In the last posting, this
blog reviewed the general shortcomings of the social sciences, as an
information source. But it also pointed
out that they are better at providing needed information and analysis than most
other sources.[1] To make that report, the blog focused on
economics and the work of the Nobel prize winners, Abhijit V. Banerjee and
Esther Duflo.[2] This posting wants to focus on how the social
sciences, as exemplified by economics, can be more amenable to federalist
governance and politics – as promoted in this blog.
To do that, this posting will share with readers two quotes
from these economists’ book, Good Economics for Hard Times. The first quote is:
It is important that this
project [to establish a dialogue with the general public that] we be guided by
an expansive notion of what human beings want and what constitutes the good
life. Economists have a tendency to
adopt a notion of well-being that is often too narrow, some version of income
or material consumption. And yet, all of
us need much more than that to have a fulfilling life: the respect of the community, the comforts of
family and friends, dignity, lightness, pleasure. The focus on income alone is not just a
convenient shortcut. It is distorting
lens that often has led the smartest economists down the wrong path, policy
makers to the wrong decisions, and all too many of us to wrong obsessions.[3]
Here, this blogger thinks, is a call for a more
communal, as opposed to individualistic, mindset when considering what economists
and social scientists in general should focus upon. Of course, the more individual view – the one
that prevails today – simply reflects the dominance of the natural rights view.
This blog has dedicated a great deal of space
to describe and explain this view, but in a few words, it promotes the claim that individuals
have the right to do as they please as long as they do not prohibit others from
the same rights. One can readily see that with this basic
belief, resulting study in economics will emphasize income, wealth, and securing
material assets. That is, what most
economists highlight in their approach to the study of economics – as the quote
indicates – and counters what Banerjee and Duflo are
suggesting.
This
blog has also promoted a federalist view – the liberated federalism construct –
and has argued that it should replace the natural rights view in guiding the
development of civics curriculum in American schools. In a few words, that would be a curriculum
that establishes the fact that the nation’s governance is based on a compact –
a sacred agreement that brings together its citizenry under the relationship of
a partnership. A meaningful step in that
direction would be to adopt what these economists suggest for their discipline
and, by implication, for all of the social sciences.
And
the other quote gives readers more substance to what Banerjee and Duflo suggest:
A better conversation must
start by acknowledging the deep human desire for dignity and human contact, and
to treat it not as a distraction, but as a better way to understand each other,
and set ourselves free from what appear to be intractable oppositions. Restoring human dignity to its central place
… set off a profound rethinking of economic priorities and the ways in which
societies care for their members, particularly when they are in need.[4]
Equally, if all the social sciences took this
recommendation to heart, they would be a great deal more useful in reestablishing
a federalist nation in thought, feeling, and action.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Should One Listen to Social
Scientists?”, Gravitas: A Voice for
Civics, December 5, 2023, accessed December 8, 2023, URL: https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/. Use the archives link.
[2] Abhijit
V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York,
NY: Public Affairs, 2019).
[3] Ibid., 8.
[4] Ibid., 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment