Comments for Soc2Econ http://soc2econ.wordpress.com Just a group of sociologists trying to save economics from itself Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:44:06 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The problem with literature reviews in economics by Science (esp. econ) made fun « Code and Culture http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-problem-with-literature-reviews-in-economics/#comment-23 Science (esp. econ) made fun « Code and Culture Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:44:06 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-23 [...] myself occasionally do the “sociologists can be funny” genre (see here , here, and here) but these are basically elaborate deadpan in-jokes and I am under no illusions [...] [...] myself occasionally do the “sociologists can be funny” genre (see here , here, and here) but these are basically elaborate deadpan in-jokes and I am under no illusions [...]

]]> Comment on The problem with literature reviews in economics by Uncommon Priors » Soc2Econ: hillarious, if a little mean. http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-problem-with-literature-reviews-in-economics/#comment-22 Uncommon Priors » Soc2Econ: hillarious, if a little mean. Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:25:23 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-22 [...] For the law professors in the room, pay special attention to this one. [...] [...] For the law professors in the room, pay special attention to this one. [...]

]]> Comment on An Empirical Interrogation of Perfect Information: Toward a Sociological Economics (Part 1) by scarcity http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/an-empirical-interrogation-of-perfection-information-toward-a-sociological-economics-part-1/#comment-21 scarcity Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:18:12 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=11#comment-21 I agree that the baseline Arrow-Debreu framework relies on perfect information, but the statement that "Neo-classical economics works on perfect information" is simply false. It was immediately obvious that perfect information was a bad assumption, and, for literally decades, neoclassical economics have used methods that don't rely on perfect information. For instance, see any of the work by recent Nobel laureates Hurwicz, Maskin, Myerson. Alternatively, see Jovanovic's (1979) paper on job matching and turnover. Yes, lots of economics models assume perfect information, but to assert that it is a fundamental property of neoclassical economics is wrong. Further, I, and most economists, actually agree with all your probing questions, but the perfect information assumption is not the reason those are good questions. I agree that the baseline Arrow-Debreu framework relies on perfect information, but the statement that “Neo-classical economics works on perfect information” is simply false. It was immediately obvious that perfect information was a bad assumption, and, for literally decades, neoclassical economics have used methods that don’t rely on perfect information. For instance, see any of the work by recent Nobel laureates Hurwicz, Maskin, Myerson. Alternatively, see Jovanovic’s (1979) paper on job matching and turnover.

Yes, lots of economics models assume perfect information, but to assert that it is a fundamental property of neoclassical economics is wrong.

Further, I, and most economists, actually agree with all your probing questions, but the perfect information assumption is not the reason those are good questions.

]]> Comment on Theoretical pedagogy: Contextualized in sociology vs. black-boxed in economics by michaelbishop http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/theoretical-pedagogy-contextualized-in-sociology-vs-black-boxed-in-economics/#comment-19 michaelbishop Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:09:21 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=10#comment-19 You make some good points but you go too far when you suggest that our standard of living is stagnant or that the long-term trend is towards subsistence wages. That is just false. You make some good points but you go too far when you suggest that our standard of living is stagnant or that the long-term trend is towards subsistence wages. That is just false.

]]> Comment on The problem with literature reviews in economics by CoreEcon » Blog Archive » For social science academics only … http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-problem-with-literature-reviews-in-economics/#comment-18 CoreEcon » Blog Archive » For social science academics only … Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:07:12 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-18 [...] this has to be the funniest discussion of the structure of academic articles in economics and sociology [...] [...] this has to be the funniest discussion of the structure of academic articles in economics and sociology [...]

]]> Comment on An Empirical Interrogation of Perfect Information: Toward a Sociological Economics (Part 1) by yetanothersheep http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/an-empirical-interrogation-of-perfection-information-toward-a-sociological-economics-part-1/#comment-17 yetanothersheep Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:59:28 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=11#comment-17 The last chapter of Debreus "Theory of Value" is about incomplete information, it is a primary motivation for market incompleteness in Quinzii and Magills book on incomplete markets and assymetric information has been treaten since Radner wrote about it. And know GE theorist thinks that the Arrow-Debreu model with complete markets is good as a descriptive theory. Including Ken Arrow. The last chapter of Debreus “Theory of Value” is about incomplete information, it is a primary motivation for market incompleteness in Quinzii and Magills book on incomplete markets and assymetric information has been treaten since Radner wrote about it.

And know GE theorist thinks that the Arrow-Debreu model with complete markets is good as a descriptive theory. Including Ken Arrow.

]]> Comment on An Empirical Interrogation of Perfect Information: Toward a Sociological Economics (Part 1) by fallacyofcomposition http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/an-empirical-interrogation-of-perfection-information-toward-a-sociological-economics-part-1/#comment-16 fallacyofcomposition Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:13:08 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=11#comment-16 Economics doesn't assume perfect information. For sure models get constructed, but then they get rejected following empirical observation. That's science isn't it? Economics doesn’t assume perfect information. For sure models get constructed, but then they get rejected following empirical observation. That’s science isn’t it?

]]> Comment on The problem with literature reviews in economics by mgsmith http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-problem-with-literature-reviews-in-economics/#comment-14 mgsmith Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:29:44 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-14 Update: I'm an idiot. Update: I’m an idiot.

]]> Comment on ark building and economic development: bringing the flood by back in by mgsmith http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/ark-building-and-economic-development-bringing-the-flood-by-back-in/#comment-13 mgsmith Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:27:02 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-13 Amazing. Amazing.

]]> Comment on The problem with literature reviews in economics by mgsmith http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-problem-with-literature-reviews-in-economics/#comment-12 mgsmith Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:41:46 +0000 http://soc2econ.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-12 "As a consequence economics as a whole is hopelessly fuzzy and muddled." Strong words coming from a sociologist. I have a problem with the argument that long exhaustive lit reviews are beneficial to the layreader. Lit reviews generally give quick summaries of the relevant aspects of previous arguments. The author clearly expects the reader to have some knowledge of the previous lit. Otherwise the lit review is hardly comprehensible, let alone informative. You acknowledge that scholars don't generally benefit from exhaustive lit reviews, they skip the lit review altogether and going straight to the findings. Your strongest arguments in favor of exhaustive lit reviews are 1.) It helps avoid hurting the feelings/ego of possible reviewers, and 2.) It allows hacks to keep pumping out the same garbage with minimal empirical contribution. Are these good things? “As a consequence economics as a whole is hopelessly fuzzy and muddled.”
Strong words coming from a sociologist.

I have a problem with the argument that long exhaustive lit reviews are beneficial to the layreader. Lit reviews generally give quick summaries of the relevant aspects of previous arguments. The author clearly expects the reader to have some knowledge of the previous lit. Otherwise the lit review is hardly comprehensible, let alone informative. You acknowledge that scholars don’t generally benefit from exhaustive lit reviews, they skip the lit review altogether and going straight to the findings.

Your strongest arguments in favor of exhaustive lit reviews are 1.) It helps avoid hurting the feelings/ego of possible reviewers, and 2.) It allows hacks to keep pumping out the same garbage with minimal empirical contribution. Are these good things?

]]>