Value Judgments and Value Neutrality in Economics *
نویسنده
چکیده
The paper analyzes economic evaluations by distinguishing evaluative statements from value judgments proper. Building on this basis, it compares four solutions to the value-neutrality problem in economics. After rebutting the strong theses about neutrality (normative economics is illegitimate) and non-neutrality (the social sciences are value-impregnated), the paper settles the case between the weak neutrality thesis (common in welfare economics) and a novel, weak non-neutrality thesis that extends the realm of normative economics more widely than the other weak thesis does.
منابع مشابه
Value Judgments and Value Neutrality in Economics. A Perspective from Today
The paper compares the various theses that have been offered about valueneutrality in economics and examines the main available arguments in turn. The extreme non-neutrality thesis (universal value-impregnation) and the extreme neutrality thesis (there is no normative economics) are rebutted, and the analysis is then oriented towards settling the dispute between two intermediary variants. In co...
متن کاملValue judgments and economics expertise
This paper tackles the problem of the demarcation of value judgments in economic expertise. Is it possible to disentangle values from facts, or neutral scientific assertions from value-laden judgments, in the context of economic expertise? If not, why not? And if it is, under what conditions? First, drawing on concepts from analytic philosophy, the paper highlights the interdependencies between...
متن کاملEconomists’ Odd Stand on the Positive-Normative Distinction: A Behavioral Economics View
This chapter examines economists’ indefensible attachment to the positive-normative distinction, and suggests a behavioral economics explanation of their behavior on the subject. It reviews the origins of the distinction in Hume’s guillotine and logical positivism, and shows how they form the basis for Robbins’ understanding of value neutrality. It connects philosophers’ rejection of logical po...
متن کاملRhetoric and Economics in the Estate Tax Debate
In this paper, we evaluate and critique ten principal claims made in recent debates on the estate tax, distinguishing five types of statements: facts, rhetoric, value judgments, economic reasoning, and informed speculation. Economics can not fully resolve the debate because economic knowledge is inconclusive and because value judgments help determine optimal choices. Nevertheless, economic anal...
متن کاملExpanding HTA – Correcting a Misattribution, Clarifying the Scope of HTA and CEA; Comment on “Ethics in HTA: Examining the ‘Need for Expansion’”
Abrishami, Oortwijn, and Hofman (AOH) attribute to me a position I do not hold and an argument I did not make. The purpose of this note is make clear what my position actually is and to clarify the main differences between health technology assessment (HTA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).
متن کامل