Talk:Applied economics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 燕京赵大知识分子.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[edit]

Just started this page on applied economics. I realise it might be a bit problematic and be over reliant on Backhouse and Biddle but I think we need a page on applied economics. More on econometrics might be desirable. Just thought we could try this and see how it goes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The "ambiguous" should be removed and replaced with something like "is generally considered"; of course, only if more references are found to back up the general meaning of the word. Otherwise, this page is really a disambiguation page. Gary King (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, and according to Backhouse and Biddle, there are a range of views about what applied economics is and the article attempts to discuss and clarify some of the dimensions of this ambiguity. So I think ambiguity near the beginning might be a good idea. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Definition[edit]

The opening paragraph is not giving me a good sense of what applied economics is. It reads as if applied economics is a generic term for any field of economics in which "core fields" are applied to a specific market. Thus, each field of economics can be classified either as (1) core, or (2) applied. If this is the intended meaning, then I don't see the need for this page -- simply note the distinction between core fields (a better term is "theoretical") and applied fields at the economics page. Alternatively, if the intent is to describe what is covered in an applied economics course (many MBA programs have a single econ course that is called either applied economics or managerial economics), it might be better to talk about applied economics as a collection of tools rather than as a field. Wikiant (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this page as its own page, as well. For me, that's because it's so broad as to approach meaninglessness. There's certainly "applied microeconomics"--several Ph.D. programs describe themselves as having that focus. There's "applied game theory", etc. "Applied economics", I'm not sure. Would it be better to have Applied sections in other economics articles? CRETOG8(t/c) 19:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry the criticisms I've provided have been too vague so far--so far, it's merely a discomfort. I'll try to spend some more time thinking about this article and its references to provide more concrete feedback. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Quotation[edit]

Following up on the question as to whether this page is necessary, the Stone quotation (under Applied economics and economics as a science) simply describes econometrics. The disconnect is likely due to the fact that the quote comes from 1945 -- a period of time well before the development of modern econometrics. This further suggests that it makes more sense for the information on this page to be distributed among the various pages on economics. "Applied economics" is not a field of modern economics. Wikiant (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to Stone -

"the discovery and preparation of data" this used to be part of econometrics but seldom is now - this is not discussed in the econometrics entry
the theoretical appraisal of problems, i.e. the framing of hypotheses in a form suitable for quantitative testing;
and the development of statistical methods appropriate to the special problems of economic information.

While both the last two are discussed under economtrics. Applied economics from Stone and the DEAs point of view then might be econometrics plus the first in a synthesis. Of course there are other views -as discussed about what applied economics is. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Discovery and preparation of data are clearly part of econometrics -- ask any graduate student. I can't speak to why it is not mentioned in the econometrics entry, but my guess is that it is for the same reason that "washing one's hands" is not mentioned in the medical surgery entry. Wikiant (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery and preparation of data clearly should be part of econometrics - they are seldom dwelt on in any depth in complete contrast with medical surgery where the requirement of a sterile environment, anesthesia, antiseptic conditions are stressed. Given the large number of problems with hospital acquired infections you may have point here though. In most econometrics courses at undergraduate and post-graduate level very little attention is paid to collecting data - most people just use data produced by others (often applied economists). Econometrics tends to dwell on statistical theory. I find the tone of some these criticisms unconstructive (and my responses). (Msrasnw (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why is Applied Economics not notable?[edit]

There are departments of applied economics, courses in applied economics, a journal of applied economics, peoples whose job is to be an applied economist, books on applied economics, articles on the meaning of applied economics a conference on applied economics. All have been referenced in the article. What else is needed to make the Applied Economics notable? I suspect the problem some might have, might be the fact that the concept is used in different ways by different people. The article aims to explain these. The mainstream has one view which is stated, but that makes it applied economics a trivial concept - but this is not the only view. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is true, but supports my original contention -- that applied economics is a collection of tools and/or an amalgam of fields, not a field unto itself. Wikiant (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is the article seeks to discuss a concept - applied economics - that is a notable concept - but that is a concept that is used to mean different things to different people. Some would see it just as the a collection of tools - different applied economist using different tools - others as a collection of fields - indeed not a "field" unto itself. "And/or" implies there is ambiguity about the concept. I think people look to encyclopedias to find out about such notable concepts and to find nuances of meaning. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is fine, but let's say it in the first sentence: "Applied economics is a term that refers to the application of economic theory and analysis. While not a field of economics, it is typically characterized by the application of econometrics to economic theory generated by other fields of economics such as labor economics and health economics." Wikiant (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a dispute here. Just the fact that there are courses, departments and conferences on Applied Economics means that it's a notable concept and deserves a page. Also, note that there are many pages on applied XXX, as many varied as Applied anthropology, Applied math, Applied physics and Applied theology. LK (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Mathematics, Applied Statistics, Applied Economics[edit]

It is a good idea to try to see how the first two concepts are defined, while keeping a mind on the third. Applied Mathematics is almost surely different than Pure Mathematics, but both are theoretical. It should be the same with economics. Applied economics should not be the antonym of theoretical economics (empirical economics is a better candidate); it is a philosophy that aims to apply economics to solve other market and non-market problems, instead of studying economics for the sake of economics itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:104:400:B96D:7E31:77CE:30D6 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Toivanen's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Toivanen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

1. original: As one of the two sets of fields of economics (the other set being the core),[1] it is typically characterized by the application of the core, i.e. economic theory and econometrics, to address practical issues in a range of fields
rewrite as. In applied economics, the researcher uses economic theory, econometrics and possibly other research tools to address research questions of applied nature in fields such as....
2. delete: The process often involves a reduction in the level of abstraction of this core theory.
3. original: There are a variety of approaches including not only empirical estimation using econometrics, rewrite: There are a variety of approaches including not only theoretical (i.e., mathematical) modeling and empirical estimation using econometrics, such as ...
4. original: John Neville Keynes was perhaps the first to use the phrase “applied economics”. rewrite: John Neville Keynes was perhaps the among the first to widely use the phrase “applied economics”.
5. original: Modern mainstream economics holds the view that there is a body of abstract economic theory – the "core" – and applied economics involves the practitioner in the lowering some elements of the abstraction of this to examine particular issues.
rewrite: Modern mainstream economics holds the view that there is a body of abstract economic theory. Applied economics involves the practitioner in the lowering some elements of the abstraction to examine particular issues.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Toivanen has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Takalo, Tuomas & Tanayama, Tanja & Toivanen, Otto, 2008. "Evaluating innovation policy: a structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies," Research Discussion Papers 7/2008, Bank of Finland.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Applied economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.N. Keynes Discussion[edit]

This statement, "in the sense suggested in the text [in association with the art of political economy" is confusing and I am unsure what it is suggesting. What text are your referencing? What is meant by the statement? After reading the statement multiple times, I was able to discern the meaning. Clarification would help for initial understanding. Dana Leeper 17:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaleeper (talk • contribs)