueled by a fascination with energetic principles from contemporary physics. Jevons and others sought to model market operations mathematically, viewing economics as a field governed by causality and predictable patterns.
However, this transition from concrete observations in classical economics to abstract mathematical formulations led to a paradox. While classical economics engaged with tangible phenomena, the neoclassical shift towards subjectivity paradoxically claimed greater scientific legitimacy despite its philosophical underpinnings.
Assessing Economics' Scientific Credibility
This shift in perspective raises questions about the scientific credibility of economic models. If value is inherently subjective, how can one scientifically analyze economic patterns akin to those in the arts? The neoclassical reliance on mathematical models suggests precision; however, real-world complexities often defy such simplifications.
For example, the value of water may skyrocket in dire circumstances, contradicting the notion of diminishing marginal utility. Additionally, the appeal of luxury goods can paradoxically increase as their quantity rises, challenging established economic principles.
Neoclassical economists might argue that these models are not intended to be realistic, but rather serve as simplifications to enhance predictive capability. Yet, distinguishing between a valid scientific model and mere abstraction becomes challenging. Physics benefits from empirical testing, while economics grapples with ethical constraints surrounding human subjects.
Though behavioral and experimental economics have emerged, they often face replication issues that question their reliability, further complicating the quest for scientific rigor in economics.
The mathematical approach also faces scrutiny regarding its neutrality. If economic value is subjective, how can it retain distinctively economic characteristics? Neoclassical models often introduce sociological elements, framing individual actions within the context of market dynamics. By positing scarcity as a foundational assumption, neoclassicists inadvertently reinforce a pro-capitalist stance.
In this light, capitalism is portrayed as the optimal system for maximizing utility amidst competing individual preferences. The ambiguity surrounding the notion of maximizing "your own" interests further complicates this discourse, as altruistic actions may also enhance one's utility.
Ultimately, this framing reveals an inherent contradiction: while neoclassical economics seeks to maintain neutrality, it inadvertently champions capitalism as the most effective means of coordinating diverse interests.