IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

"Free Entry and Exit" from the Market: Simplifying or Substantive Assumption?

  • Robert E. Prasch


Registered author(s):

    Economic theory, of necessity, presents an abstraction to the reader. Abstraction is required to achieve the perspective that allows for theory, that is to say, understanding and interpretation, to occur. If the abstraction is done well only inessential details are set aside -- details that would otherwise divert the theorist from grasping the essential or fundamental elements of the process under examination. For example a study of the mechanisms that cause a moving automobile to stop can reasonably abstract from the vehicle's color scheme. For this process to be valid it is critical that the theorist distinguish between "simplifying" and "substantive" assumptions. The former clears away the inessential. The latter elevates or prioritizes the inessential -- thereby contributing to a distorted understanding. The difficulty is that distinguishing between simplifying and substantial assumptions remains, and will always remain, something of an art. Fifty years ago the siren of "Positive Economics" proposed that this critical distinction could be reliably made by adhering to a set of clear and simple rules. While some economists and empirical psychologists maintain a nostalgic commitment to that eclipsed understanding of science, today most thinking practitioners are aware that such an epistemological stance, with its triumphant dismissal of the need for defensible assumptions, was naive -- even misguided. Out of this epistemological vacuum economists have retreated to several crude "fixes" to guide their selection of abstractions. Occasional assertions to the contrary, these methods are conventions. Innocent of any knowledge of these issues, many economists instinctively deploy the abstractions used by their graduate advisor, or rely on those that most frequently appear in what are held to be the profession's premier journals. Economics, perhaps more than ever, is now defined by what economists do. Ideally, the distinction between substantive and simplifying assumptions could be grounded in something more meaningful. Such a ground does exist -- it is called judgment. Unfortunately judgment, like "beauty" or "goodness," is difficult to define without invoking specific cases. The reason is that good judgment requires a sense of context. Context is most readily gained through direct experience, a study of history, or the comparative method. Once acquired, this knowledge enables the researcher to "compare and contrast" one situation with another, to learn from previous efforts to interpret the subject at hand, or to benefit from multiple approaches to a single question. In short, judgment requires the kind of broad-ranging knowledge that is largely absent, even disdained, in the training of the economists of our era ("training" is the appropriate term in this context -- to be contrasted with "education"). To appreciate the implications and importance of the distinction between "simplifying" and "substantive" assumptions, consider the conventional assumption of "Free Entry and Exit."

    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 Middlebury College, Department of Economics in its series Middlebury College Working Paper Series with number 0530.

    in new window

    Length: 18 pages
    Date of creation: Dec 2005
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:mdl:mdlpap:0530
    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:mdl:mdlpap:0530. 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: (Vijaya Wunnava)

    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.