Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
On 1/15/02, Fred Foldvary wrote: > > Social science would be vastly easier than economists make it out to be if > > we could usually just ask people why they do things. But economists > > are generally skeptical of this approach, > >... >But perhaps a major reason why we don't rely so much on asking, is that >economics is more concerned with the means towards goals than on why folks >have the goals that they do. We presume the means involve economizing, and >then there is really no need to inquire personally beyond that; Max(U) given >constraints C does the job, perhaps too abstractly. There is the crucial intermediate task of figuring out what goals people do in fact have. Take the example of going to school. It is an open question what exact goal this serves. What is the goal of the people who hire other people who go to school? Sure school helps people "succeed", but how exactly does it do this? Via things learned? Ability signaled? Contacts acquired? If we could just ask people things, and believe them, we'd just ask people who hire others and people who go to school why they do it and we'd be done. I tend to agree with most economists that this isn't a very reliable approach. But consistency seems to suggest that I should then also not much believe economists when they tell me why they write the papers they do. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Armchairers, You might want to check out the extensive literature on so-called "direct techniques" such as contingent valuation and conjoint analysis that is used in environmental economics to elicit quantitative estimates of willingness-to-pay for non-market, non-use goods. Quantitative results are generally comparable (although higher) than those obtained from "indirect" methods such as travel cost models and they are now accepted in courts of law. They did, however, get a bad name in the Exxon Valdeze case, where the products of sleepy academics suddenly took on enormous importance in terms of dollars changing hands. Even Solow and Arrow and Paul Portney at RFF have looked at this subject and said the WTP (or Willingness-to-accept) estimates pass muster with the academic community, if the estimates are cut in half. Rodney Weiher NOAA Chief Economist Alex Tabarrok wrote: > Here is another reason, that just occured to me, why survey > questions may not help us as much as we would like even on those > questions where they are relevant. In economics we are typically > interested in what matters at the margin and this may be difficult to > discover in a survey question. > Take Robin's question about why people go to school. The answer > could truthfully be because my friends are going/because my father said > I should etc. while at the same time it could be also be true that an > increase in the wage rate reduces the number of people going to school. > It seems to me that this may be difficult to pick up in survey questions > though I suppose we could ask questions like - What factors would raise > the probability that you would attend/not attend school? - this sort of > counter-factual, however, is a more difficult question to answer than > the factual about why you did what you did but the answer to the latter > question is an average while we are interested in the marginal. > > Alex > > P.S. Yes, economists are inconsistent. > > -- > Dr. Alexander Tabarrok > Vice President and Director of Research > The Independent Institute > 100 Swan Way > Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 > Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
--- Robin Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Social science > would be vastly easier than economists make it out to be if we could > usually just ask people why they do things. But economists are generally > skeptical of this approach, Social science does have a great advantage over biological-behavior science in that we can ask our subjects of study what they are thinking and feeling. This makes up for not being able to do as extensive experiments on them as do those who study animals and plants. More of this should be done, taking into account the fact that of course people lie to pollsters and also, many folks don't really know why they do many things, at least beneath the superficial reasons. Economists can also figure much behavior out from common observation and introspection. But perhaps a major reason why we don't rely so much on asking, is that economics is more concerned with the means towards goals than on why folks have the goals that they do. We presume the means involve economizing, and then there is really no need to inquire personally beyond that; Max(U) given constraints C does the job, perhaps too abstractly. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Here is another reason, that just occured to me, why survey questions may not help us as much as we would like even on those questions where they are relevant. In economics we are typically interested in what matters at the margin and this may be difficult to discover in a survey question. Take Robin's question about why people go to school. The answer could truthfully be because my friends are going/because my father said I should etc. while at the same time it could be also be true that an increase in the wage rate reduces the number of people going to school. It seems to me that this may be difficult to pick up in survey questions though I suppose we could ask questions like - What factors would raise the probability that you would attend/not attend school? - this sort of counter-factual, however, is a more difficult question to answer than the factual about why you did what you did but the answer to the latter question is an average while we are interested in the marginal. Alex P.S. Yes, economists are inconsistent. -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
So, the question is in the LEVEL of inquiry firms are in it to make money-Firm Level the results of their actions maybe be "No firm intends to push price to marginal cost"-Industry Level? -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth? I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but this is what happens. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Am I correct in detecting a *hint* of facetiousness in your reference to age and income as more trustworthy? I remember reading that asking what year a person was born is more likely to yield an accurate answer than asking age - math aptitude really is not what it could (should) be, is it... As to income, I would imagine that definitional issues have an impact (do you mean BEA or Census income?) As far as the general thread goes, I could see the case for lumping perceptions and intentions into a similar ethereal realm where the cost of taking a hard look at one's own perceptions and intentions is not worth the value of giving better survey answers (even ignoring the strategic value of lying to respondents in many cases). Following along the line of the how would you rate ___ in the US today, what about __ in your neighborhood - type questions and the finding that people think their own neighborhood is better than the average (the lake woebegone effect) - if nothing else it explains why they haven't moved... Salutations, Brian Moore - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth? >I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be > easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, > there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions > and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree > this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on > why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns > effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's > metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior > there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to > push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such > a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is > minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but > this is what happens. > > Alex > -- > Dr. Alexander Tabarrok > Vice President and Director of Research > The Independent Institute > 100 Swan Way > Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 > Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: >I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be >easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, >there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions >and ideas ... are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone >... Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of >anyone's intention ... Fair enough. I guess many of the questions I'm most interested in, including many "armchair" type questions, are about why people do the things they do. For example, why go to school or hire someone from school, why go to the doctor, why so risk averse regarding stock investments, etc. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but this is what happens. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
