Economic Value and Costs are Subjective

Stringham, Edward (2010): Economic Value and Costs are Subjective. Forthcoming in:

Abstract

Question 1 begins by discussing an area of subjectivism where most economists agree: Is economic value subjective? This area differentiates most modern economists from classical economists and many non-economists. Question 2 probes an area where many but not all economists agree: Are costs subjective? This area differentiates many Austrian and certain neoclassical economists from orthodox neoclassical economists following Alfred Marshall’s tradition. Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 discuss areas where even fewer still economists agree: Can we survey people’s subjective preferences? Can we measure an individual’s utility? Can we compare utility between individuals? Can we aggregate the utility of many people? For these questions one can find Austrian and neoclassical economists on both sides of the debate. Questions 7, 8, 9, and 10 look at alternative approaches to making welfare comparisons between nations that do not purport to depend on measuring subjective utility, such as looking at per capita income, migration patterns, society-wide cost-benefit analysis with dollars as the unit of measurement, and a demonstrated preference Pareto rule. Where one stands on these issues depends on how far one is willing to extend the logic of economic subjectivism. And where one stands on questions of economic subjectivism has an important influence on how one analyzes the world and what policies one recommends.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: welfare economics, economic efficiency, economic subjectivism
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D60 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B53 - Austrian; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology

References

Block, Walter (1977) “Coase and Demsetz on Private Property Rights” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1(2): 111-115.

Boudreaux, Donald, Roger Meiners, and Todd Zywicki, (1999), “Talk is Cheap: The Existence Value Fallacy,” Environmental Law 29(4): 765-809.

Buchanan, James M. (1969) Cost and Choice: An Inquiry in Economic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Caplan, Bryan. 1997. “Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist.” Unpublished Manuscript. Available at: www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm.

Cowen, Tyler (1994) “Austrian Welfare Economics” in Peter J. Boettke (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics, pp. 304-312, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

D’Souza, Dinesh (1999) “Transcript of Interview with John Stossel” in Is America Number One? www.abcnews.go.com/onair/ABCNEWSSpecials/stossel99091 9_scriptA.html

Hayek, Friedrich (1968/2002) “Competition as a Discovery Procedure” reprinted in Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 5(3): 9-23.

Mises, Ludwig Von (1949/1996) Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (4th edition) San Francisco: Fox and Wilkes.

O’Driscoll, Gerald (1980) “Justice, Efficiency, and the Economic Analysis of Law: A Comment on Fried” Journal of Legal Studies, 9(2): 355-366.

Rizzo, Mario (1980) “The Mirage of Efficiency” Hofstra Law Review 8(3): 641-658.

Robbins, Lionel (1932) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.

Rothbard, Murray (1956) “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” in Mary Sennholz (ed.), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises, pp. 224-262, Princeton: Van Nostrand Company.

Rothbard, Murray (1962/2004) Man, Economy, and State. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

Sen, Amartya (1976) “Real National Income” Review of Economic Studies 43(1): 19-39

White, M. and Stringham, E. (2004) “Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Austrian and Kantian Perspectives” in Law and Economics: Alternative Economic Approaches to Legal and Regulatory Issues, M. Oppenheimer and N. Mercuro (eds.), pp. 374-92, New York: M.E. Sharpe.