This note studies graphical identification in the canonical competitive demand-supply model. Using Pearl's () latent projection with explicit demand and supply shocks, it derives acyclic directed mixed graph representations that accommodate equilibrium determination while preserving standard econometric assumptions. The key point is that graphical identification is query-dependent: the same equilibrium system can imply different ADMGs depending on the normalization used to pose the structural question. Pearl's () instrumental-variables theorem identifies the structural effect represented by the selected directed edge; normalization determines which economic parameter that edge denotes. Under demand-side normalization, the theorem identifies the demand slope; under supply-side normalization, it identifies the inverse supply slope. Standard IV estimands arise as special cases. An extension with instruments that have side effects shows how graphical separation diagnoses exclusion violations, identifies conditioning variables that restore validity, and yields a closed-form bias decomposition when side effects are ignored.
The objective of this paper is to ascertain to what extent the advent of the concept of homo oe conomicus results in the marginalization of ethical considerations within the field of economic science. Given that the inventors of the concept of economic man were mostly utilitarians, what is, in particular, the relationship between utilitarianism, on the one hand, and economic science, on the other, in the historical genesis of homo oe conomicus? Two key conclusions can be drawn: (1) There is no linear progression toward a more autonomous position with regard to ethical considerations. Edgeworth's methodology represents a notable attempt to integrate ethics within abstract economics. (2) The history of the interrelationship between utilitarianism and homo oe conomicus is intricate and is inextricably linked to the multifaceted nature of utilitarianism.
In the context of the current crisis of democratic governance, this paper revisits the intellectual dialogue between Friedrich von Hayek and John Dewey on the nature of liberalism in complex societies, where market processes and political governance are deeply intertwined. It first highlights key epistemological convergences that justify a comparative inquiry into their respective social philosophies. The analysis then contrasts their ontological foundations of democracy and their divergent views on the relationship between the economic and political spheres, ultimately distinguishing their conceptions of economic democracy. By comparing their epistemological and ontological premises, the paper argues that Dewey's pragmatic conception of democracy broadens and enriches certain insights of Hayek's epistemic liberalism - particularly by integrating communication, ethical reflexivity, and institutional learning into the understanding of social coordination.
This paper engages debates on diversity and epistemic hegemony in economics by focusing on caste-blindness in research concerning South Asia. The author uses Bourdieu's practice of reflexivity to trace their training through graduate coursework, dissertation research, and peer-reviewed publishing. These normative stages determine legitimate research problems, permitted methodologies, and acceptable knowledge in Economics. This paper makes two contributions: first, it traces identity formation of the economist through a reflexive auto-ethnography; second, it shows how the theoretical and methodological 'hardness' of economics and the identity of the economist can interact to shape knowledge-production, creating opportunities for invisibilizing, and silencing epistemic injustice. This is especially relevant to knowledge construction about South Asia, where caste biases can be invisibilized in economic knowledge production and only become visible through reflexivity. I argue that while reflexivity alone won't mitigate caste-blindness in economics, it is essential for a just, scientifically aware discipline that recognizes its biases.
This paper examines reflexivity in capital markets with particular focus on causality. Conventional mathematical models assume epistemic norms and well-defined unidirectional causal chains. We review how causal ambiguity arises in reflexive systems and present an illustrative toy model of two competing causal chains to better frame this ambiguity. This research clarifies shortcomings in the use of mathematical formalism and underscores the significant epistemic limitations confronting financial economics. We argue that modeling approaches overlooking the self-referential nature of markets may contribute, at times, to Sorosian market fallibility. The implications for modeling, empirical finance, risk management and education are further discussed.
Establishing credibility and trustworthiness is essential in Economic Agent-Based Modeling (ABM), where clear epistemic standards cannot be defined a priori. In this paper, we first review the notions of trustworthiness and credibility in modeling. We then introduce a framework that emphasizes the modeler's epistemic responsibility to ensure coherence between modeling purposes, strategies and targets. We examine the challenges in assessing model reliability that arise from the interaction of conceptual, algorithmic and computational constituents, and we propose a meta-analytical approach to enhance model consistency by conceptualizing agent-based simulations as iterated analogies. Our analysis outlines strategies for improving model accessibility and reliability while highlighting the modeler's role in preventing mistargeting and misuse. This research provides a normative basis for justifying the credibility of both idealized and targetless models by promoting transparency and consistency between model design and intended purposes.
I offer a methodological appraisal of the theory of experienced utility and discuss its application to welfare evaluation. I examine the philosophical limits of two temporal axioms - Separability and Time Neutrality - and investigates the informational basis of the theory by contrasting moment utility with remembered utility. I argue that remembered utility holds greater normative value than moment utility, as personal welfare judgments are more strongly determined by retrospective evaluations than by instantaneous experiences. While some underlying assumptions of the theory remain contestable, I propose refinements to measurement tools such as the Day Reconstruction Method (DRM), emphasising the importance to include the distance between two events being evaluated (temporal distance) and the relative weight of different time periods (temporal significance). These refinements aim to enhance the interpretive accuracy of experience-based data and to clarify how such data can inform welfare-relevant judgments.
Although economics derives its name from the Greek oikos nomos, or household management, the question of domestic labor, usually performed by women, has long been ignored in canonical conceptions of labor and value. But not by everyone. The canons of economic discipline have obscured the problem by systematically marginalizing the work of economists and activists who have sought to propose alternative methods of calculating the value of domestic work. This article proposes a comprehensive review of a century of research on the contribution of unpaid work to the global economy, and examines the mechanisms of exclusion of the value of unpaid work from GDP and national accounts. It highlights that the reluctance to reform these mainstream measures perpetuates well-known bias, despite generations of economists, especially women, consistently demonstrating the potential for improvement in accounting for diversity.
