IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mrq/wpaper/2013-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economists' Odd Stand on the Positive-Normative Distinction: A Behavioral Economics View

Author

Listed:
  • Davis, John

    (Department of Economics Marquette University)

Abstract

This chapter examines economists' indefensible attachment to the positive-normative distinction, and suggests a behavioral economics explanation of their behavior on the subject. It reviews the origins of the distinction in Hume's guillotine and logical positivism, and shows how they form the basis for Robbins' understanding of value neutrality. It connects philosophers' rejection of logical positivism to their rejection of the positive-normative distinction, explains and modifies Putnam's view of fact-value entanglement, and identifies four main ethical value judgments that contemporary economists employ. The behavioral explanation of economists' denial of these value judgments emphasizes loss aversion and economists' social identity as economists.

Suggested Citation

  • Davis, John, 2013. "Economists' Odd Stand on the Positive-Normative Distinction: A Behavioral Economics View," Working Papers and Research 2013-02, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mrq:wpaper:2013-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://epublications.marquette.edu/econ_workingpapers/24
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gorbunov, Vladimir, 2022. "The positive resolution of the microeconomic problem of market demand: issues of methodology and verification," MPRA Paper 115514, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. David Colander, 2018. "The Scope and Method of Applied Policy Economics," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 132-146, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mrq:wpaper:2013-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Andrew G. Meyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.