IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper

Análisis crítico de la Ciencia Económica en tiempos de Crísis

  • William Orlando Prieto Bustos


Resumen La economía parece estar ad portas de una revolución científica que requiere de un cambio del actual paradigma que orienta la política económica. Lo anterior ha traído como consecuencia una tensión en el ejercicio profesional que intenta articular un interés privado que define sus resultados, con un interés público que define su credibilidad. Dichas tensiones han ocasionado fallas sistemáticas en la profesión que están modificando la relación entre el sujeto y el objeto de la ciencia económica, y entre el sujeto y los procedimientos a través de los cuales estudia el objeto en condiciones de incertidumbre. El presente documento discute la importancia de los principios pluralismo crítico, responsabilidad, Primun Non Nocere, y precaución en un esquema de reflexión ética de la economía como ciencia y como técnica. Para tal efecto se realiza un análisis institucional de políticas, normas, y directrices en una muestra de 10 países: 8 de Latinoamérica, junto con Estados Unidos, e Inglaterra. El principal resultado indica que el actual régimen institucional tanto legislativo como ético no soluciona la tensión que genera el interés privado y el interés público en el desempeño profesional de un economista en una economía de mercado. Es necesario incorporar una articulación flexible que facilite una interpretación sencilla y concreta que oriente al mejoramiento de la calidad del servicio privado y público que desempeña un economista.Abstract The 2008 financial crisis has caused a profound impact regarding public interest and the economics profession´s prestige and credibility. Prior to the financial collapse common knowledge about economic assumptions such as the hypothesis of efficient markets and rational expectations were widely supported for orthodox economists albeit their lack of empirical evidence. Upon such theoretical underpinnings dominant economic advice to deal with uncertainty was used to obtain financial yields well beyond efficiency and ethical limits. The financial crisis revealed the profession blindness towards opportunistic behavior whose impact may well be compared with blackmailing public interest forcing the government to step in to preserve the system´s solvency and credibility. According to the opinion of several economists replacing economic human behavior direct observation for a mathematic criterion has shadowed not only the real use of modern economic theory in solving economic recession - to the point that it has been substitute by common sense- , but also has contributed to justify an unethical behavior in the financial markets whose consequences have being paid by the society. The following paper discuses an institutional analysis of the economics profession using a comparative analysis methodology composed by 10 case studies of the profession legal frame. The research´s main finding concludes that the current institutional regime is unsuitable to reduce private-public interest tension in the corpus of the economic profession so that there is a rationale for institutional design oriented to increase high quality scientific behavior in the economic science useful to anticipate economic recessions.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE COLOMBIA in its series DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO UCATOLICA with number 009818.

in new window

Length: 21
Date of creation: 15 May 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:col:000444:009818
Contact details of provider:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000444:009818. 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: (Joan M. Tejedor E.)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.