Mario Rizzo posts on the need for the development of more scholars in the field of economics. This recent Cowles Foundation working paper by Robert Shiller might be interpreting as agreeing with Rizzo.
In the Times, Janice Turner asks: "Why did Vicky Pryce, a pre-eminent economist lavishly paid to predict the future of nations, not foresee her own doom?" This raises an awkward point in the philosophy of economics - that rationality is more ambiguous than often realized.
The standard conception in economics comes from Hume:
|Peter Boettke|In January I re-read Frank Knight's "The Role of Principles in Economics and Politics," AER 1951 and I have been struck by his argument concerning the educational task of the economist and the paradox the economist faces in public discourse. I went from that essay to re-reading Knight's Intelligence and Democratic Action (Harvard, 1960). This book consists of lectures presented at the Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy at UVA in the 1950s.
John Gibson points to some neat research showing that voting is sensitive to the opportunity cost of doing so and infers that not voting might well be rational.I don't think it's as clear as this.
If voting is rational it comes down to a comparison of the costs with the consumption benefits.
|Peter Boettke|The Frankfrut School of Finance and Management has announced the establishment of a new open-access journal in economics and political economy --- Rationality, Markets and Morals: Studies at the Intersection of Philosophy and Economics. Hartmut Kliemt is one of the editors, and the editorial board is full of distinguished scholars. The journal is a peer-review (double-blind) and is looking for work that:
Freedom makes us happy. When we can, we choose what makes us happy. Religious belief is irrational. Most readers of this blog would, I guess, subscribe to these propositions. This new paper, however, challenges all three.