Critical Theory

[publicaffairsny]

I will circumvent the fact that this is an admissions forum by asking if anyone knows any programs where faculty incorporate critical theory into economics. However, if someone wants to comment on ways economists use critical theory that would be great too.

[chateauheart]

We don't.

[publicaffairsny]

Hey man you were complaining everyone just posts profile evals. Sorry for thinking outside the box.

[publicaffairsny]

And with that it is bedtime in upstate ny. So if you (chateau) try to be a very serious person by dissing me I will not be here to respond. Sorry.

[chateauheart]

No, we don't use critical theory. There are people who study culture from a microeconomic perspective, and also people who study the impact of culture on a macroeconomic level, but economists in general don't engage in anything that resembles the critique portion in critical theory, which is essentially an activist type of intellectual argumentation - and wholly incompatible with the positivist inclination of economics.

[tm_member]

It's posts like this that make me certain a public policy PhD is the only one the OP will be happy in. An Econ program will constrain and frustrate the OP to neoclassical positive economics and the OP's unique background and experience will not be allowed to show up in their work.

[tm_member]

I will circumvent the fact that this is an admissions forum by asking if anyone knows any programs where faculty incorporate critical theory into economics. However, if someone wants to comment on ways economists use critical theory that would be great too.

 

Oh and the type of work done at each school is always relevant to admissions!

[behavingmyself]

It's posts like this that make me certain a public policy PhD is the only one the OP will be happy in. An Econ program will constrain and frustrate the OP to neoclassical positive economics and the OP's unique background and experience will not be allowed to show up in their work.

Correct me if I'm wrong and you know more about public policy programs, but my sense is that critical theory is close to nonexistent in policy schools too.

 

To the OP, you've previously mentioned liking the credibility of economics research, but you have to understand that credibility doesn't emerge out of thin air. Credibility comes from using methods which virtually everyone can agree are suitable for doing whatever it is you're claiming to do.

[tm_member]

Correct me if I'm wrong and you know more about public policy programs, but my sense is that critical theory is close to nonexistent in policy schools too.

 

To the OP, you've previously mentioned liking the credibility of economics research, but you have to understand that credibility doesn't emerge out of thin air. Credibility comes from using methods which virtually everyone can agree are suitable for doing whatever it is you're claiming to do.

 

Yes, but they are generally more open to alternative approaches to "research".

[publicaffairsny]

Economics imperialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

How about this. Its short, but it seems there is room to apply economic perspectives to phenomena previously unexamined through the perspective of market forces. You're right, normativity is included in the definition of public policy as a field. And the skepticism toward the field that you evidence is also integral to policy analysts understanding of their work. Which is why I am exploring other options.

[tm_member]

Economics imperialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

How about this. Its short, but it seems there is room to apply economic perspectives to phenomena previously unexamined through the perspective of market forces. You're right, normativity is included in the definition of public policy as a field. And the skepticism toward the field that you evidence is also integral to policy analysts understanding of their work. Which is why I am exploring other options.

 

Absolutely. I tend to call this imperialism "bully" Economics.

 

I thought what you wanted to do was the opposite though? That is, bring some of the techniques from the other social sciences into Economics? That's usually met with an unimaginable amount of derision, skepticism, and outright hostility. I personally don't see the problem with it, as I'm of the opinion that (we) Economists need to be challenged repeatedly as the self-professed "kings"of the social sciences. Think of it as a John Stuart Mill style argument that dissension is crucial to preserving valid ideology.

[publicaffairsny]

Not saying that's what I want to do (be interdisciplinary). I'm just exploring if it can be done or how. I actually think a weakness of mine is having strong convictions so the discipline of a positive perspective could be beneficial for me.

[tm_member]

Not saying that's what I want to do (be interdisciplinary). I'm just exploring if it can be done or how. I actually think a weakness of mine is having strong convictions so the discipline of a positive perspective could be beneficial for me.

 

Just to forewarn you, I began my Econ PhD with similar convictions. First year plus a semester of field classes knocked that right out of me.

 

I thought an Econ PhD would help me formalize my ideas but I realized that the literature in almost every applied field (including health, labor, IO, education, urban/rural/regional, environmental, transport, trade, and agricultural economics) orbits around a series of outstanding articles showing how planning and interventionism leads to enormous unseen costs and unintended consequences.

[informer]

Just to forewarn you, I began my Econ PhD with similar convictions. First year plus a semester of field classes knocked that right out of me.

 

I thought an Econ PhD would help me formalize my ideas but I realized that the literature in almost every applied field (including health, labor, IO, education, urban/rural/regional, environmental, transport, trade, and agricultural economics) orbits around a series of outstanding articles showing how planning and interventionism leads to enormous unseen costs and unintended consequences.

 

Extremely infrequent poster here. I am now an AP who works in applied micro. tm_member, you are welcome to your opinion here. But I really have no idea how you came to it, at least in fields I am familiar with, and it does not reflect a consensus reading of the applied micro literature within the profession.

 

My goal here isn't to start an argument, just to provide an alternative perspective that might be useful for prospective students.

[publicaffairsny]

Those are both really valuable perspectives. While as a political worker I will knock on your door and tell you we need to fight for candidates who are pro-worker and pro-progressive taxation, I realize that these are more feelings than reasoned arguments. I am hoping that doctoral studies will challenge my ideas and ultimately result in a better understanding, but I realize developing an understanding of even a tiny niche in the social sciences is a lifelong process.

[yankeefan]

The vast majority of public policy PhD programs worth attending have basically transitioned to applied micro econ programs - you won't find much critical theory or "alternative" approaches there unless its a low ranked program. If your goal is to do research that reaffirms your political convictions then sociology programs might be the best route for you.

[tm_member]

Extremely infrequent poster here. I am now an AP who works in applied micro. tm_member, you are welcome to your opinion here. But I really have no idea how you came to it, at least in fields I am familiar with, and it does not reflect a consensus reading of the applied micro literature within the profession.

 

My goal here isn't to start an argument, just to provide an alternative perspective that might be useful for prospective students.

 

There's probably an availability bias affecting my view but I'm really not aware of too many papers giving intervention and centralized decision-making a "thumbs up." Do you have examples?

 

The type of work that changed my views include Acemoglu and Angrist's work on the ADA (Labor/Health), Shleifer and Vishny on socialist firms (IO), and a whole host of development work showing waste, fraud, and failed attempts at transplanting western institutions to the developing world.

[chrishacker]

OP: Just take first-year PhD courses to ensure that you know what the mainstream idea is, and after you pass the prelim, if you still want to do critical theory, go ahead.

Although I don't study that critical theory, I think some common sense in science philosophy (the stuff that some heterodox scholars seem to know nothing about) also helps. Here is an quick introduction.

https://www.coursera.org/course/solidsciencemethods

[publicaffairsny]

Not saying I want to do critical theory. I was just wondering if there is potential to use it.

[liamc]

OP, here's a suggestion:

 

1. Go to the best program you can get into, and work your *** off learning game theory and econometrics.

 

2. Work on applied theory or applied micro. Your background in critical theory will give you plenty of interesting research topics.

[chateauheart]

All this discussion is pretty premature. OP hasn't done calc 1 or principles of economics yet, and is thus about two years away from having a basic idea of whether he wants to do a PhD in economics, or a PhD in political science, or pub policy, or comp lit, or nuclear physics, or JD, or anything else. A background in English and an MPA gives you almost no exposure to the social sciences at large; in fact overexposure to English professors will likely give you an entirely false impression about what social scientists do.

 

For the last few weeks or so it's been pretty evident that OP doesn't have enough of an idea about the field to ask the appropriate questions yet; this means the sensible path for the next year involves a lot of reading, individual exploration and planning, and spending less time on the Internet trying to relentlessly engage with other people speaking in a different language and being haughty about it.

Edited September 3, 2014 by chateauheart

[tm_member]

All this discussion is pretty premature. OP hasn't done calc 1 or principles of economics yet, and is thus about two years away from having a basic idea of whether he wants to do a PhD in economics, or a PhD in political science, or pub policy, or comp lit, or nuclear physics, or JD, or anything else. A background in English and an MPA gives you almost no exposure to the social sciences at large; in fact overexposure to English professors will likely give you an entirely false impression about what social scientists do.

 

For the last few weeks or so it's been pretty evident that OP doesn't have enough of an idea about the field to ask the appropriate questions yet; this means the sensible path for the next year involves a lot of reading, individual exploration and planning, and spending less time on the Internet trying to relentlessly engage with other people speaking in a different language and being haughty about it. Or being insecure about your lack of methodological training. That's the path to sociology.

 

Harsh but quite true. The OP has been an active member for the past few weeks but seems quite confused about both where they see themselves in 10 years time and how to get there. .

[publicaffairsny]

So tell me where I went wrong. Developed an interest. Found a free and underutilized resource devoted to that interest. Used said resource to entertain my curiosity instead of asking my professors (who are not economists) lots of impertinent questions. Judging from the numerous misrepresentations of my posting history in your comment my best guess is you are just threatened by an alternate point of view. I guess TM is right about any challenge to orthodoxy being met with hostility.

[mcsokrates]

So tell me where I went wrong. Developed an interest. Found a free and underutilized resource devoted to that interest. Used said resource to entertain my curiosity instead of asking my professors (who are not economists) lots of impertinent questions. Judging from the numerous misrepresentations of my posting history in your comment my best guess is you are just threatened by an alternate point of view. I guess TM is right about any challenge to orthodoxy being met with hostility.

 

To challenge orthodoxy effectively, one has to, you know, understand said orthodoxy. Work on that. That's the advice you're being given. Its good advice! You should take it! Don't be a jerk because you're being told you're not a special unique snowflake.

[publicaffairsny]

Listen, I am an active learner and I've found it effective to integrate the information on this site by actively engaging with it by posting. On a site that seems to be struggling to maintain a lively discussion, I feel this is a valuable contribution. I think my last comment was pretty level-headed given the aggressive ad hominem attack leveled against me.