The limited scope of economics

A major problem of science is that scientists, including mainstream economists, limit their scope to their own disciplines only. They set up assumptions and build their arguments around these assumptions. They fail to see in the real world these assumptions are often not valid or the applicability is limited. Excluding ethical dimensions, for example, can make economic analysis 'manageable' and allows economists to claim themselves being 'scientific', and probably get a Nobel prize. But what happen if policymakers follow economists' advice without modifications? imposing social costs (Coarse theorem? hey, it fails when applying to intergenerational well-beings, and it would create political/ethical conflicts which is another types of social costs). So, when ecnomists say something as benefits > costs, they define the costs very narrowly. In the past it is ok, but now, the world has changed. Now people do not (or do not want to) define benefits and costs as a matter of utility only; collective well-beings are also included in their evaluation. Maximization of personal utility only is just an assumption that can no longer explain human behaviours very well. It is so obvious in psychology.

It also creates problems when economics is divorced from other disciplines like psychology. Human behaviours are not just determined by net utility gains, but right / wrong positions one holds. There is a range of motivations and the balance between utilitarian/deontological positions vary by individuals. Most importantly, it is misleading for economists to say everything is utility-based. It would be disastrous if policies are wholly based on such perspective. This is the way that our society operated in the past and present.

In fact, economics is not very objective indeed. For instance, as said, there are more human motivations than economists assume. Why do they make such assumptions? Some defend that non-utility motivations are just minority and can be ignored. Why should minority be ignored? When they do so, they are making a subjective judgement that it should be ignored. It 'should' be? No scientist is 100% objective. When economists and say social-conservationists evaluate the importance of an act, they simply weigh utilitarian and deontological positions to different degrees. They are doing the same thing but in different directions. Economics is just another school of philosophy, or as some ppl said, a kind of ethic (no 's'): utilitarian ethic. It is built upon an opposite position of deontology (utility vs. non-utility). It is not really a science from a theoretical point of view. (it does if being scientific means methodologically sophisticated, systemical & technical)

Mainstream economics is a closed intellectual system. Restricting to its own disciplinary boundary by claiming it as only a science is not really a strength but a source of those problems we face. Mainstream economists, it is time to open your eyes and listen to other disciplines. Pls do not take an incomplete understanding of reality as truth.

Chaning climate, changing value

Some researchers suggested that WTP reflects not only utility but also one's attitude. When paying for free trade coffee, which we know that it is no difference from those sold in supermarket, part of the WTP stems from our concerns to social injustice. It is an expression of our attitude towards the society. Likewise, boycotts against chained supermarket can be viewed as a kind of unwillingness to pay. It reflects our views about the role of state or the entreprise and probably a particular set of political beliefs (env problems as a result of free trade - liberalist ideology).

So, what is value? what is price? Obviously I pay for charitable flags not for utility reasons. Some defended that acqusition of moral satisfaction is also a kind of utility gains. Well...this is debetable. Can you use demand curve to predict moral satisfaction? Afriad not, evidence shows that it is scope-insensitive: price (in the form of stated WTP) sometimes remains unchanged, or change very little, as double amount of env goods are offered (so called 'embedding effect'). In fact, there are more evidence, like the refusal to make tradeoff (boycotts).

Some defended that those holding strong moral positions are minority. First, there are several categories of moral positions, some very strong (e.g. inviolable animal rights), some weak (change if livelihood is damaged). However, while the extreme one is minority, so does the strong utilitarian position (i.e. human first in any case). Most ppl are in the middle range - some moral, some utilitarian.

Economics grew in the age when ppl only concerned economic well-beings and therefore neoclassical theories worked well. In the past, human mainly looked at their own well-beings (who care black slaves?). Neoclassical theory was a perfect justification to the decision makers who strived to restore and expand their economies. But now, we add social and env justice in our agenda,we want to care about the socially deprived individuals and the future generations. In other words, we refuse to exclusively look at economic goals (except G.W. Bush and his followers). So the old schools simply fail to explain and inform the society which has changed a lot.
Modifying Clive's words: Climate is changing, preference is changing. Definition of value is also changing.

My political beliefs

Below is a map showing my political beliefs (thanks John for the link). I am a centrist! Well...I think it is quite true. I was an advocate of neoclassical economics before I meet ecological economics. That's why I used, and am still using, Malthus and Darwin as my nickname here and elsewhere. They belong to the same origin - so to speak, the 'market-led' tradition of Adam Smith (Darwin's natural selection is essentially a market mechanism).
But I am changing my mind, as the map shows, from capitalist to socialist. Note that I agree with the principle of democracy but cautiously. In some sense, free market mechanisms resembles liberal democracy as they both involve aggregation of individual preference: one thru market, another voting. It is not very conducive to collective and long-term well-beings like environmental sustainability without a process of deliberation.

You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (50% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid.com: Free Online Dating Also : The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Website: http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Explanation Of Results

We wanted to get beyond the two catch-alls of American politics, the Democratic and Republican parties, and see where people actually stand. Parties can bring together people with marginally differing values and make collective action easier. But party platforms can misrepresent their constituents, and blind loyalty to a party can convince individuals to harbor inconsistent views.

The goal of this test was to exactly classify your personal politics, without the traditional labels. We avoided the edgy party issues and focused on fundamental values. Your score is a measure of what you believe in, economically and socially.

Higher permissiveness, on either axis, indicates a "live and let live" philosophy. Of course, we're almost conditioned in America, "Land of the Free", to think positively of such a philosophy. But practically speaking, permissiviness (or its opposite, regulation) can create any number of outcomes:

For example, on the economic axis, a highly permissive system, like the American system of the early 1900s, might mean things like low taxes and increased scientific innovation. It might also result, as it did back then, in unrestricted child labor and millions of poor people with black lung.

At the other end of the economic spectrum, a highly regulated system might conserve the environment, establish national health care, and eliminate poverty. But as we've learned from the Soviet system, extreme regulation can also lead to stagnation, sameness, and unhappiness. If you liked the test, forward it. Thanks for participating.

My second paper accepted

My second paper got accepted by a journal, 'Energy and Environment'. It is a Grade C journal though (my first publication is in a Grade lower-A/upper-B). Anyway it is pretty encouraging. The title of the paper is 'Achieving environmental goals in a competitive electricity market?: post-colonial Hong Kong, public choice and the role of government' It is expected to be published by the end of this year (December, hopefully).

As I have another paper rejected by a prestigious journal, now my record is 2/3 - submitted 3 with 2 accepted. Not bad!

My supervisor recruits PhDs

One of my prospective PhD supervisors, Prof. J. Dry_zek, is going to recruit PhD students on the politics of climate change with specific focus on China. I copy his message here and pls let me know if you are interested:

"I have recently received a large grant to set up a Centre for Deliberative Global Governance that will among other things have research programs in the global governance of climate change and deliberative democracy in China. I will have available several PhD scholarships, and one postdoctoral fellowship. So if you know of anyone who might be interested in these topics, please let me know."