Friday, January 12, 2018

Geoffrey M. Hodgson — Education is not a public good

I am surprised that Geoffrey Hodgson would make an elementary error in argument by taking an arbitrary definition as an absolute criterion.

His argument actually says that those he is opposing are using the term "public good" in a way that contradicts current convention in the dominant faction of the economics profession.

What if the definition is too narrow to fit the general case and is therefore only suitable for special case models?

This is similar to the claim of conventional economists that the methodological debate is over and only their method is admissible in inquiry and debate.

It's also reminiscent of religious dogmatism.

It is an example of the sort of authoritarian nonsense that Paul Feyerabend was opposing in Against Method (PDF download).

Yeah, I know — "Anarachism," "Postmodernism," "epistemological relativism," and all that. The basis for asserting these types of view derives from an analysis of the role of power in discourse.

This is a classic power play at the level of John Bates Clark and James Buchanan. As an institutionalist, Hodgson should know this. Or maybe he does?

I actually like the conventional definition in some respects, but as guideline rather than a dogma. I don't receive it as "blest."

The "blessing" comes from elevating economic liberalism over social and political liberalism, which results in many paradoxes.

Why should what some liberal economists say (assume) dictate criteria outside the framework in which they serve as arbitrary criteria. Hello, model definitions are always stipulations and their necessity is logical necessity limited to the model.

As for conventional economics and lot more, the influence of these views will recede as the Anglo-American influence declines in a changing world where the Global East and South are rising and the North and West are waning.

New Politics
Education is not a public good
Geoffrey M. Hodgson | Research Professor of Business Studies in the University of Hertfordshire, and also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Institutional Economics.

1 comment:

AXEC / E.K-H said...


Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science

Economists, stupid or corrupt or both?

MMT = proto-scientific junk + deception of the 99-percenters

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#Economics #FailedScience #FakeScience #CargoCultScience #BogusScience #ScientificIncompetence #OrthodoxEconomics #HeterodoxEconomics #Pluralism #Econ101 #NewEconomicThinking #EconomicsReformation #MakeEconTrue #ParadigmShift #Science #MacroFoundations #Axiomatization