Drawing on an analysis of Irving Kirsch and colleagues’ controversial 2008 article in PLoS [Public Library of Science] Medicine on the efficacy of SSRI antidepressant drugs such as Prozac, I examine flaws within the methodologies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have made it difficult for regulators, clinicians and patients to determine the therapeutic value of this class of drug. I then argue, drawing analogies to work by Pierre Bourdieu and Michael Power, that it is the very limitations of RCTs (...) — their inadequacies in producing reliable evidence of clinical effects — that help to strengthen assumptions of their superiority as methodological tools. Finally, I suggest that the case of RCTs helps to explore the question of why failure is often useful in consolidating the authority of those who have presided over that failure, and why systems widely recognized to be ineffective tend to assume greater authority at the very moment when people speak of their malfunction. (shrink)

Over the past 70 years, the sociological and economic study of economic abundance has been side-lined in comparison to the study of economic scarcity. This article calls for a revitalization of the study of abundance through a focus on the writing of Georges Bataille. I point out a number of parallels between Bataille and the work of two economists who are rarely associated with Bataille: John Maynard Keynes and Yanis Varoufakis. My argument is two-fold. Firstly, I argue that Bataille, Keynes (...) and Varoufakis make remarkably similar and under-examined points about the need for sovereign nations to deliberately restrict their own trade surpluses. Secondly, drawing on the anthropologist Marcel Mauss’s writing on sovereign debt forgiveness, I raise new insights about the compatibility of Keynes, Bataille and Mauss’s work. In conclusion, I argue that rejuvenating the study of economic abundance will help to better theorize the limits of mainstream economic thought and the political structures it supports. (shrink)

The popularity of Thomas Piketty’s research on wealth inequality has drawn attention to a curious question: why was widening wealth inequality largely neglected by mainstream economists in recent decades? To explore and explain that neglect, I draw on the writing of the early neoclassical economist John Bates Clark, who introduced the notion of the marginal productivity of income distribution at the end of the nineteenth century. I then turn to Piketty’s Capital in order to analyze the salience of marginal productivity (...) theories of income today. I suggest that most of the criticism and praise for Piketty’s research is focused on data that are accessible and measurable, obscuring attention to questions over whether current methods for measuring economic capital are defensible or not. My overarching aim is to explore how “absent” data in economics as a whole help to reinforce blind spots within mainstream economic theory. (shrink)