User:Nick Gardner /Sandbox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Point (i) Alternative and minority economics and political economy. | |||
My aim was to produce an article that would serve as a reference point for economics graduates and undergraduate students, and for graduate-level laymen who are readers of economics articles in the media. I do not believe that the alternative and minority disciplines mentioned fall within those categories. A few checks confirm that they do not have a place in the economics degree syllabuses of some of the main universities (see, for example the Oxford economics syllabus) | |||
The term "political economy" has fallen out of use. It was once used to refer to the economic analysis of public policy (which, I accept, was the main preoccupation of Adam Smith and JM Keynes). As such, I consider it to have amounted to a very broadly-defined sub-discipline of economics, and I do not accept that it needs to be distinguished from economics. | |||
Point (ii) An applied science and the positive/normal distinction. | |||
I accept that much of it is applied science - that was certainly true of the economics that I practice. That is already implied by the distinction between academics and practitioners that is drawn in the lede and I can't see how better to bring it out. A suggestion that it is nothing but an applied science would be to ignore the contributions that are still being made at the level of pure theory. The departure from axiom-based analysis is already referred to in the article. | |||
I do not accept that the distinction between positive and normative economics need present a difficulty. Objective analysis can be applied to the assessment of the contribution of a decision to a subjectively-chosen norm, but the analysis itself is conceptually distinct from the norm. The fact that widely-accepted norms are usually taken for granted does not mean that they can't be distinguished from objective criteria. The criterion that is used for the purpose of an entirely objective analysis has to be the (objectively estimated) net effect experienced by those affected - which is obviously a different concept. | |||
Point (iii) Environmental Economics and Development Economics | |||
I regard these as sub-disciplines and distinct from the main disciplines of economics, as explained in the paragraph on sub-disciplines that I have added to the article. | |||
Environmental Economics [...] undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world [...]. Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic | Environmental Economics [...] undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world [...]. Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic | ||
substances, solid waste, and global warming.[1] | substances, solid waste, and global warming.[1] | ||