In their recent book, Where Economics Went Wrong, David Colander and Craig Freedman (2019) argue that economics went wrong when it abandoned the Classical liberal firewall that demanded separation of scientific theory from the art of policy making. Colander has long advanced the idea that applied economics should be classified neither as positive nor as normative economics. Instead, it should be placed in a third category, "the art of economics"; art requires vision and acumen in addition to knowledge and technique, and is thus more akin to engineering than the natural sciences. The primary contribution of Where Economics Went Wrong is thus to advance Colander's general argument through the specific story of Chicago economics. This essay make two interconnected claims. First, while I agree with Colander and Freedman that applied economics would benefit from more art and less calculation, the Chicago school is not the best vehicle by which to tell a convincing story. Second, a thicker history of the Chicago school reminds us of the importance of institutions and rules, not only for understanding the economy but also for thinking about how economists have constructed our discipline and how internal institutions and incentives affect our behavioral choices.

中文翻译：

---

经济学错在哪里：一篇评论论文

戴维·科兰德和克雷格·弗里德曼（2019年）在最近的《经济学错了》一书中指出，经济学抛弃了要求科学理论与决策艺术分离的古典自由主义防火墙的做法是错误的。长期以来，科兰德提出了一个观点，即应用经济学既不应归为实证经济学，也不应归为规范经济学。相反，它应该放在第三类中，即“经济学的艺术”。艺术不仅需要知识和技术，还需要视觉和敏锐度，因此比自然科学更像工程学。因此，《哪里经济学错了》的主要贡献是通过芝加哥经济学的特定故事来推动科兰德的一般论点。本文提出两个相互联系的主张。第一，尽管我同意Colander和Freedman的观点，即应用经济学将受益于更多的艺术和更少的计算，但芝加哥学校并不是讲一个令人信服的故事的最佳手段。其次，芝加哥学校的悠久历史使我们想起制度和规则的重要性，这不仅对于理解经济，而且对于思考经济学家如何构建学科以及内部制度和激励机制如何影响我们的行为选择。