The vocational economist is dedicated to a body of ideas and strives to master the system of economic theory as handed down by the great system builders and innovators of the past. He or she takes a position in academia–or works in some other profession such as banking, journalism, industry or government–in order to obtain the concrete means necessary to sustain and complement his efforts to discover new truths or expound and apply established truths in his economic research and writing.
The professional economist, in contrast, has no fixed principles but rather seeks approbation of his colleagues, public fame, intellectual influence in shaping government policies, professional advancement and prestige, and, of course, raw power and money. [Full Article]
{ 14 comments }
There are two common uses of the word “vocation,” one of which has connotations opposite to the sense in which this article uses the word, and the other of which is dead on to the sense. Neither is mentioned in the article. In the educational establishment, a “vocational school” is, contrary to this meaning of the word, at least as used here, a school in which manual and technical productive skills (thought of as inferior to professional skills) are taught. In religion, on the other hand, a person who dedicates him to the service of some religion, typically within its organizational structure, is said to be following a “vocation” of serving God, spreading God’s word, and such.
I think the way that Salerno uses the word “vocation” is entirely appropriate, especially because its root comes from “to call”, and that is what Salerno is treating — those who embrace their calling with ideological dedication to truth while viewing all other matters as either means to acheive this end or means of support while carrying on such work. Gary North has written extensively on “callings”, as well.
I think it should be clear that Prof. Salerno is talking about a vocation in the 2nd definition of the word.
It says especially in a religious carreer, but not necessarily. Anyone pursuing truth for its own sake counts.
I’m not sure, however, that economics in the free market is entirely vocational. Certainly, there’s use for those with understanding of economics in the business world, and I think it likely that various businesses would patronize exceptional ecvonomists (like Mises and Rothbard).
Professor Salerno’s designation of vocation vs professional refers not to one’s job title or place of employment but rather one’s motivation and subjective attitude toward the undertaking. Personally, I found this article very powerful indeed. I had long read those passages from Human Action but I was never entirely sure I understood Mises’s point, or why he seemed so emphatic about it. Salerno has really hit on a very important distinction, the truth value of which will be obvious to anyone laboring in the world of ideas.
Jeff,
That’s a good point, I spoke too quickly. If only more people could subjectively think of their jobs as a vocation.
This is quite interesting. Evidently, economics should be referred to as the dismal profession, while those pursuing it as a vocation build a sound science.
‘the economics profession…. is a fiat profession that has no free market clientele’. The investment banking world would pay extremely handsomely for anyone whose pursuit of truth was more than half accurate. Died in the wool Austrians will probably contend that investment banking is an extension of the fiat system etc.etc. but let’s be clear, the individuals within such firms tend to get paid on actual results, i.e. real world outcomes. I appreciate that most economists simply follow the herd as it is easy and anything contrarian would probably lose them popularity with clients who tend also to have herding instincts. This does not refute the fact that there is enormous free market demand for a ‘correct’ interpretation of economic events. Is the free market failing to deliver ? I would say at the moment it largely is, but the more we see people like Sean Corrigan, Stephen Roach, Marcus Faber, James Grant etc. it gives me hope.
Excellent article.
This is long overdue.
Juan Ramón Rallo, from Spain, wrote an interesting critique of the Salerno position on economists’ motivations. Rallo’s position is based on his own development of the work-leisure topic, which he will present soon to the Austrian community.
“Juan Ramón Rallo, from Spain, wrote an interesting critique of the Salerno position on economists’ motivations.”
Sadly, not all of us can read the spanish.
It basically states that two or more ends can be accomplished by the same mean, so prof. Salerno’s position is historically interesting but not true at all.
It would seem to me, that one must choose between truth and fame as the goal with every project that one pursues. It would seem that it is rare that the goal of truth and fame would coincide. This is exemplified by the fact that no economist who ever deserved a Nobel (central bank of Sweden) Prize in economics has ever one such a prize (or more accurately, no wholly reputable economist has ever been offered such an insult).
Juan,
I think it requires a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say that Salerno’s views are not true to *any* extent.
Comments on this entry are closed.