Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:59, 21 September 2022 editRosguill (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators144,380 editsm Reverted edits by 49.126.18.225 (talk) to last version by John Maynard FriedmanTag: Rollback ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:44, 1 October 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Economics/Archive 8) (botNext edit →
Line 92:		Line 92:

	The definition of a recession is and has always been two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth ] (]) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)		The definition of a recession is and has always been two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth ] (]) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Request for comment ==

	<!-- ] 20:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1656619276}}
	Comments needed on after extensive debate on wether or not it can be mentioned that authors have criticized the field of economics for being pseudoscience under the criticism section.
	] (]) 19:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

	The last and probably most controversial in the edit (done by me) was the sentence "Economics has been claimed to be a pseudoscience by critics of political economy, sociologists, philosophers, economists, etc both historically and today..
	As well as: The critique spans over several economic schools of thought..

	Also see the edits from: " to 19:03, 26 May 2022‎"

	Or for a more extensive view " to 19:03, 26 May 2022‎.

	Thanks for any input!
	] (]) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

	This is not helpful. You need to propose sprecific text and references if you wish to edit the article text on the basis of a poll such as this. I'd just add that you have received no support from other editors and two editors have reverted your text. Until you have a plausible proposed article improvement, the purpose of a poll is not clear.]] 20:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

	:Huh? In Pauloroboto opening statement, he includes two proposed (recently added then reverted) sentences, and indicated a total of 12 sources to use for them (though they aren't specified in detail here). What more were you looking for? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	::Please have a look at the recent editing and talk page discussion. There were much more extensive edits to which I understand this RfC to refer. If the RfC is only whether to state the two sentences above, it should be formatted as a specific proposal only of that text (or whatever other specific text OP wishes to poll. We'd then be prepared to hear why he believes the sentences reflect due weight of a significant minority view within mainstream analysis.]] 20:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	::Hello! Thanks for your reply! I have had a rather long conversation back and fourth with SPECIFICO regarding the section "Reaching a consensus on how to implement the edit published: 09:33, 2 May 2022" where I tried to find a way to make a bold edit more fit for inclusion, with the goal of making this page more nuanced.
	::This is however going nowhere.
	::So to be absolutely clear: I would only like to talk about two sentences in this RfC since I view them as an absolute minimum. I think Misplaced Pages should mention that this is a subject which as a matter of fact has received critique for more than merely specific inaccuracies etc for about as long as it has existed.
	::Kind regards, Paoloroboto. ] (]) 22:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::Please seek guidance as to how best you should proceed. If we all agree this is going nowhere, it's best to abort it lest other editors be distracted from their work.]] 23:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	::::Hello! Thanks for your concern for other editors time. But I think this is going somewhere, and I have some faith in the process. However, I think you would likely agree that we have debated this and similar issues to the point where it is not productive. ] (]) 11:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::::You just wrote "This is however going nowhere" directly above.]] 23:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Don't think so. Such commentary shouldn't receive any more attention than similar commentary on theoretical physics and psychology (i.e. none). All of it comes from fringe sources or sources which barely comprehend what they're even criticising (e.g. members of general public).

	:Frankly, economics articles on[REDACTED] already give undue weight to heterodox views despite the fact they are basically non-extant in academia, government and industry. Actual practitioners simply do not have the time to deal with the months of effort an editor with a political agenda or an obsession with some small-time heterodox figure(s) will put in to block a completely reasonable edit reflecting the reality of the field, or to make an edit giving undue weight to some pet school or critique.

	:Members of the public read[REDACTED] and come away with the impression that economics is barely a science, and is divided between dozens of schools whilst the mainstream clings to a majority. The reality is that mainstream econ is as close to being a science as biology is, and heterodox econ is barely extant in academia, isn't extant at all in industry or government, and all the attention it gets is from people with political reasons to misinform (journos, politicians) or people who don't know better (journos, members of public).

	:So no, I don't think we should include this text. It's undue and, without an addendum noting such claims' lack of veracity, it's also misleading. ] (]) 00:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	::Hi @] and thank you for your reply!
	::I would like to leave theoretical physics out of this since I can't reasonably comment on it to any worthwhile degree. I hope that is ok with you.
	::However, if we would like to compare apples and apples rather than apples and oranges, you may note that there is similar content in the article on psychology. Which I think could be a more suitable example here. If you take to the page of ], you'll find that they clearly state that there is issues with reproducing findings. Which is a problem in economics as well. You will also find this in the rather extensive section on named "Contemporary issues in methodology and practice".
	::I think your argument regarding that this is to be taken as fringe sources is wrong.
	::This is why I think that is the case:
	::Correct me if I am wrong, but would you say that e.g Karl Marx, one of the 19th century's most influential scholars constitutes a fringe figure?
	::Further:
	::Would you say that someone who holds the title John Cowles professor of sociology at Harvard University, or a Professor Emeritus in economics, a person awarded to be a ] or two, can "barely comprehend what they're even criticising"?
	::I also think your view regarding if orthodox or heterodox economists should be given more or less weight in the economics portal as a whole is beyond this particular question, so I will not give that any more time.
	::However, it would be very interesting to find out where you found out that "the public read[REDACTED] and come away with the impression that economics is barely a science" since I am not aware of any such study at the time. Is it merely your personal impression of the issue perhaps?
	::There also seems to be a misinterpretation of what I want to claim here, since you keep writing about heterodox economics.
	::I merely want to claim that it is reasonable to include that this field has gotten rather severe critique from scholars, since failing to mention it would be a biased action.
	::However, I very much sympathize with your concern for that the sentences should not be misleading and would hence like to reformulate my sentence.
	::What do you think about a sentence like this?
	::"Economics has been claimed to be a pseudoscience by a minority of scholars for the absolute majority of its history."
	::Kind regards, Pauloroboto ] (]) 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::Please read ] and ]. Marx is fringe in contemporary economics. We cover Marxist belief in our page on the topic. ]] 12:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	::::Marx is dated, not fringe. There's a huge difference, which matters in a broad-topic article like this one - older views can be relevant and worth covering as long as we make it clear that they ''are'' older views. I don't think a criticism section is a good way to handle it, but broad challenges to the understanding of economics should be mentioned, when noteworthy, at the points in the development of our understanding of economics where they occurred or were relevant. --] (]) 21:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::That's what ] said: "Marx is fringe in contemporary economics.". For context, Paulroboto cites Marx frequently in articles discussion contemporary econ.] (]) 21:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Aquillion, we have an article on ] where Marxian thought is given its due, in context. I am confident that most current-day PhD economists from the top 20 departments are better versed in Marxian thinking than the editors on this page who are suggesting we give UNDUE and misleading, decontextualized, and confused ] to various debates and failed theories of the remote past.]] 22:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::I object to your characterisation of theoretical physics as an orange to economics' apple. Just because you can't comment on it doesn't mean they aren't fairly comparable. They are both fields with a strong mathematical basis which create apriori models to explain observations which are necessarily incomplete, and then try to validate those models after the fact. Both are also occasionally controversial in that respect: theoretical ohysics gets a lot of flak from people outside the field for producing work others see as unintuitive and absurd or which can't be verified with experiments. So they are extremely comparable.

	:::Additionally, you'll notice that this page already has a criticism section akin to that of the Psychology article's. It, like the Psychology article's, also focuses on material, specific criticisms of the state of the field. Reproducability issues do not make a pseudoscience, besides which we are not discussing the mention of such criticism, just accusations of the field being a pseudoscience. Psychology is also frequently accused of being a pseudoscience- but you'll notice that its criticism section makes no mention of that. If these accusations make mention of particular problems which the criticism section doesn't already mention, then precedent would support their inclusion more- especially because there's a lot work out there rebutting or addressing those specific claims than there are attempting to tackle as nebulous a label as "pseudoscience". And inclusion of contrary views to which due weight is owed is a part of maintaining NPOV.

	:::As has been mentioned dozens of times to you at this point, Marx is a fringe figure in modern economics. His work has zero impact on the work economists do today, and any commentary he may have made was regarding a field which hasn't existed for approximately two centuries. It doesn't matter if he is the tallest poppy in leftist political philosophy- he is utterly irrelevant to modern economics. You really need to stop bringing up Marx in these discussions.

	:::I did not claim that you want to keep wanting to write about heterodox economics (although the figures you cite in claiming that economics is a pseudoscience are heterodox figures all). I was making the claim that[REDACTED] has a serious problem with accurately representing the state of economics at present, and that adding commentary from random pundits or heterodox economists with an axe to grind does not improve the situation.

	:::This kind of material has been deleted from the page for fringe and NPOV reasons before- partly because mentions of criticism has to include any extant rebuttals. Just because you are simply saying something that is true is true does make you not misleading- you need to give people the full picture (which is what NPOV is about): and the full picture is that a handful of relevant academics, centuries old-philosophers talking about a completely different field and a bunch of pundits who get their information from- you guessed it: wikipedia- are not authorities on the current state of the field. They are, in fact, fringe. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::Hello VineFynn, and thank you for your expansive response! I have a lack of time in my life due to that I very frequently engage in wage labour, so I have unfortunately not been able to respond as quickly as I would have wished to. I'm sorry for that.
	::::You can for sure object to that characterisation. It is also absolutely true that "Just because you can't comment on it doesn't mean they aren't fairly comparable."
	::::However, I won't go far into how the fields are fundamentally different and not well suited for comparison, but here is a start.
	::::: Consider that you have economics, and then you have theoretical physics. They are two different fields.
	::::: That they can be comparable in some ways is in fact true.
	::::: But that economics have certain features, which is fine within theoretical physics, does not imply that economics can be excused for having the same features.
	::::: That is because theoretical physics and economics are simply not equivalent. One is a branch of Science, the other is well, not that and at most a social science.
	::::: Hence I would argue that the comparison is simply irrelevant. Your argumentation has the same structure as the claim that since it is ok for a soldier to kill someone, so can I. Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premises. (I don't know if there is some hubris going on in even voicing a possible comparison between the two, or alternatively just a outright case of physics envy. But the last couple of people I have met that has studied theoretical physics do not seem overly impressed by the "strong mathematical basis & a priori models" of economics to say the least. But that's anecdotal...) On the subject of Marx, you're essentially arguing here is that criticism is irrelevant if:
	::::# It was written a long time ago. (View the Wiki policy regarding recentism)
	::::# That the figure who critiques a subject must be a "verified" member of that particular subject. (Tell me if I have to elaborate on how why this is not the case.) Further, it's irrelevant to the sentence which I have proposed whether some character has any influence on the field itself. It is as if you would to claim that someone with a lack of influence in the field of creationism could not possibly even be counted as someone who has voiced a valid critique of that field.
	::::I note that you again resort to noting that the people which I cite is heterodox economists according to your judgement. (Some are, some are not if you take a look at the sources.) By this you seem to imply that it would matter if they were orthodox or heterodox, which is a clear favoritism for who should even get to comment on the subject.
	::::I highly doubt that such a view is compatible with Misplaced Pages's ambition to be neutral, and hence do not really get why you would argue in this way.
	::::However, you have previously stated that "Members of the public read[REDACTED] and come away with the impression that economics is barely a science, and is divided between dozens of schools whilst the mainstream clings to a majority." I still doubt that you are correct in this observation, since I have not seen any data on it. But economics have a bunch of schools and a orthodoxy, but there does not have to be anything wrong with that. However, it almost seems like you would like to deny that. I find it rather strange since it hardly would be objective. It is as if e.g the page on psychology would just move towards glossing over that they have had a range of theoretical traditions and schools.
	::::I would really agree with you regarding that Misplaced Pages has a serious problem with accurately representing the state of this doctrine of resource allocation at present. Due to e.g claiming that economics is ''the'' definitive social science of resource allocation etc, in the first sentence of the page, which seems about as neutral as stating that ] simply was ''the'' author. Kind regards, Pauloroboto
	::::] (]) 13:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::..yeah, I'm not interested in engaging in this discussion with you any more. Too many thinly-veiled insults in your response for my liking. Without the implication that I'm unemployed and the random speculations as to my motives or reasons for editing things would be different, but as it stands I don't think this is going anywhere constructive.] (]) 08:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::::I find it very sad that you think that I would try to insult you. I am merely trying to get to the bottom of what you are in fact writing here. Since I do not find it very convincing. That you might not respond is fine, but I just want to state that you are the one who is implying that being unemployed would be negative here. If you refrain from actually responding to my answers to the arguments you have voiced, then yes, I very much agree with you. That's a walkover. ] (]) 21:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Leaving all else aside to preserve my sanity, I will offer some advice on the policy side of things: someone explicitly refraining from engaging with you and only you in an RfC is not a step towards building consensus- if anything, the opposite. Consensus is required to make an otherwise contested change to a page.] (]) 22:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

	:The criticism is well sourced and currently relevant and widely believed so I think it should be in. It would be nice if economics in politics was simply being twisted by politicians like advice on covid by health professionals has been, but I think anyone with a shade of honesty knows the problems are far deeper than that. There's various rules of thumb in various applications which work well enough to oil the machinery of business and I certainly support research in economics but one can't say criticism like this is wholly unfair. ] (]) 01:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
	::The criticism seems often coming from fringe sources or uninformed ones. This smacks of just a focused version of the "all social sciences are pseudoscience" ranters. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::A feeling I get when people criticize me too ;-) However we should go by Misplaced Pages policies in particular NPOV and WEIGHT. ] (]) 10:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
	::::If we're going by NPOV, we'll need to include rebuttals too. Because this is not an uncontroversial viewpoint, at all.] (]) 22:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::::If someone has addressed the point I've certainly no objection to that. ] (]) 10:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
	::::::This is all rational conceptually, but without diffs of the actual dispute it's impossible to wrap one's head around to determine if those policy concepts are being followed appropriately, or being wikilawyered around. ] (]) 14:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::It's fine by me to add rebuttals. May I then suggest two sentences: ”Economics has been claimed to be a pseudoscience by a minority of scholars for the absolute majority of its history. However, many economists dispute this.” ] (]) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::::We'd need a citation, it can't just be editors' own thoughts. ] (]) 09:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
	* Do not use. Mentioning such a vague pejorative ] seems to me just an indication of bias, not giving anything of meaningful content or helpful to reader understanding. It also seems undue and misleading since clearly the scientific consensus or academic consensus is not doing such a categorical denouncement. Scientific bodies are not issuing statements against it, and academic bodies recognise degrees in the field. In contrast, when the criticism section mentions ] it is a specific item being criticised, with wikilink, and people can understand why it is used and what shortcomings it has. Cheers ] (]) 13:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	*:Hello Markbasset! Thank you for your input. I would argue that the term is relatively concrete and descriptive. However, it would be great if you could help out with providing context for the reader. It is for example easy to use a search engine to find academic articles which dispute the claim that economics is a pseudoscience.
	*:These groups, are they possibly groups of economists? (Because that would be a bit like asking a priest if god exist.) You claim that it is obvious that there is a scientific consensus regarding economics by arguing that since universities offer classes in it, that must be the case. I can point out a few other subjects which universities offer classes in. Religion, dance etc. If you want to argue that these subjects are scientific please allow me to be a bit skeptical. ] (]) 14:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	*:Hello again Mark! You changed your initial comment very quickly! For the sake of clarity for all readers, I will paste your original comment here, so readers clearcly can see what I have replied at.
	*:''"Do not use. Mentioning such a vague pejorative ] seems to me just an indication of bias, not giving anything of meaningful content or helpful to reader understanding. It also seems undue and misleading since clearly the scientific consensus (expressed by scientific groups) or academic consensus (obvious by universities offering classes) is not doing such a categorical denouncement."'' - ‎ ]
	*:I can also now respond to the last part, which I missed. There is no argument regarding a categorical denouncement, which you can see if you read the section.
	*:Kind regards, Pauloroboto ] (]) 14:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	*:Please note that this response is adressing Markbassett's edited (new) comment.
	*:Hello (again) Markbasset! Thank you for your input. I would argue that the term is relatively concrete and descriptive. However, it would be great if you could help out with providing context for the reader. It is for example easy to use a search engine to find academic articles which dispute the claim that economics is a pseudoscience. There is no argument regarding a categorical denouncement(from the POV of the academic community in its entirety), which you can see if you read the section. This also applies regarding your claim that "/.../academic bodies recognise degrees in the field." I agree regarding that "Scientific bodies are not issuing statements against it", but this is again not about a categorical denouncement(from the POV of the academic community in its entirety).
	*:A criticism of rational choice theory may be that it fails to correspond with human behavior, which is a general general critique, of something specific namely rational choice theory. It's the same thing as with economics here. The difference is that the situation here is even a bit better. Since in this situation the people who have already their way down through the very solid science presented in the page. Therefore they likely have some information already, which they can judge the critique based on. As a matter of fact, they would not even need to use a wikilink, but merely scroll.
	*:Thank you again for your reply.
	*:Kind regards Pauloroboto ] (]) 15:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	::] Oops, sorry. I didn’t see your posts as I was continuing to Google&wordsmith after an intermediate quick save. Again though, I oppose inclusion. My feeling is that this vague pejorative is not helpful and that it is ]. Inclusion in the article of pejorative labels just seems more an indicator of an article flawed by editor biases and OR creating sensationalism rather than anything informative on the topic. Here it also seems obviously not mainstream. Degrees in this field are recognised, and scientific groups such as AAS are not ranting against economics. Cheers ] (]) 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::Hello! No problem! I accept that you may feel this way. However I do not think your ground for this is sound. If it is the phrase you are particularity worried about then there is a real issue. Since one can not really just gloss over that this is what the scholars in question de facto have claimed about this subject. It would hence be rather unhelpful to lie about what they have actually stated. But maybe it could be solved by writing something along the lines of:
	:::”Economics has been claimed to be a pseudoscience by a minority of scholars for the absolute majority of its history. However, many economists dispute this. There is also others scholars who don't view economics as a discipline as pseudo scientific, but are concerned with issues like unfalsifiable theories, scientism, questionable research methods etc."
	:::Do you think this is better?
	:::However, I think only the first two sentences would do better. But if you think it would help to counter sensationalism (which I really dislike...) then I am all ears.
	:::I don't really get your sentence "Here it also seems obviously not mainstream." it would be good if you could clarify it.
	:::Regarding weather degrees are recognised or not is not relevant in my view. That's beyond the scope of what the conversation is about right now. And that AAS (a organisation that probably does not really care all that much about economists) does not undermine that these authors has stated claims like this for centuries by now.
	:::Kind regards, Pauloroboto ] (]) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::That sounds good, if it can be backed up by the references. –] (]]) 23:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::References does not matter here. Edit warring seems to be the de facto modus operandi.
	:::::The criticism section is clearly not neutral right now, at least in my opinion. ] (]) 21:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::I just did a search on "economics pseudoscience" And interestinglky the first back was by Robert Shiller. I'm afraid it is not quite the robust refutation you might be looking for, but it is a thoughtful discussion of the problems. It went downhill from there so perhaps a different search should be used if you want something for a rebuttal. ] (]) 10:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
	All these "criticism" sections and articles are editor-curated ]. We could just as well have a page called ] or at least a section in ]. - "The elbow has been the subject of criticism throughout history, including that it suffers from tennis elbow, arthritis, and ugly-looking wrinkled skin on the back...".]] 14:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Since it is so easy why don't you just cherry pick some rebuttal then and lets have a look at that. ] (]) 10:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
	::I even added two articles to state those who oppose questioning economics, but that did not do apparently. Since no one can question the holy doctrine... ] (]) 21:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Yeah... I don't even really know how to even begin to respond to this elbow objection of yours. I for sure have to pick out what I am going to cite, but so does anyone who want to make a claim on Misplaced Pages. I have to side with @] here.
	:I think it seems like we have reached a conclusion regarding that there does not seem to be any good reason to keep quiet regarding that this field has faced criticism.
	:I have published a small edit which is written to be very clear in who claims what, and that there is no general agreement here. It is slightly changed since @] looked at it, but the changes are small. ] (]) 20:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
	::Reverted. No consensus for this, and for an editor to push substantially the same content after calling for an RfC at which it achieved no consensus is really quite pointless and contrary to WP process.]] 20:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::Well, the criticism section is clearly biased right now. So I guess we have something to talk about. ] (]) 21:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::I think probably dealt with better with small agreed edits with reaoning for each. Of course economics has basic problems, since trading leads to some people getting poorer how does even the basic assumption that people are rational work in the way economics says? I'd call it an emerging science, perhaps in another twenty or thirty years with a bit of AI help to try and avoid our prejudices the basics will be elucidated and agreed more clearly. ] (]) 10:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::It is not a good look to to disagree with them even more...
	:::::The ] provides theory for trade making some people worse off, so I don't really understand you critique. People can act "as if" they are rational (I believe MWG Micro covers the role of rationalisability, as does the recent Osborne & Rubinstein book, if you are interesed) and still be made worse off by trade; trade still happening can be explained by its beneficiaries being more numerous or politically powerful. In any case, this is not a place to provide economics tutoring, but to rely on mainstream RS over your assessments of the discipline. ] (]) 11:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::::This discussion is hard to follow due to a lack of specific diffs to examine. However, from what i can gather, this is a ] issue. It sounds like some editors would like to insert criticisms from a small minority from within Economics and/or from outside economics into this article. In my opinion, again from what i can gather, this would be a UNDUE issue. Specifically "Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" There is a place in Misplaced Pages for heterodox views, but that place is not here. ] (]) 14:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	]
	:::::::20 percent of the publications in research are heterodox (), so it is an important minority, so its views should be included in this article. 20 percent is completely different than the percentage of publications which back fringe theories on the page ], which is always less or way less then 1% of the scientists. For example the percentage of publications with climate change denial is less than 0,2%. So heterodox economics is backed 100 times more than the fringe theory of climate change denial. In my opinion 20 percent of the article should be about heterodox economics.--] (]) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

	::::::::Where are you getting 20% from? Figure 1 shows that 20% of Italian researchers have, in 2001-2003, (co-authored) a heterodox article, not that 20% of output is heterodox. Figure 3 plots the number of research outputs by Italian researchers as recorded by EconLit in 2001-2003 by field. About 5% of outputs have at least one heterodox JEL code. ] (]) 16:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Here you can see the highest ranked economic journals: & , many high ranking journals are heterodox. --] (]) 17:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I calculated it and 61 of the 255 journals are heterodox according to this source (23,9%) and 59 of the top 200 are heterodox (29,5%). --] (]) 18:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::How heterodox? There is a giant difference between for example, 'the Philips Curve is incorrect' heterodox and 'Economics is pseudoscience' heterodox. To continue your climate change analogy, 'This climate model underestimates the effects of methane' is radically different from 'Climate change does not exist'. ] (]) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I agree, you should look inside heterodox economics which views are most common. I don't know about how many percent of economists say economics is a pseudoscience, but a large section about heterodox economics is justified.--] (]) 18:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::A large section? I disagree. And i have a hard time believing that any meaningful percentage of economists think their own field of study is pseudoscience. As far as the proposal offered at the start of this section is concerned, i oppose it as both uninformative and undue. ] (]) 18:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	With a large section I mean 20% of the page. And they don't classify their own field of study as pseudoscience but the mainstream economic science as pseudoscience --] (]) 18:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	Personally I think one or two sentences about pseudoscience is justified in this article, and the rest can be described in for example the article ].--] (]) 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Does the ] article have even a short section about "there's really no such thing as wheat"?]] 19:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	*IMO, rather than getting mired in the orthodox vs. heterodox debate, a criticism section for an article like this one should focus on perspectives in the literature of philosophy of science, the field that takes up the question of evaluating the validity of purportedly scientific inquiry. My sense from reading through several papers in the field is that they focus primarily on specific methodological and theoretical problems within economics, rather than branding the whole thing as pseudoscience, primarily because ] and most purportedly-scientific inquiry, across all disciplines, in practice falls well short of the various historically-established standards of what science should be. I found to be a good summary of the historical debate, and didn't find anything in more recent literature to contradict it. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

	:I agree regarding that one or two sentences is the least that can be done here.
	:Further, since it's not uncommon for heterodox economists to claim this regarding the mainstream, I think that too should be mentioned. ] (]) 17:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

	Sorry for a long top-level comment. There was a to simply a SEP article, which is a respectable RS for this issue. To recap somewhat, discussions of economics as a field are complicated by the amount of distinct active cross-fields, as well as active heterodoxies mentioned above. Regarding Marxism, my limited familiarity would suggest it's between fringe and heterodoxy, depending on the specific work they put out (e.g. UMass's department). This of course is ''very'' different from how Marxism is used in sociology and the humanities, and especially from praxis. So only modern economists who have done mainstream work should be cited, right? The issue there is every good old academic loves to criticize their field – especially when they write a book. <small>Amartya Sen said (to me – not bragging – but yes he did speak to me once)</small> that economists need to learn more high-level math.</small> Quote-mining reputable academics dissing their field seems trivial.
	IMO citing only the SEP article, maybe with a short quote in the ref tag (because it's a very long read), seems to be the best way to address methodological critiques. However, I don't think the SEP article addresses adequately the criticism of mainstream economics as people have applied it to business and public policy, historically and now. But for that again I'd think finding a respectable wide review piece would be far preferable to collecting scattered quotes. ] (]) 21:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

	::: Agree with SamuelRiv, critiques tend to be sub-field specific, for example, within Development Economics there has been issues with implementing the theories and ideas within the field to real world problems faced by institutions like the world bank or IMF. Bill Easterly's book, The Elusive Quest for Growth, covers some of these issues and discusses the difficulty of distilling development into a simple formula that applies to all countries. However, Development Economics has adjusted since then and there has been a larger focus on RCT studies and the study of micro phenomena in relation to improvements at the macro level.
	::: A good start for the critique section should focus on the longstanding issues that have ramifications across all sub-fields. A common critique I've heard in research is "Physics Envy", the idea that Economists envy Physicists ability develop mathematical models that give good approximations to real world phenomena. While Economists run into problems like lexicographic preference orderings, or completeness and transitivity assumptions for preferences that make models messy and reduce that mathematical beauty that is desired in any elegant model.
	::: Again, Economists who work within these areas are aware of the problems, so simply stating "Economics relies on unrealistic assumptions" is a total oversimplification, it's a surface level critique. This comment section reads like a group of people throwing quotes from a paper they found that supports their view, or comments that attempt to belittle the entire field. If you want to claim it's all psuedoscience, can someone explain the psuedoscience inherent in studies done by the likes of Josh Angrist, David Card, Duflo etc. They posed a question, designed or discovered a natural experiment relevant to the question, applied valid econometric models with a focus on causation, and wrote about what they found?. Granted, these studies are in the domain of Applied Econometrics, but calling it all psuedoscience implies these studies must also be inherently pseudoscientific?
	:::Good critiques should say something about core issues within the field. From my knowledge, some of these relate to the disagreements in other social sciences like Psychology. In the natural sciences when two fields disagree they will tend to work it out until they can establish some measure of consistency. Social sciences often act as though they're all independent, however findings and concepts across fields can be contradictory and yet still accepted by their related academic communities. Please can we focus on more fine grained critiques and be clear about what sub-fields they apply to rather than blanked claims about Economics being psuedoscience. ] (]) 14:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Reference cleanup ==

	I templated everything and did a lot of checks and clean-up, but there's some issues with the referencing that I think should be addressed. The first one that I'm happy to take care of: there's ''a ton'' of references to the ''New Palgrave Dictionary'' -- which you know, if it's a good quick accessible source it's perfectly fine -- but the maintenance and article size can be simplified considerably if we put that citation in particular into <code><nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki></code> tags. (<code><nowiki>{{r}}</nowiki></code> may also be doable but there's no pagination or other short marker of entries.) I know that that sounds like mixing citation styles, but (discounting the scattered sfns in there already) technically WP uses its own style with templates and in-line refs anyway, and that's been evolving continuously, so just do what should be done: function over formality.

	The second thing is more something for the long-term curators to look into, which is the large number of multi-cites. There are good reasons for doing a multi-cite, but there's a lot of poor usage in the article. Finally anyone who is familiar with the original sourcing of this article may want to take a look as there was a lot of mismatch of editions in the data for books cited. I don't think it matters because specific details don't seem to be cited too much, but it's worth a cleanup from someone who knows the books. ] (]) 04:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Recession Definition ==		== Recession Definition ==

Revision as of 04:44, 1 October 2022

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Economics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Economics at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
April 21, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
September 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Template:IEP assignment

Proposed added definition of 'economics' in the 1st sentence

The following words are appropriate for this section: "Modern economists do not subscribe to a homogeneous definition of their subject" and, given the wide range of subjects & methods used, "any concise definition of economics is likely to be inadequate."•

• Roger E. Backhouse & Steven Medema. (Winter 2009). "Retrospectives: On the Definition of Economics". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 23 (1): Abstract. doi:10.1257/jep.23.1.221.

I propose adding another definition to the 1st sentence of Economics (with the earlier new, part italicized):

Economics … is "the study of how societies use scarce resources in the production of valuable commodities for distribution among different people. A complementary definition of economics is "the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services."

(1) The 2nd definition is fine. Still, it may be questionable for those who have taken Principles of Economics. They might say, "Why is there mention of consumption but no mention of investment spending & government spending. The 1st definition avoids this problem.

(2) The 1st def. uses the term "scarce resources". There is no mention of it in the 2nd def., but 3 pp. later in that same textbook is a 6-para. section titled "Resources Are Scarce" under the larger heading of "Individual Choice: The Core of Economics." So, "scarce resources" in the 1st definition is important. Those subscribing to heterodox economics might agree about including the 1st definition to represent (mainstream) economics more faithfully.

(3) The 1st def. includes “distribution among different people", suggesting that different people (not just a particular class, ethnicity, and so on) are important.

So, the 2 definitions are complementary, not competitive.

Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The lead is not the place for a pick-and-choose definition. The current text represents a widely accepted and uncontroversial definition. talk 19:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for same reason. The proposed is fine but is excessive for the lead, which is required to be no more than terse summary of the body content, per WP:LEAD. Can you find a suitable home for it in the body? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, SPECIFICO & JMK. The 1st def. is more representative of how econ. textbooks define the subject, & better in that sense. Still, the 2nd def. is brilliantly reductive and worthy of the top spot. Samuelson's textbook (now in it's 20th ed.) was a template for later textbooks, as Krugman noted about his own textbook. And I'll follow your suggestion, JM. — Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pnyeg (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC) May a simple solution to the discussion be to add something along the lines of "More broadly, economics is the scientific study of all kinds of economic phenomena within society, and the behaviour and interactions of all agents engaged in economic activity." This encaptures a variety of approaches to its definition; both concise and non-exclusive. (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition of a recession is and has always been two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth Economics Professor (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Recession Definition

The definition of a recession is and has always been two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Economics Professor (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Recession/Archive 3#A recession is 2 negative quarters of GDP growth, where this question is explained. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for suggestions - Feminist Economics Critique

Hi all,

I'd like to change the Feminist Economics overview which is currently contained within the "Criticism" section of the article. Currently, part of this section states: "Primary criticisms focus on alleged failures to account for: the selfish nature of actors (homo economicus); exogenous tastes; the impossibility of utility comparisons; the exclusion of unpaid work; and the exclusion of class and gender considerations."

I'm not well versed in Feminst Economics and as such, dont feel comfortable implementing the changes myself. To anyone who's familiar with the literature could you please suggest a good change that addresses the following issues (discussed below) contained in the quoted part above:

1. "failure to account for: the selfish nature of actors". - Issues: Their criticism is not a failure in economics to account for "the selfish nature of actors", but rather the very assumptions of selfish actors.

2. "the impossibility of utility comparisons". - Issues: Utility is ordinal, so more is better and as such can be compared in the sense that 'bigger is better'. Utility can be translated into expenditure ($$) via the duality between Marshallian and Hicksian demand. If they are talking about comparing between individuals, then it's impossible in the sense that utility functions are specific to an individuals tastes. So mathematically, they're different functions. If they are instead referring to comparisons for an individual for different levels of utiliy, then the criticism is about the inability to compare the magnitude between two utility levels. E.g. A utility value of 4 vs a utility value of 2, although 4 is double 2, it does not mean the individual is twice as 'better-off'. What do they mean?

Hopefully this doesnt read like some forum post, I just wanted to check if anyone out there who is familiar with these critiques could shed some light on and/or suggest a suitable edit.

I agree that the current "failure to account for" wording is confusing.Dsp13 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Economics an academic discipline?

From recent events, we know one thing for sure. Economists have not yet settled on a definition for "recession." Given that the most basic things about this so called "subject" have not been settled, can economics be treated as an academic discipline like the article makes it appear? Or is it better to describe economics as a pseudo-science along with alchemy and voodoo? 162.17.130.220 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

please refer back to Talk:Recession/Archive 3#A recession is 2 negative quarters of GDP growth, where this question has been explained. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change (1) reference link (broken) to new reference link Vrouilhac (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC) The old link is broken and the new link has been placed to the following URL https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/economics

Partly done: The learner's dictionary def is not the same one as in the archived Oxford def, so I'm marking the link as dead and just referring the reader to the archive instead. It wouldn't substantially change things either way, and Oxford and Merriam dictionaries honestly don't gaf how "precisely" they define the term or whether it conforms to some scholarly usage, so they should be removed anyway, and only OED (rigorously tracks common usage over time) and maybe SEP (source on hist & philosophy of science) should be used. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in economics

Loosely following French WP page for Economics, I added some brief material on women in economics as a subsection of the Profession section. SPECIFICO removed some of it, and suggested talk page discussion.

1. (removed as "gratuitous OR") "Though men have historically dominated the economics profession, some women economists achieved early prominence. For example, ..." .

I'm unsure whether by WP:OR is meant the claim (a) that men have historically dominated the economics profession or (b) that some women economists achieved early prominence. Neither are something I made up, and both are easily verifiable. As for "gratuitous", perhaps the difference between SPECIFICO and me is stylistic: I intended this as brief scaffolding (admittedly involving some redundancy!), but also to make clear that the women economists listed were exceptionally prominent examples, rather than (on the one hand) a complete list of early women economists or (on the other) reflecting historical female dominance of the economic profession. I'd be interested to know consensus here. Perhaps it could be phrased more simply: "Though men predominated in the early economics profession, some women economists achieved prominence. For example, ..."

2. (removed as "UNDUE content based on unpublished undergraduate paper about a chat room") "A 2017 study found widespread gender stereotyping on a job market rumor forum for United States academic economics positions, amounting to a 'toxic environment' for women in the profession."

I was initially happy to agree, until I noticed that a Google Books search shows Wu's paper has been cited in over 20 books. So I thought this would be good to air also.

Best wishes, Dsp13 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(1) is telling the reader how to interpret the subsequent factual content. The factual content can be greatly expanded and would benefit the article. The unsourced lead-in is not NPOV and fails WP:V. It's opinion, and even if a source or two can be found that share such an opinion, it is not the WEIGHT of mainstream thinking.

(2) Is silly stuff and give the tens of millions of books indexed with google, the fact that 20 cite such a non-RS paper is patently unremarkable and does not invalidate core WP policy.

Thanks for your contribution of the sourced factual part of that section. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your reference to 'the WEIGHT of mainstream thinking'. Do you know of any ('mainstream' or not!) sources that suggest that either (a) men did not predominate in the early economics profession, or (b) the women I mentioned did not achieve prominence? Your suggestion that the material could be expanded is interesting. I was actually trying to avoid unbalancing the Profession section by giving too many examples. But clearly there are many more (see e.g. Edith Kuiper's A Herstory of Economics).I disagree with you here about what is 'silly stuff'. Misogynist talk is silly, sure, but it's not thereby inconsequential - and so measuring its prominence within a profession isn't silly at all. Dsp13 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's silly because it's an undergraduate with a statistics software package who thinks some jobs chatroom is an important indicator of "a profession", society, or world culture. If you are interested in improving our coverage of women in economics, I suggest you start with Janet Yellen Juanita M. Kreps Elinor Ostrom, Christina Romer, and others who have made front page news and then delve into notable academics and business leaders and other civic figures who happened to be economists. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't disagree about Yellen etc., but whether or not women face weird hostility from men in the economic job market seems relevant to the state of the profession. I realise I didn't address your point about the Wu paper not being a RS. I was actually thinking of the Justin Wolfers NYT piece as the RS, and provided the link to the Wu paper for convenience. Would taking that ref out assuage your concerns? Dsp13 (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, NYT is chit-chat. UNDUE and not encyclopedic, just a day's copy. It's not as if they are reporting a news event and it is basically just conveying a single narrow view. There could be a WP article about the status of women in various professions or academic specializations, but this page is about Economics, not even about economists, and this content is marginal even if fleshed-out and well-sourced. It's kind of WP:COATRACK. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie Kelton comes to mind, but Category:Women economists contains at least 50 people, another 200 or so in Category:American women economists. I think the main question, which we can't answer in the article because as SPECIFICO says it would be OR, is, do women have trouble being economists, or did women basically have trouble being any high-powered profession prior to whenever the women's liberation movement picked up some steam. Probably the case, so focusing on this in the article is undue weight. Andre🚐 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Wu, Alice H. (2018). "Gendered Language on the Economics Job Market Rumors Forum" (PDF). AEA Papers and Proceedings. 108: 175–179. doi:10.1257/pandp.20181101. Earlier version at "Gender Stereotyping in Academia: Evidence from Economics Job Market Rumors Forum" (PDF). Retrieved August 30, 2022.
Wolfers, Justin (August 18, 2017). "Evidence of a Toxic Environment for Women in Economics". The New York Times. Retrieved August 30, 2022.

Categories: