Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Reshaping Standard Microeconomics for Political Action: Kenneth J. Arrow and Thomas C. Schelling’s Rand Corporation Projects on Racial Issues

Contents:

Author Info

  • Cléo Chassonnery-Zaïgouche

    (CES
    University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

  • Lauren Larrouy

    (University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
    GREDEG CNRS)

Abstract

The paper focuses on Arrow statistical discrimination theories and Schelling’s models of segregation, and how their work can be considered as an illustration of “the introduction of the same policy tools [as war game theory] into domestic politics in Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society Program” (Amadae, 2003: 10). In both contributions, abstract and formal theory serves as “a public policy tool” (Amadae, 2003: 9). We underline how (i) certain methods employed within RAND Corp. during the Cold War like its “interdisciplinary approach” or its “system analysis” are applied in Arrow and Schelling’s work on discrimination, and (ii) how certain tools which became the core of neoclassical economics are at the same time pervasive and challenged in Arrow and Schelling’s respective work. In that sense, our analysis is slightly different from Amadae’s one (2003) who sees in their work the illustration of the domination of rational choice theory in neoclassical economics. In our opinion, the two contributions have in common to be embedded in a neoclassical framework and illustrate a movement to amend this general framework for policy purpose. The paper discusses the epistemological status of Arrow and Schelling works, i.e. how they shape a new trend of scientific knowledge, by their specific methodologies, and how their works stress the usual dichotomy between economics as a normative or a positive science. Methods have consequences on political actions and Policy recommendations. The tiny threshold between prediction and explanation in Arrow and Schelling’s works imply a reflection on their epistemological status, especially because their respective amendments to standard theory are driven by the necessity of policy recommendations.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers/GREDEG-WP-2014-18.pdf
File Function: First version, 2014
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), University of Nice Sophia Antipolis in its series GREDEG Working Papers with number 2014-18.

as in new window
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2014
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2014-18

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 250, rue Albert Einstein, 06560 Valbonne
Phone: +33-493-954-172
Fax: +33-493-653-798
Web page: http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253, December.
  2. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1998. "What Has Economics to Say about Racial Discrimination?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 91-100, Spring.
  3. Schelling, Thomas C, 1984. "Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 1-11, May.
  4. Schelling, Thomas C, 1969. "Models of Segregation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 488-93, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2014-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Patrice Bougette).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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