Peter J. Boettke, Christopher J. Coyne and Peter T. Leeson write,
the teachings of economics are necessary for understanding the complexities of social reality. Perhaps its two most important public roles are: (1) to explain how within a specific set of institutional arrangements the power of self-interest can spontaneously generate patterns of social order that simultaneously achieve individual autonomy, generalized prosperity and social peace, and (2) through means-ends analysis, to provide parameters on people’s utopian notions of economic policy. The first captures the didactic role of the economist in teaching the nuances of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ and the second captures the contribution that economics as a technical discipline can offer to public policy discourse. When we move beyond these roles and instead try to employ economics as the primary tool for social control, we run afoul and distort the teachings of the discipline.
Read the entire essay, which is a plea for economists to desist from acting as high priests of social engineering. However, I would place a (sic?) next to the word “parameters” in that paragraph. Perhaps the authors are talking about perimeters. In any case, it is the final sentence that is most important.
Specialization and Trade makes a similar case.
Some people use the word “parameters” this way, to mean “constraints.” Steven Pinker criticizes this usage in his book “Sense of Style” if I remember right. I agree it looks odd.
Always a bit frightening when ONE BIG IDEA completely takes over someone’s brain.
“the power of self-interest can spontaneously generate patterns of social order” << but what about the fact that economists are so highly regarded BECAUSE of their claims to support gov't control "scientifically"?
It is clearly in the interests of most economists to claim the power to control, whether they have it or not. No big surprise, this is noted:
"If our argument is right, the role of the economist should move from high priest back to lowly philosopher. In taking this ‘demotion’, economists may find it harder to justify their employment, but the discipline and those who practice it will also regain their ‘soul’ as they reject the false god of scientism and its pretensions of social engineering. " <<
Plus, of course, voters and politicians WANT there to be some "scientific economics" that actually does work, and allows control.
Ha! I thought the same thing when I read parameters. It’s a programmer thing.
Boundaries is the word that I thought would be more appropriate.