The introduction of methodology and practice in economics

Résumé du document

The methodology in economics is important, because it gives us a better understanding of the economic analysis. The purpose of the economic theory, is to provide a comprehensive framework for the study of human behavior', Gary Becker had declared (1976). As the aim of the economy, governments are to improve social welfare. The goal of welfare economics is to maximize 'the sum of utilities of individuals whose preferences are normally represented as greedy and selfish'. The distinction between positive and normative economics is not a recent question. Positive economic relates rather to sciences. It explains the economic view from the facts, thus it wants to be objective with 'declarative statements about the world'. David Hume's Guillotine says that normative economics is more about values and 'prescriptive evaluations of states of the world'. According to philosophical positivists, the main distinction is between 'is' and 'ought'.

Extraits

[...] As this theorem is not falsifiable, it is a part of normative economics. In economics, the normative notion tries to have an impact in the society by making policy recommendations”[9] while the positive economics points out the explanations of economic behavior. Ricketts and Shoesmith (1992) conclude “both normative and positive differences explained different views, but there was more different divergence on normative questions than on positive questions”. For instance, a question about inflation can be seen as a positive question if it is concerned the monetary phenomenon, or a normative view if the question deals about the money supply[10] Conclusion Positive economic could not be completely value-free. [...]

[...] (2002) Economic Methodology: An Inquiry, Oxford University Press Fox, Glenn. (1999) Reason and Reality in the Methodologies of Economics: An Introduction, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham As a footnote (1st time) Blaug, the Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain, (Cambridge, 1993), If you cite the same publication immediately thereafter, you do like this: “Ibidem, As a footnote (2nd time) “Blaug, the Methodology, op. cit As a bibliography entry Blaug, M., the Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain, (Cambridge, 1993) Fox, Glenn. [...]

[...] Weber introduced the doctrine of Wertfreiheit (freedom of value) and argued that is possible to have a value-free social science. However, Heilbroner supposes that “economist cannot be impartial or disinterested”, thus he has a value judgment. In order to support an argument, an economist needs ‘scientific' validity and evidence, which are in the domain of the positive economic. At the same time, he is free to insert his value judgments, propositions or ideologies. An economic example According to Keynes (1955), The object of a positive science id the establishment of uniformities, of a normative science the determination of ideals, and of an art the formulation of precepts.” An example of total positive economics is Pareto optimality. [...]

[...] Nevertheless they are considered as a part of positive economics. Hence Hennipman sees the postulates as value judgments, consequently he perceives the theorem as a normative concept. The first concept that the individual is the best judge of his welfare, is a value judgment and not a fact. Secondly, nonpaternalism which excludes the welfare of children and lunatic excludes as well all the other entities. Lastly the postulate of unanimity does not reflect the reality, subsequently it is definitely not scientist evidence. [...]

[...] The distinction between positive and normative economics is not a recent question. Positive economic relates rather about sciences. It explains the economic view from the facts, thus it wants to be objective with “declarative statements about the world”. Hume's guillotine says that normative economics is more about values and “prescriptive evaluations of states of the world”[4]. According to philosophical positivists, the main distinction is between and Hume's guillotine sums up the distinction in the equivalent antonym: David Hume thinks that cannot deduce ought from in his Treatise of Human Nature[5]. [...]