In the past half century economists have invaded other social science disciplines, bringing advanced techniques and original ideas. Long-suffering academics in those fields have complained of economic imperialism. Famous examples include the family (
Gary Becker), crime (
Becker again), race (OK, this is really just "Becker imperialism") and politics (
James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock,
Mancur Olson)*.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/290b9/290b9ff94559f3470d978a7905b571d9cf3af40a" alt="".jpg!Large.jpg) |
Delacroix - Attila the Hun
|
It is a cliche that conquerors end up being changed by the conquered. When reading economics papers, I now find that papers which bring a uniquely "economic" approach to bear on a broader social science problem are greatly outnumbered by papers where an interesting idea from the other social sciences motivates a new analysis in economics. The analysis is often formalized using game theory, and/or tested using econometrics, but that does not mean it uses an "economic approach" with a focus on material incentives and trade-offs. This is a subtle shift, not a discontinuous changeover. Famous examples: reciprocity (
Fehr and Gaechter, influenced by
Gouldner), social networks (
Jackson, influenced by
Granovetter), identity (
Akerlof & Kranton, influenced by
Tajfel).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/362a5/362a50b04a018c846c186a5442f24c5d86687a5d" alt="File:YuanEmperorAlbumKhubilaiPortrait.jpg" |
Kublai Khan |
When did this changeover happen, and what does it mean for the future of the disciplines?
* but also
William Riker, a political scientist. Uniquely, political scientists imperialized themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment