----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
It seems to me, Mohammad, that you should explain what you mean by economic imperialism.
You want the list to view negatively some work by economists that is quite well respected
in the profession. A reasonable prior question, I think, is "Why do you look negatively
upon this work."
 
Let me explain why your explanations do not help me understand the source of your negative
view. There is a substantial difference between the self interest assumption and the "
cost-benefit analysis, whether on the individual decision level or on the social level of
analysis." It is true that in order to act in one's self interest, one must conceive of
his action in terms of benefits and costs; but these are not the same as the measurable or
quantifiable costs and benefits that you seem to have in mind by your statement. It is
also confusing to represent the self interest assumption as "the rational choice
paradigm." Choice is choice; to attribute it with the adjective "rational" is to suggest
that an irrational choice is possible, which by all the definitions of "irrational" I have
seen, contradicts the definition of choice that the economists you cite use.
 
When Adam Smith wrote about individuals pursuing their own interests and when the
neoclassical economists of the late 19th century built models of interaction based on
subjective preferences and costs to help them comprehend the complexity of the market
economy, they were most likely not thinking about what today is labeled cost-benefit
analysis.
 
I have not read the particular Hirschman piece from which you quote, but it is incorrect
to assert that "equalization-at-the-margin" is the crux of the economic model (i.e., of
the assumption of self interest). Marginal thinking is a consequence of trying to
mathematicize the choosing process. In order to mathematicize, one must make a number of
assumptions that are not relevant to the bulk of real world choices faced even by economic
actors, and most especially by actors in politics and the social world. This fact is
surely recognized by the bulk of the writers who have applied the self interest principle
to political science and sociology. When the Public Choice writers assume that politicians
aim to get elected in their self interest or that
bureaucrats aim to maximize the bureau budget in their self interest, they are not
thinking in terms of "equalization-at-the-margin," although the norm in the profession of
economics sometimes leads them to mathematicize their assumptions and models.
 
It seems to me that you may be mistaking the form in which some writers present their
analysis for the deeper content. But I cannot tell until you explain more fully why you
use the term "economic imperialism."
 
Pat Gunning 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]