Talk:Positive and normative economics

Philosophy High‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with fact-value distinction

This doesn't need a separate article from fact-value distinction, but probably deserves its own section. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see where this sentiment comes from, but I am not sure if a merge is desirable. While currently it lacks substance (where is the economics?), it has potential to be expanded into its own article. Then again, maybe this distinction in economics is such a rarity that there is no substance. A merge would be justified in this case. I have edited the lead section to emphasize the economics part a while ago, see if it is better. Throowa (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a weird topic, because the normative/positive distinction is always introduced on Day 1 of Econ 101 and then never gets brought up again. It's a lie we tell undergrads so we can switch to talking about models without having to listen to students complain—"we're just measuring total economic surplus, not saying surplus is good!"

In practice, economists don't write papers including the basic textbook examples of "normative statements" ("we should do X because it would improve the lives of farmers"), because economics is a behavioral science. When an economist writes their paper, they just drop the first half and turn it into "X would improve the lives of farmers by Y%, which exceeds the calculated costs". The bedrock foundations of modern economic analysis—the branches of welfare economics, social choice, and decision theory—are all devoted to finding ways to make normative analyses objective, in a way that eliminates the need for a clear positive/normative division. In practice economists either stick to Pareto improvements or select a reasonable social welfare function to optimize.

Why does this get included, then? Well, everyone's textbooks copy Lionel Robbins, the father of the behavioralists, who wanted to cast normative economics into the fire. So, in other words... Tradition! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]