The biggest challenge I've encountered in conducting complexity economic research is the lack of meaningful data. Much of our economic data collection is either repurposed from admistrative data, such as import and export data used for calculating tariffs and balance of payments, or mired in economic assumptions.
Here's one example among many of the later; productivity is measured as GDP divided by the number of workers. Since GDP is nearly indentical to national income, we currently measure productivity by the average wage of a worker. The assumption behind this measure is that firms pay workers based on their marginal returns to productivity, so income serves just fine as a proxy for productivity. But once that strong assumption comes into question, then this productivity measure tells us less than nothing about real productivity.
I'm going to conclude with a final opinion. Many conventional economists today take pride in practicing what they call a positive science, by which they mean their observations and laws just describe the facts as they are without any value judgements about what is good. They describe what is, not what should be. I don't see how a framework based on seeking efficiencies in terms of maximising utility is valueless. My objection to the valueless claim is twofold.
1. First, their objection to my objection would be that utility theory can cover anything. Considering the wellbeing of others could be addressed within the utilty framework if you set up the utiltiy function accordingly. But this utlity theory is based on contrained optimisation and tradeoffs between choices. What then is the quantitative constraint for the wellbeing of others, and what is the necessary tradeoff? The neo-classical framework collapses all human ends to values that are comparable, and does not allow for values of different natures which are fundamentally incomparable, such as the wellbeing of others is not comparable to carrots.
2. More directly, the entire structure is based on the philosophy that more is better, and that there is no limiting principle to desire. Yet even by economists own measures, the Easterlin paradox gives that happiness does not track continuously with income. So what does it mean to insist that more is always better? From the Haudenosaunee to the Diné, whose lands stretched across this country until a mere few hundred years ago, you'll still find a strong cultural aversion to greed. Thus, I believe this positivist claim needs push back, and that the cultural consequnces of the valorisation of greed needs to be addressed.
Thank you for attention, and best wishes for your future endeavours. For questions, corrections or comments, please send a note here.
