Honesty and Integrity in Economics
When looked at individually there is little reason to think that economists lack integrity and are dishonest. Yet, when we look at academic papers written by economists we can see biases. This paper tries to reconcile these two observations by arguing that the constraints the profession sets on permitted practices are loose enough to allow economists to maintain their biases while conforming to the mores of their profession. There is little reason to think that economics is worse in this respect than some other fields.
|Date of creation:||21 Jan 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (530) 752-0741
Fax: (530) 752-9382
Web page: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Deirdre McCloskey & Stephen Ziliak, 2008. "Signifying nothing: reply to Hoover and Siegler," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 39-55.
- McCullough, B. D., 2000. "Is it safe to assume that software is accurate?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 349-357.
- Lovell, Michael C & Selover, David D, 1994. "Software Reviews," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(424), pages 713-26, May.
- Kevin Hoover & Stephen Perez, 2001. "Three attitudes towards data mining," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 195-210.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:09-2. 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: (Scott Dyer)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.