Abstract
In view of the upsurge in the interest in the role of the economist as expert, the chapter analyses critically the conceptual strategies of several recent important contributions. The article identifies the main conceptual dilemma associated with the social scientific study of experts, stemming from the emphasis in either the objective or the relational dimension of the phenomenon of expertise. In this article the attributional or relational aspect of expertise, normally downplayed either explicitly or implicitly by a majority of recent contributions to the literature, is instead vindicated in the study of the expert status and its role in policy-making processes. The claim is sustained by reviewing some well-known theses in ideational and related approaches in Comparative Political Economy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a study expertise as “performance” in a dramaturgical model illustrated by the debates in the US National Academy of Sciences Nutrition Board, over the period from 1977 to 1989, concerning estimates of human nutritional requirements, see Hilgartner (2000).
References
Adler, E., and P.M. Haas. 1992. Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization 46(1): 367–390.
Angner, E. 2006. Economists as experts: Overconfidence in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Methodology 13(1): 1–24.
Blyth, M. 2002. Great transformations: Economic ideas and institutional change in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Camerer, C.F., and E.J. Johnson. 1991. The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? In Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits, ed. K.A. Ericsson and J. Smith, 195–217. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Collins, H., R. Evans, R. Ribeiro, and M. Hall. 2006. Experiments with interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 656–674.
Evans, R. 2007. Social networks and private spaces in economic forecasting. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4): 686–697.
Fourcade, M. 2009. Economists and societies. Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fuller, S. 2006. The constitutively social character of expertise. In The philosophy of expertise, ed. E. Selinger and R. Crease. New York: Columbia University Press.
Funtowicz, S., and J. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–755.
Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Haas, Peter M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1), Special Issue on Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination, 1–35.
Hall, P. 1989. Keynesianism across nations. The political power of economic ideas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hall, P. 1993. Policy paradigms social learning and the state. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.
Hilgartner, S. 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 2003. Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H. M. Collins and R. Evans, “The third wave of science studies”. Social Studies of Science 33(3): 389–400.
Kurz-Milcke, E., and G. Gigerenzer. 2004. Experts in science and society. New York: Kluwer.
Lindvall, Johannes. 2006. The politics of purpose: Swedish economic policy after the golden Age. Comparative Politics 38(3): 253–272.
Lindvall, J. 2009. The real but limited influence of expert ideas. World Politics 61(4): 703–730.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Reino Unido, Polity Press.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003. Introduction. “Mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179–194.
Reiss, J. 2007. Error in economics. Towards a more evidence-based methodology. London: Routledge.
Selinger, E., and R. Crease. 2006. The philosophy of expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tetlock, P. 2005. Expert judgment. How good is it? How can we know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 401–417.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jimenez-Buedo, M. (2014). The Expert Economist in Times of Uncertainty. In: Martini, C., Boumans, M. (eds) Experts and Consensus in Social Science. Ethical Economy, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08551-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08551-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08550-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08551-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)