SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:58:34 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
Pat Gunning writes:

Evelyn criticizes the assumption of choice and action on the grounds that economists do not deal with families. This is a non sequitor. There  
is no obligation of economics to deal with families. And the critique of the assumption of choice and action is either a criticism of those 
economists who make this assumption or, in my definition, a criticism of economics as a field of endeavor. 


I completely agree with his remark that an assessment of Evelyn's (and other's) position depends on their definition of economics. I myself 
find no better definition than "what economists do". However, I would like to point out that if we define economics as the science of 
rationality and choice (as suggested above) then not only feminist economists, but also at least the Behaviouralists, Sperimentalists, 
Econophysicists, Behavioural Finance scholars, Marxians, Sraffians, Post-Keynesians, Institutionalists and everyone who does macro without 
explicit microfoundations are not economists. It looks like a pretty restrictive definition to me, regardless of the assessment one gives of any 
or all of the mentioned approaches. 

Concerning the "family issue", with specific respect to Smith's political economy, there are good grounds for claiming that ignoring gender 
produces a flaw (or at least a hole) in economic theory. Just to make an example, how could one consider of a minimum subsistence wage 
without reference to women's productive and reproductive work and its social organisation?

Clearly enough, this is not to say that all economic approaches need concern themselves with gender, families, or non-rational behaviour. In 
my opinion, Smith's and the Classics' approach, with their focus on the production and distribution of income, and on the conditions for the 
orderly development and reproduction of a market society, should have. 

Carlo




Carlo D'Ippoliti

Department of Statistics,
Sapienza University of Rome

"Economics and Diversity", Routledge 2011:  http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415600279/













---- Nuova grafica e nuove funzionalità! Crea subito Gratis la tua nuova Casella di Posta  Katamail

ATOM RSS1 RSS2