Talk:Positive economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the importance scale

This article is totally biased against positive economics, and is basically an argument as to why positive economics is flawed. The article should be mostly rewritten, but I don't know enough about the topic (yet) to do so. LittleDan^talk 04:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it's biased when you don't know enough of the topic? __earth ^(Talk) 07:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, until I revived the lede from an old version of the article, the page was devoted almost completely to a criticism of positive economics. It is obvious to any casual reader that this is not NPOV. I have marked the criticism of the article as such, and now it is better, but the criticism is completely unbalanced by facts about this issue, and maybe it should be cut down and/or balanced by a more knowledgable author. The criticism section was written by a single anonymous author, who deleted the old contents of the article and wrote about why the concept of positive economics was flawed. LittleDan^talk 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a short section on the wider philosophy of fact / value or positive / normative distinctions. This is important as the debate in economics is essentially a reflection of the wider philosophical debate. I've also included a reference to Gunnar Myrdal, the leading economist to have criticised the use of a positive / normative distinction in economics. The key reference is Myrdal, Gunnar (1954[1929]). The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, trans. Paul Streeten (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Last paragraph in article helpful but above does not support last sentence in article. Robbins did not reject normative judgments, only palming off normative judgment as science. Who of consequence then has made the link of those accepting the pursuit of positive economics as "being linked to the adoption of logical positivist epistemology in economics." Highly doubtful that Myrdal's book (preceding comment) made that case. So, on that basis, I believe that deletion of last sentence in current revision is warranted. Thomasmeeks 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Deleted typo. Thomasmeeks 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Although he tended not to reference it directly as such, the main advocate of a logical positivist epistemology in economics was Milton Friedman. It's since his works that the term 'positive economics' became widely used. Robbins was certainly not a positivist - he adopts a far more rationalist approach to economic methodology. --Nmcmurdo 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have amended the article to reflect that. You're right, Thomas, that the order of the argument in the previous text wasn't perfect. There is of course some debate about whether Friedman was a lock, stock and barrel logical positivist (see e.g. Boland, 1982), but it's difficult to argue that his 1953 work wasn't the main statement of a set of logical positivist ideas in economics (admittedly with some eccentric tweaks, such as the 'F twist'). --Nmcmurdo 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't positive and normative be merged?

In researching the topic of postive economics it is very clear that the two can't be discussed in isolation and that the examples of what is a positive statement is also an example of what is a normative statement. I'm thinking of the example given by Roger McCain: a positive statement is that requiring that wages be equal might be inefficent and that unequal wages would be more efficient is a positive statement, but to argue, therefore wages should be allowed to be unequal is now a normative statement.

I don't know the process for initiating formal merging request.... Mulp 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact-Value Distinction

The link to Hillary Putnam was to show that the logical basis of proposition used in economics had been challenged. Putnam didn't discuss its use in economics per se, but the debate in economics over such propositions should be seen in terms of the wider philosophical debate.--Nmcmurdo 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friedman’s view that “economics as science should be free of normative judgments for it to be respected as objective and to inform….” I believe his use of the word “tautological” was a little verbose, but overall I agree with his views. In further reading, I see that tautology is a term we are going to have to get used to. Anyway, positive economics are scientific and provable. Compared to the other notes in this discussion I obviously know very little about economics.

Lacyg 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Lacy Gilstrap Microeconomics ECON 2123 W41

[edit] Crime, Positive economics, Friedman

Taking a cue from the assertion that Friedman advocated positive economics as value free, then economic activity that most consider a negative value, must thus be considered normative assertions about how economic systems should operate.

A free market where transactions are mutually agreed to is a normative statement about how an economy should operate, isn't it? Certainly Friedman argued against drug laws, for example, as bad policy because the market incentives to deal in drugs were very high, but he didn't argue argue for eliminating the laws against murder for hire. Merely arguing for equality for all, and reciprocity, is to make a normative statement, a declaration of what should be. Free market capitalism vs communism is normative, not positive. Any statement about land ownership is normative, not positive.

On the whole, I agree with Friedman on principles and method, though I haven't read his 1953 essay on the topic, and I don't recall him making a distinction between positive and normative in the essays I regularly read in the 60s onward, and I only encountered it in an intro to economics text used for a macro 101 type class. The positive-normative dicotomy seems to be an attempt to justify a particular view held by those who wear Adam Smith ties, in opposition to Adam Smith's views.

And has anyone tried to define the mimimal set of axioms for an economic system that allows all further statements about the system to be stated positively without making normative statements? Mulp 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)