Return to Answer

The "overryding objective" of the positivism paradigm is to "prove or disprove hypotheses and ultimately to establish universal laws of behaviour through the use of numerically defined and quantifiable measures analogous to those used by the natural sciences"

Conclusions taken for one single individual cannot always be translated to aggregate terms (multiple individuals). This means that microeconomic results are not necessarily transferable to macro terms, and this can create disagreement among economists. Preston (1959) makes a good overview of the problem in the first page, or check the wikipedia page.

Economics research is highly vulnerable to bias. Even if methodologically the studies can be well grounded in logic and data, the point of view of the researcher can be influenced by one's own ideology or by political influence. A recent study on 159 economic literatures found "half of the research areas have nearly 90% of their results under‐powered" and "nearly 80% of the reported effects in these empirical economics literatures are exaggerated"(Ioannidis, Stanley, Doucouliagos 2017)

The "overriding objective" of the positivism paradigm is to "prove or disprove hypotheses and ultimately to establish universal laws of behaviour through the use of numerically defined and quantifiable measures analogous to those used by the natural sciences"

Conclusions taken for one single individual cannot always be translated to aggregate terms (multiple individuals). This means that microeconomic results are not necessarily transferable to macro terms, and this can create disagreement among economists. Peston (1959) makes a good overview of the problem in the first page, or check the wikipedia page.

Economics research is highly vulnerable to bias. Even if methodologically the studies can be well grounded in logic and data, the point of view of the researcher can be influenced by one's own ideology or by political influence.

A recent study on 159 economic literatures found "half of the research areas have nearly 90% of their results under‐powered" and "nearly 80% of the reported effects in these empirical economics literatures are exaggerated"(Ioannidis, Stanley, Doucouliagos 2017)

To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences. Economists are all too often preoccupied with petty mathematical problems of interest only to themselves.

 

This obsession with mathematics is an easy way of acquiring the appearance of scientificity without having to answer the far more complex questions posed by the world we live in.

To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has yet to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences. Economists are all too often preoccupied with petty mathematical problems of interest only to themselves.

This obsession with mathematics is an easy way of acquiring the appearance of scientificity without having to answer the far more complex questions posed by the world we live in.

Several models, particularly the classics, have been created from mathematical and logical thinking, before the availability of data. One of the examples is Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, which is used as a basis for major consensus in the economics profession, and a key driver of the free trade movement, was prepared before the existence of large scale trade data.

Departing from logic rather than from data is a topic of disagreement for some economists. Nowadays, we have several data that disproves this theory: African countries with free trade have not developed near as fast as Asian countries with import tarifs and export subsidies (Piketty 2014, Galbraith 2008) The theory of comparative advantage is treated as a "law" in economics, but other sciences would reject any law which is, at least once, proven to be wrong.

Several models, particularly the classics, have been created from mathematical and logical thinking, before the availability of data. These theories and models are logically and mathematically very sound. The issue here is the applicability to solve real-life problems, which becomes a topic for disagreement between economists.

One of the examples is Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, which is used as a basis for major consensus in the economics profession, and a key driver of the free trade movement, was prepared before the existence of large scale trade data. Nowadays, we have several empirical studies that disprove the applicability of comparative advantage theories for international development: African countries with free trade have not developed near as fast as Asian countries with import tariffs and export subsidies (Piketty 2014, Galbraith 2008) The theory of comparative advantage is so broadly accepted that one could compare it to a "law" in economics, but other sciences would reject any law which is, at least once, proven to be wrong.