How much of positive economics is genuinely value neutral?
Much of modern economic theory is positive economics, which is supposed to be value neutral, objective studies. Milton Friedman, the most prominent proponent of positive economics, once published the famous Essay on Positive Economics. In which, he wrote, "I venture the judgment, however, that currently in the Western world, and especially in the United States, differences about economic policy among disinterested citizens derive predominantly from different predictions about the economic consequences of taking action—differences that in principle can be eliminated by the progress of positive economics—rather than from fundamental differences in basic values, differences about which men can ultimately only fight. … If this judgment is valid, it means that a consensus on 'correct' economic policy depends much less on the progress of normative economics proper than on the progress of a positive economics yielding conclusions that are, and deserve to be, widely accepted."(p. 6) The statement of "disinterested citizens" is logically inconsistent with the basic assumption in economic theory that all people are motivated by self interest. Friedman’s argument is the classic defense of "value-free" positive economics: The Assumption of Consensus: Friedman assumes that "disinterested citizens" already agree on normative goals (e.g., everyone wants poor people to earn a living wage, or everyone wants societal well-being). Shift to Technical Prediction: Because the goals are assumed to be agreed upon, the only remaining work for the economist is the technical, positive task of predicting whether Policy X or Policy Y actually achieves that goal.
But is there truly a consensus on goals? When economic models prioritize market measures (like GDP or stock indices) over fundamental social health (like replacement fertility rates or family stability), economists are not simply evaluating neutral "means to an agreed-on end"—they are embedding a silent value judgment about which ends matter in the first place. How “disinterested” is Friedman himself? Friedman and Hayek both are staunch supporters of Pinochet dictatorship. After visiting Chile, Friedrich Hayek wrote, "I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Apparently, Hayek didn’t count many who were imprisoned or the families of those who were brutally murdered by the Pinochet regime even as “a single person”. He never bothers to listen what they have to say. How disinterested they are!
|
