IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1701.06410.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economics cannot isolate itself from political theory: a mathematical demonstration

Author

Listed:
  • Brendan Markey-Towler

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a confession of sorts from an economist to political science and philosophy. A confession of the weaknesses of the political position of the economist. It is intended as a guide for political scientists and philosophers to the ostensible policy criteria of economics, and an illustration of an argument that demonstrates logico-mathematically, therefore incontrovertibly, that any policy statement by an economist contains, or is, a political statement. It develops an inescapable compulsion that the absolute primacy and priority of political theory and philosophy in the development of policy criteria must be recognised. Economic policy cannot be divorced from politics as a matter of mathematical fact, and rather, as Amartya Sen has done, it ought embrace political theory and philosophy.

Suggested Citation

  • Brendan Markey-Towler, 2016. "Economics cannot isolate itself from political theory: a mathematical demonstration," Papers 1701.06410, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1701.06410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06410
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter A. Diamond & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations," CESifo Working Paper Series 3548, CESifo Group Munich.
    2. Priscilla Man & Shino Takayama, 2013. "A unifying impossibility theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 249-271, October.
    3. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2008. "Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 95-144, March.
    4. John Geanakoplos, 2005. "Three brief proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(1), pages 211-215, July.
    5. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    6. Reny, Philip J., 2001. "Arrow's theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem: a unified approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 99-105, January.
    7. Easterlin, Richard A, 2001. "Income and Happiness: Towards an Unified Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 465-484, July.
    8. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    9. Ivano Cardinale & D'Maris Coffman, 2014. "Economic Interdependencies and Political Conflict: The Political Economy of Taxation in Eighteenth Century Britain," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 277-300.
    10. Fumagalli, Roberto, 2013. "The Futile Search For True Utility," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 325-347, November.
    11. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    12. Peter Diamond & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 165-190, Fall.
    13. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1701.06410. 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: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.