毒性饥荒研究——以及它如何压制批评者

P. Bowbrick
{"title":"毒性饥荒研究——以及它如何压制批评者","authors":"P. Bowbrick","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3657078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bad economic theory can cause famines or stop governments from taking appropriate action to prevent famines. This can kill millions. Amartya Sen’s theory of the cause of the Bengal Famine, which is the inspiration for his ‘entitlement approach’, has been refuted again and again, in different ways, by economists of different theoretical persuasions and by statisticians expert in this area. Sen has been shown to systematically misrepresent the evidence, to make repeated, elementary, theoretical mistakes, and to use and misuse ‘meaningless’ statistics. No attempt has been made by anyone to challenge these refutations: they are incontrovertible. Sen has not retracted his theory, or any of it, which implies fraud. Yet Sen’s work is widely believed and used in famine situations. His ‘entitlement approach’, based largely on his theory of the Bengal famine, is the basis of a research programme. This paper examines how the research programme suppressed the criticisms, ignoring the normal requirements of academic and professional research and integrity. It also produced new falsehoods.","PeriodicalId":7501,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toxic Famine Research – And How It Suppresses Its Critics\",\"authors\":\"P. Bowbrick\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3657078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bad economic theory can cause famines or stop governments from taking appropriate action to prevent famines. This can kill millions. Amartya Sen’s theory of the cause of the Bengal Famine, which is the inspiration for his ‘entitlement approach’, has been refuted again and again, in different ways, by economists of different theoretical persuasions and by statisticians expert in this area. Sen has been shown to systematically misrepresent the evidence, to make repeated, elementary, theoretical mistakes, and to use and misuse ‘meaningless’ statistics. No attempt has been made by anyone to challenge these refutations: they are incontrovertible. Sen has not retracted his theory, or any of it, which implies fraud. Yet Sen’s work is widely believed and used in famine situations. His ‘entitlement approach’, based largely on his theory of the Bengal famine, is the basis of a research programme. This paper examines how the research programme suppressed the criticisms, ignoring the normal requirements of academic and professional research and integrity. It also produced new falsehoods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3657078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3657078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

错误的经济理论会导致饥荒或阻止政府采取适当的行动来防止饥荒。这会杀死数百万人。阿马蒂亚·森(Amartya Sen)关于孟加拉饥荒原因的理论启发了他的“权利方法”,但这一理论被不同理论派别的经济学家和该领域的统计学家以不同的方式一次又一次地驳斥。事实证明,森有系统地歪曲证据,重复犯基本的理论错误,并使用和滥用“无意义”的统计数据。没有人试图挑战这些反驳:它们是无可辩驳的。森并没有收回他的理论,或任何暗示欺诈的理论。然而,森的工作被广泛相信,并用于饥荒情况。他的“权利方法”主要基于他对孟加拉饥荒的理论,是一个研究项目的基础。本文考察了研究计划如何压制批评,忽视了学术和专业研究的正常要求和诚信。它也产生了新的谎言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Toxic Famine Research – And How It Suppresses Its Critics
Bad economic theory can cause famines or stop governments from taking appropriate action to prevent famines. This can kill millions. Amartya Sen’s theory of the cause of the Bengal Famine, which is the inspiration for his ‘entitlement approach’, has been refuted again and again, in different ways, by economists of different theoretical persuasions and by statisticians expert in this area. Sen has been shown to systematically misrepresent the evidence, to make repeated, elementary, theoretical mistakes, and to use and misuse ‘meaningless’ statistics. No attempt has been made by anyone to challenge these refutations: they are incontrovertible. Sen has not retracted his theory, or any of it, which implies fraud. Yet Sen’s work is widely believed and used in famine situations. His ‘entitlement approach’, based largely on his theory of the Bengal famine, is the basis of a research programme. This paper examines how the research programme suppressed the criticisms, ignoring the normal requirements of academic and professional research and integrity. It also produced new falsehoods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Climate Change and State-Building in the World’s Most Agricultural Countries The heterogeneous effects of agricultural conservation easements on the loss of farmland to development in New England Displacement Risk in Agricultural Commodity Markets: The Impact of Plant-Based Meat Interest Group Responses to Reform Efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives: The Case of Big Sugar Fishing under the Radar: Illuminating the Compliance Gap of Fishing Bans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1