Paul Anthony Samuelson (1915-2009), a leading contemporary economists, has left us. He was a founding father modern economic analysis and in particular do not want controversy, provided that both microeconomics macroeconomics fundamental tools that allowed each field to progress rapidly since.
Although the information is to my taste a little confidence in the mass media as they say ...
[on the other hand, reader, try putting yourself in a situation where you have to explain the theory of revealed preference to Claire Chazal so she can evoke in thirty seconds in log 20h] ,
. .. I refer to such excellent notes made by Alexander of Econoclaste here, really great, and there Yannick
... This post is not to repeat what has been done well elsewhere, but one of the concluding remarks of Alexander the ticket gave me the idea of a ticket, I hope, adopts a light tone, but also tries to give a somewhat iconoclastic view of some of his work. I will indeed use it (Samuelson) to fund a debate frequently mentioned, that the increasing specialization of researchers and its possible effects. Indeed, in her post, Alexander wrote:
"He who has died has been the spiritual father of the modern economy: all around, but all his qualities, can be attributed to him. It was the last GP of a social science today marked by hyper- : there will probably no other Samuelson. Anyone who wants to raise its height will be a great way to go. " (fat by me)
I bounced on his remark may be to push a door open for a long time, namely the tendency to regret that some scientists in this hyper- a specific area (can see how we can present things, for example, the site of economic alternatives in an interview with Daniel Cohen, here ) platitude that has the gift of my nerves. I am not saying here that the phenomenon of specialization of economists has only positive effects, I simply mean that its benefits are much higher than these costs, especially if you think like me that individual capacity to make the Economic analysis of an academic point of view are highly variable. Furthermore, to be a bit provocative, I think hyper- Our discipline is also a consequence of the work of Samuelson. From my point of view, specialization is not actually any problem at all, I just think it's the hyper has dramatically increased knowledge in the field of economics for fifty years.
In part, this is the approach of Samuelson has allowed the development of this hyper. Specifically, if the last "generalist", writes Alexander rightly because he threw the close of this hyper- economists asking a cornerstone of modern economic analysis, namely reductionism which helped to explode the representation of economic phenomena using theoretical models. Indeed, his approach, described as "reductionism" has allowed researchers to cut economics in limited portions of knowledge that were then invested in a systematic way. The sum of all these parts then gives an impressive package, which may sometimes lack coherence, but in each specialty area, causes a rapid increase in knowledge.
In fact, why refuse to apply the theory of comparative advantage developed by David Ricardo, and systematized by precisely the same Salmuelson through the famous theorem that bears his name (or HOS Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson), development of knowledge while economists do not hesitate to apply for trade development and consider that the specialization of countries, regions within the economic perspective has generated a huge increase in wealth?
It would be a point of view difficult to defend because, after all, if one considers that there is some interest the theory of specialization in the field of international trade, I do not see why we could not learn in terms of productivity and accumulation of scientific knowledge. It seems to me a little schizophrenic to consider the implications of the law of comparative advantage are confined solely to the issue of international trade ...
comparative advantage argument made by David Ricardo is well known, which does not prevent not be extremely powerful and brilliant: a country very poor in all areas of the industry can expect to participate in the great game of trading International, because even if there a more brilliant than her in all areas at once, it will be advantageous to specialize in the industry in which it is relatively most competent. While the theory of absolute advantages of Adam Smith gave only slim hope for these countries, the argument of Ricardo's hands in the game of economic growth and in the hope of economic development.
As noted by Samuelson in 1969:
"What Did David Ricardo Mean When He coined The term comparative advantage? According To The Principle of comparative advantage, The gains from trade follow from Allowing year to specialized economy. If a country is relatively better at making wine than wool, it makes sense to put more resources into wine, and to export some of the wine to pay for imports of wool. This is even true if that country is the world's best wool producer, since the country will have more of both wool and wine than it would have without trade. A country does not have to be best at anything to gain from trade. The gains follow from specializing in those activities which, at world prices, the country is relatively better at, even though it may not have an absolute advantage in them. Because it is relative advantage that matters, it is meaningless to say a country has a comparative advantage in nothing. The term is one of the most misunderdstood ideas in economics, and is often wrongly assumed to year mean absolute advantage Compared with Other Countries ".
Metaphor Samuelson in the Economic to evoke this argument Ricardo is famous: Suppose a brilliant lawyer plans to hire a secretary for typing reports, correspondence and other documents he must produce all day long. He auditioned 10 secretaries in the day, each facing a typing test. To his dismay, he realizes that they are less efficient in this domain itself. Smith's theory says there is no chance for them they can do their job, and that lawyer should practice as a lawyer and at the same time deal with typing tasks. Samuelson tells us very precisely, repeating Ricardo, and as the lawyer is incomparably more powerful than a typist in terms of law with respect to its standard of performance in typing, it is their common interest that the lawyer hired any of these secretaries if it allows him to devote himself to his field of excellence, namely the right.
now transpose this law of comparative advantage in the academic field. Suppose, for example, that economists are 1000 seats in the academic world and that the labor market, there is 1000 clones of Paul Samuelson, as in the very funny movie Multiplicity, which illustrates this post, in which Michael Keaton, subjected to multiple stresses that can not cope "s'autoclone", and ended up being totally overwhelmed and replaced by all its clones. Suppose there are 999 other economists also much less bright than he, or them, any way you want to drive, each of these economists is specialized in a specific area. We can also assume that these 1000 places have just a specific profile, which corresponds to a specialized areas of economics today: labor economics, decision theory, international macroeconomics, industrial organization, etc..
It is clear that each Samuelson is stronger than any of the other economists on the market, this in all possible areas. Therefore, assuming that the academic market is a form of rationality, the 1000 positions would be awarded the 1000 Paul Samuelson, leaving no chance for other economists to exist in the academic field.
Fortunately for them (I put myself in this whole course!) There is a only Paul Samuelson, and, above all, even if it is stronger than anyone here in each area individually, you might think, to use the image Samuelson on comparative advantages, the relative gap in productivity in all areas of specialty is not the same. Samuelson is better than me in behavioral economics, for example, but I am so superior in international macroeconomics, it is better for society (in terms of collective welfare) that specializes in this area there rather than wasting time in behavioral economics. This therefore leaves me chance to do my job and to live quite comfortably ... so
Fortunately for us all, professional economists, and adopting a selfish point of view and not that of the general welfare, that there a Samuelson or Arrow
a century ... I thank and salute the memory of Samuelson for his contributions to the economy, and I thank him also for being the only, the unique and irreplaceable Paul Anthony Samuelson.
PS: As this blog has been a year yesterday, I wish a happy birthday! I really appreciate the way all readers, commentators and bloggers who follow me in this adventure for some encouragement, and whose comments I found most often amused, interested or surprised ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment