The Degree of Consensus among Economic Educators in a Transition Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The question of regarding important economic issues among economists has been studied for over 30 years in many countries with established market economies. The authors investigate the degree of agreement about such issues among economic educators in Belarus by adapting the survey previously used by American and Western European economists. The study specifically analyzes the differences in the views of the former participants of retraining programs vs. non-participants while also comparing them to a survey of U.S. economists. Several statistical measures designed to identify consensus are applied to analyze the results. The authors generally find disagreement within the economics profession in Belarus although they conclude that training in market economics principles results in a greater degree of consensus. KEYWORDS: consensus, economists' views, change of opinions, transition economy. JEL Code: A11 INTRODUCTION How much do economists disagree? Various researchers have explored this question over the years (Kearl, Pope, Whiting, & Wimmer, 1979; Frey, Pommerehne, Schneider, & Gilbert, 1984; Block & Walker, 1988; Frey & Eichenberger 1992; Ricketts & Shoesmith, 1992; Alston, Kearl, & Vaughan, 1992; Becker, Walstad, & Watts, 1994; Fuller & Geide-Stevenson, 2003). In a profession with different theoretical and ideological approaches and competing schools of thought some disagreement is inevitable, however, while disagreement among economists is a part of economic tradition, many studies have found that there is more agreement than disagreement among economists in Northern American and Western European countries. This paper adds another dimension to the existing research by examining whether economists from the countries that are in the process of establishing market economies have achieved a similar level of agreement. By replicating the survey of opinions from Alston et al. (1992) in Belarus, this paper attempts to answer the following research questions: What is the degree of on economic issues among Belarusian economic educators? Did retraining programs in market economic principles shift these opinions? How do the results of the survey conducted in Belarus differ from the findings of the same survey among American economists? PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON CONSENSUS AMONG ECONOMISTS Over the last 30 years a number of studies have examined the areas of agreement and disagreement among economists over time and across countries. The first survey examined economic on 30 propositions. Kearl, Pope, Whiting, and Wimmer (1979) used the criterion of relative entropy. They concluded that there is among economists on most economic issues and found that 211 members of American Economic Association (AEA) tend to agree on textbook microeconomic and positively stated issues, but disagree about statements that involve macroeconomic concepts and have value judgments. Another study (F rey et al., 1984) analyzed the results of similar surveys conducted in France, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and compared the responses to those from the USA. Although the results from each of the four European countries were different, the researchers found the least disagreement among economists regarding issues concerning the effectiveness of the price mechanism and the market system and that American, German, and Swiss economists tended to support typical textbook neoclassical propositions, while Austrian and French economists were more inclined to agree with broader government presence in the economy. Frey et al argued that possible causes for this disagreement could be different historical and cultural backgrounds. Canadian economists Block and Walker (1988) found that Canadian and U.S. economists have similar views on most propositions. In general, Canadian economists also tend to support the idea of effectiveness of the price mechanism in allocation, but they are less supportive of any interventionist policy by government than their American colleagues except in areas of government's redistributive role. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".