Talk:Normative economics

normative economics not scientific
I can see why it's important to distinguish between Normative and Positive Economics. Normative Economics is very speculative. It can be whatever you want it to be. It's good to have ideals and goals and normative economics allows this. I don't understand how Normative Economics can be scientific. While a scientific reason can make you change your values, values in and of themselves are not scientific.

Lacyg 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Lacy Gilstrap Microeconomics ECON 2123 W41
 * It can be scientific if it merely studies values and how goals can be achieved. We call that political economics. If it forms values, then 'economics' does not denote a science but economic policy. The word allows both meanings. Guido den Broeder 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't positive and normative be merged?
In researching the topic of postive economics it is very clear that the two can't be discussed in isolation and that the examples of what is a positive statement is also an example of what is a normative statement. I'm thinking of the example given by Roger McCain: a positive statement is that requiring that wages be equal might be inefficent and that unequal wages would be more efficient is a positive statement, but to argue, therefore wages should be allowed to be unequal is now a normative statement.

I don't know the process for initiating formal merging request.... Mulp 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revive this proposal. It's possible to discuss positive or normative economic in isolation, but it's only really helpful by the contrast, and it's (as far as I know) always presented as contrasting. The articles are small, they should be merged, probably into Positive and normative economics. Cretog8 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to enable a merger proposal. Still, allow me to present some considerations against merger.
 * The two subjects are in principle clear enough to be treated as distinct subjects with different though not always separate treatments.  Thus, for example, (advanced) Google Scholar has some 10,700 hits for "positive economics", 3,310 hits for "normative economics," and only 1,030 hits for their intersection.  There are similar results for The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, as at their intersection vs. separate searches.
 * It is arguable that the difference in coverage makes separate articles useful as to (a) division of labor for Editors interested in seeing there efforts undiluted and who have a stronger interest in one of the two areas and (b) different interests of readers. Argument (a) os the each article will fourish more separate, comparedto a merger of content. Argument (b) says, why make it harder for a reader to find what s/he is esp. interested in.  "Eat your spinach" should not the guiding principle.
 * One can recognize that some dichotomies or distinctions are so central that it makes sense to treat them together, such as the analytic-synthetic distinction in philosophy. There, presumably the  interest is. in say making (or arguing against) the  distinction rather than pursuing either independent of the other. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they should remain separate, but the other one (positive economics, in this case) should be mentioned as the opposite earlier on in the article. Regardless, I'm going to remove the merger thing from the page, since no one else has discussed this for nearly a year.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote improvements
04-11-2014 The following is a quote from the article: """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" The price of milk should be $6 a gallon to give dairy farmers a higher living standard and to save the family farm.

This is a normative statement, because it reflects value judgments. This specific statement makes the judgment that farmers need a higher living standard and that family farms need to be saved.[1] """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I understand this originates from a known reference, however I believe a better example or examples could be made to illustrate the meaning. The word "need" is a very strong value statement, used in a micro/macro (which is it?) event, that implies another value statement "$6" IS the required value (rather than more or less (see Turing)), to meet other values of some kind (i.e. higher standard of living, saving family farms). Are the values positive or negitive, big or small? None of these can be measured in a physical quantity, rather they are comparisons. It can be argued that the goal is "usually" to make things better (another value; for someone, something, or a group).

A reply: normative economics not scientific
04-11-2014 Normative economics (and all economics) has a very poor scientific construct. This is most likely due to its incredibly complex nature; many unknown variables whose state is also unknown. Hence it has a strong relationship with comparisons, ratios, complex systems, heuristics etc; all of which are scientific. Nearly all economics (science and unfortunatly politics) is about values, we study it with the goal of reaching some scientific understanding. (Note: Studying science seems to have a "value"). It could be said that Positive economics is more scientific than Normative economics (yet another comparison).