I would just note that the experimental empirical evidence is very mixed on
the question of whether economics students are more selfish than others.  A
couple of studies have found the opposite result.


At 09:09 PM 8/8/2004, Michael O'Hara wrote:
>       I also am on a listserv for economists.  Not surprising I have had
>the educational opportunity of countless postings on how humans are
>innately selfish, and hence economics is accurate.  Amusingly, the current
>discussion sprang from the organization's adopting a statement of
>professional ethics, and the opponents of same now cry out for due process
>least their unfettered selfish colleagues accuse falsely for advantage.  To
>bolsters their claim for needed "government", the opponents of an ethical
>standard noted that college students who take economics test as more
>"selfish" after the class than before the class, while students in most
>other courses test as less "selfish" after a class.
>
>       Since my mind is wandering towards the broad topical expanses of an
>ALSB conference, I turned off the censor that stills my keyboard and let
>fly the below into the belly of the beast.
>
>=============
>       My view of the experimental result that learning economics reduces
>ethical behavior is that ethics can be taught.
>
>       I suspect an innate predisposition exists in every individual for
>every feasible act.
>
>       I suspect that those innate predispositions vary by individual, vary
>by feasible act, and vary by magnitude of effort to resist a given
>predisposition (e.g., oxygen versus chocolate).
>
>       I suspect each individual's expressed probability of an act deviates
>from that individual's predisposition according to a host a variables.
>Some variable magnify the predisposition while others retard the
>predisposition.
>
>       I suspect that one such variable is the social paradigm, perceived by
>the individual, within which the act is placed by the individual.  That is,
>I see me act.
>
>       I suspect another such variable is the social paradigm within which
>the act of the individual is perceived by the others perceiving the
>individual.  That is, I see you seeing me act.  For example, hazing.
>
>       Much of neoclassical economics teaches students that it is right and
>good that each individual is selfish.  Much of neoclassical economics
>teaches students that society expects and desires each individual to act in
>a selfish manner.  Much of neoclassical economics teaches student that they
>are fated to act in a selfish manner.  No student is his brother's keeper.
>No student is expected to be his brother's keeper.  No student can be his
>brother's keeper.  Much of neoclassical economics teaches that any claimed
>act of altruism is misconstrued if not viewed through the paradigm of
>selfishness.  For example, "My utils increase when I help you and I help
>you." is correct phraseology for discussing altruism, but "My utils go down
>when I help you and I help you." is bad phraseology, even though the
>"correct" phraseology defies the definition of altruism.
>
>       Business students are keen for economic profit.  Business students
>slander mere normal profit.  (Although, rarely are they sufficiently
>skilled academicians to be so succinct.)  Business students swiftly grasp
>the relative difficulty of innovation, superior business acumen, genuine
>risk taking, and their ilk as sources of economic profit.  Having been
>taught that greed is good, they set their sights on defeating that which
>denies them "their" economic profit:  competition.  They grasp that
>vanquishing competition equals economic profit.  And, they swiftly
>extrapolate that only a fool would think to vanquish competition the "old
>fashion way".  The distinction between privileged competition and predatory
>competition becomes a mere farcical illusion:  the real goal is economic
>profit, by hook or by crook.  They have learned the ethics of economics and
>find it a quite comfortable coat to wear.  The seller ought not even utter
>the words "caveat emptor", least a fragment of consumer surplus remain on
>the table.  It is their selfish duty, a duty they relish.
>
>       But, as most of us have taught, we well know that only fragments of
>what we teach is captured by our students.  Given the innate
>predispositions and the clear benefits and hidden costs of selfishness we
>ought not be surprised when the teaching of selfishness yields selfishness
>beyond what our theory attempted to explain or forecast.
>
>       When you are one of those dead economists whose dead hand guides the
>acts of the living, which way will your dead hand push?  It is oh so much
>easier to push in the direction of the predisposition.  Is that the
>direction of ethics?
>
>Michael
>
>Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
>Finance, Banking, & Law Department
>College of Business Administration
>Roskens Hall 502
>University of Nebraska at Omaha
>Omaha  NE  68182
>[log in to unmask]
>(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
>http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm

Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712