Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
20
.
1.Theoriginsofvalue-freeeconomics
approachwiththebeliefthatitispossibletoassessutilitywasuntenable.
Therefore,economistsstartedtousetheordinalisticapproachwhereconsumers
canonlyranktheirpreferences.Itmeansthatconsumersmaynotbeableto
indicatetheexactamountsofutilitiesthattheyderivefromcommodities,but
theycanjudgewhetherthesatisfactionobtainedfromacommodityisequal,
lowerthan,orhigherthananother.Inthisperspective,consumersarepresented
withanumberofvariouscombinationsofgoodsandtheycanrankororderthem
accordingtothepersonalscaleoftheirpreferences.Theinabilitytoassessutility
notonlyresultedinanewordinalapproachbutalsoinescapingfromadebate
onhumangoals.Despitetheseproblems,Paretodidnotconsiderpsychological
knowledgeassomethingunworthytostudy.Quitethecontrary-forhim
economicphenomenahaveapsychologicalexplanation.However,economics
inordertomakeprogressmustbeaseparatescienceanditneedstoestablishits
fundamentallaws(Bruni,&Sugden,2007).Paretothoughtthathappinessand
pleasurearetooelusivetermsandeconomicsshouldnotwasteitstimeonthe
discussionaboutthem.Thisescapefrompsychologyandhedonisticfoundation
endedwithSamuelsonandhistheoryofrevealedpreferences.
Samuelson(1938)triedtobaseconsumerchoicetheoryonstrictlyobservable
foundations.However,thepurposeofSamuelson’sapproachwasnottolreveal’
preferences,buttocreateastrictlyoperationaltheoryofconsumerchoicein
whichpreferencesorutilitydonotmatteratall.3Hepromisedtoremovethelast
Hvestigialtracesoftheutilityconcept”(Samuelson,1938,p.61)fromconsumer
choicetheory.Samuelsonwasnotinterestedinexplanation(whypeoplechoose
something),butheonlywantedtodescribetheworld.Inordertodothatwe
needtohaveamethodofmeasurement.ThisiswhySamuelsonbasedhismodel
onobservabletermsandconsequences.Hewasoperationalist,whichmeansthat
hisviewswerestronglyinfluencedbylogicalpositivism(Viennacircle)-the
philosophicaltheorywhichhadaconsiderableimpactonvalue-freeeconomics.
Samuelsondidnotbelievethatthepurposeofscienceshouldbefindingthe
Truth.Forhimsciencehadamorepracticalpurpose.HewrotethatHthosewho
can,doscience;thosewhocan’tprattleaboutitsmethodology”(Samuelson,
1992,p.240).4
3
4
HewritesthatHTheviewthatconsumersmaximizeutilityisnotmerelyalawofeconomics,
itisalawoflogicitself”(ascitedinAinslie,2001,p.8).
Ofcourse,Samuelsonwasnotimplyingthatmethodologywasunnecessaryforeconomics,
buthestatedthatifscienceworked,thennomethodologywouldberequired.Herethisquote
willnotbediscussedfurtherbecauselaterthemethodologicaldiscussionaboutthisissue
willbeexamined.Nowitcanonlybestatedthateconomistmustdealwithphilosophyno
matterwhethertheywantthisornot.Backin1982therewasadebatebetweenTobinand
Nozick,whichillustratesthispoint.TobinsaidtoNozick:HThere’snothingmoredangerous
thanaphilosopherwho’slearnedalittlebitofeconomics.”TowhichNozickimmediately
responded:HUnlessit’saneconomistwhohasn’tlearnedanyphilosophy”(Hutchison,1996,
p.187).
