Just some clarification on the reading before I give my opinion:
There are two different origins within economics: the ethics approach and the engineering approach. The former seeks to answer questions related to motivation and social achievement, while the latter dilutes the complexity of human behavior in an effort to address logistic issues.
Amartya Sen begins his critique of economics by showing that the subject first began as a branch of ethics. Over time, however, economics transformed into a field of study that seems to reject the notion that individuals lack the capacity to act selflessly in the pursuit of their maximum utility. Sen believes that we have placed too much emphasis on the engineering-related approach, causing us to view human beings in very narrow terms. He is calling for a balance between the two approaches, stating, "I would like to argue that economics, as it has emerged, can be made more productive by paying greater and more explicit attention to the ethical considerations that shape human behavior and judgement" (9).
I found that I remained very skeptical of the foundation of his argument throughout the reading. While he shows clear frustration with modern economics' emphasis on the engineering-related approach, he does acknowledge that developments in the field's current state have been beneficial for society and says, "It is not my purpose to write off what has been or is being achieved, but definitely to demand more" (9).
I think that every rational individual can agree that more research/advances in any field would be a nice thing. What I fail to see is why Sen still believes that economics must answer questions that are already answered by other areas of study. He is right to say that economics has transformed since the era of Adam Smith. It cannot be ignored, however, that this transformation had to be fueled by the large demand for practical models that seek to unpack the complexities of trade, markets, wealth, etc. I think that instead of focusing on the question of how we can bring ethics back into the equation, Sen should have spent more time developing the idea of why academics thought that this transformation was necessary in the first place. If I had to take a guess, I would assume that institutions assumed that the exploration of questions related to morality/ethics would be more productive under the umbrellas of philosophy or psychology. Does this limit the contributions that are understood to be made within economics? Sure, but it increases the options for other areas of study. While the loss of ethics within economics may reduce the achievements made within the field, the allocation of those achievements to other areas of study means that there is no net loss for society as a whole. After all, we are discussing this subject in a philosophy course.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI want to offer a possible answer to your question of “why Sen still believes that economics must answer questions that are already answered by other areas of study,” namely ethical questions.
You state that “While the loss of ethics within economics may reduce the achievements made within the field, the allocation of those achievements to other areas of study means that there is no net loss for society as a whole.”
I disagree with the assumption that I think is behind your statement, that as long as an achievement is made within a field, it does not need to be allocated to other fields for there to be “no net loss for society.” I think that when moral and ethical discoveries are confined to the disciplines that tend to make them – such as psychology and philosophy – there is a loss to society.
As an example of the loss that occurs when economics disregards ethics, look at Sen’s discussion of the Japan case. Sen points out that evidence suggests that the Japanese ethos of “duty, loyalty, and goodwill [has] played a substantial part in industrial success” (18). In this case, modern economics rules out a mode of human behavior that leads to economic success by insisting that rational human behavior is motivated only by self-interest. This is a prime example of modern economics’ “neglect of the influence of ethical considerations in the characterization of actual human behavior” (7), and the loss that said neglect creates.
As I try to show with this brief example, we benefit most from applying our ethical principles to economics. Thus, making ethical achievements outside of the field of economics does not compensate for a lack of ethics within economics. Sen is right to “demand more” of economists, and to demand that they provide their own answers to questions that may “belong” to other disciplines because considering ethics enables economists to account for human behaviors that they otherwise could not.
My point is that when economics does not pay attention to ethics, there is in fact a net loss. Thus, economics should consider questions – such as the ethical questions that Sen writes about – that are already answered by other areas of study.
In addition to what Eli was saying, I think that separating the subjects of economics, philosophy, and psychology completely is not the most productive way to go. I am curious on how to arrive to the statement that “Sen should have spent more time developing the idea of why academics through that this transformation was necessary”. Even though Economics has become a subject that caters to practical needs, there are branches such as behavioral, development, and welfare economics that study intersections with other subjects. These intersections are necessary because they combine the strengths of two subjects in order to tackle new types of questions, which is what Sen says. For instance, the United Nation’s Development Program’s Millennium Goals would have never been quantifiably measurable until developmental economics was in play. There were goals before, but the quantifiable measures were developed by economists and there now is a numer-based system to calculate progress. Therefore, I disagree with your statement that it would be more productive to explore ethical questions under psychology and philosophy. I think that it is very important for economists to consider ethics, because there must be some sort of morality being trade, markets, wealth, etc. Otherwise, we would only function in self-interest without conscientiousness of others, which would create a world where equality of distribution or welfare would not exist.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteThough I think that both Cristina and Eli offered formidable responses to your question about economics and ethics, I thought I would throw my thoughts into the mix. You stated that you fail to see "why Sen still believes that economics must answer questions that are already answered by other areas of study." Starting with this, from my understanding of the reading this is not what Sen believes, because this takes an isolated view of the answers. It seems to assume that answering the question "how should one live?" is only fruitful in the area of study in which it is answered (i.e. philosophy or psychology). It is not as if Sen is putting the weight of finding this answer squarely on the economists shoulders, but more like he is trying to convince us that the answer is relevant to their work as well.
To demonstrate this, I think that a good example would be our first reading of this class, Pogge. Pogge no doubt approached the problem of property rights from both an economic and ethical perspective. The problem with property rights derive from a market failure (no medicine produced), and a slightly more preferable market failure (medicine is produced at a high cost). Because of the ethical analysis of the state of affairs, Pogge produces a proposal that tries to both amend the ethical problems while producing a simultaneously economically preferable solution. If this solution were really economically preferable (which is still up for debate) then what this demonstrates is a beneficial finding for economists that originated in ethical thought. I think that this is a good illustration for how economics could benefit from incorporating more ethical considerations.