Tag Archives: economics

Do economists dream of electric people?

Posted on by

With apologies to [amazon_link id=”0575079932″ target=”_blank” ]Philip K Dick[/amazon_link], the title for this post is inspired by turning back to a book I read some years ago, Philip Mirowski’s [amazon_link id=”0521775264″ target=”_blank” ]Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes A Cyborg Science[/amazon_link]. This in turn was prompted by reading Mary Poovey’s [amazon_link id=”0226675335″ target=”_blank” ]Genres of the Credit Economy[/amazon_link]. She traces the turn to (excessive) abstraction and rationalism in economics to the marginal revolution of the late 19th century onward, much earlier than in Mirowski’s account. For he, by contrast, blames the development of computers and the Bourbaki mathematicians in the mid-20th century.

I remembered not liking Machine Dreams when I read it. It’s heavy-going, and for my tastes too conspiracy-theorist. Still, I semi-agreed with this point in the conclusion:

“As a historian I think it would be unconscionable not to point out that every single school of economics that has ever mustered even a sparse modicum of support and something beyond a tiny coterie of developers has done so by accessing direct inspiration from the natural sciences of their own era and, in particular, from machines. The challenge for those possessing the courage to face up to that fact is to understand the specific ways in which fastening on the computer instead of the steam engine or the mechanical clock or the telephone has reconfigured our options for the development of social theory.”

Semi-agreed because I don’t think the source of inspiration needs to be physics. Biology has been a strong inspiration for certain economists – notably Malthus and Marx – and is proving so again with the interest in epidemiology and network models. Biology returns the favour, too. Darwin was famously inspired in turn by Malthus, John Maynard Smith by game theory – and, as I wrote up here, an economic model of constrained optimisation would seem the ideal model for which neurons in our brains bring what perceptual signals to our conscious attention. In fact, the interest in behavioural psychology means there is a lot of exchange between the cognitive sciences and economics right now. As for Mirowski’s basic point, that economics will always be inspired by natural science, that for me is inherently true in the claim to be scientific, and the closer economics gets to all of the natural sciences, the stronger it will be.

[amazon_image id=”0521775264″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science[/amazon_image]

More on women and economics

Posted on by

Recently I posted (Do Women and Economics Mix?) about a new initiative to mentor young women in the world of academic economics. This week Karen Schucan-Bird wrote about her research into women in the social sciences, including economics, on the LSE Impact Blog. She found that in the ‘masculine’ social sciences including economics, women published articles relevant to the REF less than in proportion to their representation:

“Whilst women made up 24 per cent of political scientists in the UK, they only contributed 8 per cent of the articles sampled. In economics women constituted 22 per cent of academics whilst writing 13 per cent of the sampled articles.”

She adds that the gap in economics was not statistically significant, but I assume this reflects the small sample size – as [amazon_link id=”0472067443″ target=”_blank” ]Deirdre McCloskey says[/amazon_link], there’s statistical significance and real significance.

The pattern did not hold in psychology and social policy, where more than 40% of the academics are female, and around the same proportion of the papers in the sample were female-authored.

The fact that there are pronounced differences between different social sciences in this respect suggests that the explanation cannot lie in general academic structures but in features specific to economics and political science. The possible explanations for a lower proportion of women in those fields in the first place seem to be either the intellectual character of the subject, and/or the sociology of the subject and in particular peer effects and promotion channels; while the under-achievement of women in terms of publication surely is the result of the specifics of the REF for those subjects and the way the featured journals are edited? Peer review seems to me as an outsider a seriously flawed process.

Having said all this, I’ve not worked in academia and would be interested in better informed perspectives.