|
I feel a take that takes apart a whole comprehensive notion, one that is sure to have many rough edges, is nitpicky and worth little. So, I will try to address your points (for my own benefit), and then---perhaps---lead into a more worthwhile discussion. > The formal definition of rational actor is not nearly 150 years old. It's heyday was probably in the time of Becker, in the 70's. The study of equilibrium refinement concepts practically died before the 90's, as did General Equilibrium theory (actually before that). The straw man has seen better days. I believe you missed the point. Arthur was discussing the phenomena's overall history, not its formal comeaboutance. I.e, "economic theory has viewed agents in the economy (firms, consumers, investors) as perfectly rational decision makers facing well-defined problems and arriving at optimal behavior consistent with — in equilibrium with — the outcome caused by this behaviour." not "economic theory has specifically labeled its views that agents in the economy (firms, consumers, investors) as perfectly rational decision makers facing well-defined problems and arriving at optimal behavior consistent with — in equilibrium with — the outcome caused by this behaviour." > Is it fair to converse with academic literature that is 40 or more years old - as the author does when referring to the "standard model of financial markets"? Perhaps more relevant: Is is useful? Nay, I say. Literature (even more specifically scientific and technical) starts to become unintelligible nonsense after the 1950s. This is true for economics, as it is for any other discipline that was long-standing before this time. We are starting to see a reversal -- and some sense is coming back to academia -- but it's simply the beginning of the rise, and not worth mentioning. Frankly, I have lost the will to continue (it is a Friday night, after all). But, do you see merit in the two points I've made so far? |
The statement he leads his paper with is clearly wrong if read literally. Others follow that are simply not fully correct or intellectually honest.
The overall history includes the works of scholars who have shaped the field, be it 150 years ago or 50 years ago and at least, were influential. I am clearly still missing the point, but I can not see any way to read this sentence in a way that would be correct.
Are the scholars mentioned as counter examples and the people who draw upon them to tackle their research not doing research in the field? What are they doing, then? What have they been doing for the last 60 years? I specifically take issue with eliminating people like Jim March, who has thought very deeply about rationality and actual human behavior in the context of complex systems aka organizations.
Or see it from my view: I have published work with Agent Based complex models, interdisciplinary work with psychologists, sociologists and mathematicians, that should be looked upon favorably by the author of this article. Am I doing complexity economics in the sense of the author now?
Because the academic lineage I draw upon includes (though not exclusively) a good amount of economists that the author so malignes. And not obscure ones either!
It seems like the author wants to co opt the many exciting ideas in economic theory and approach that are still ongoing - but in reality they also have been ongoing for decades, in parallel to what he sees as economics.
If the author sees himself part of this scientific conversation, why not represent it fairly? I know one has to frame a paper like this against something, but this is just overdone.