Rational choice is a method not an ideology- diverse policy recommendations disprove totalizing criticisms

(Mathew, https://devpolicy.org/defending-homo-economicus/ , 2-2)

Greed is Dead is unique, however, in linking Homo Economicus to an increase in selfishness more broadly. Whereas these other works tend to zero-in on the specifics of methodology or a particular policy, C&K’s work is more philosophical and far-reaching in nature. Though they might be right that we’ve all become more selfish, more insight into what they actually mean by the word would have been beneficial. More materialistic? More egoistic? More addicted to our phones? Distinguishing the definition from that of individualism would have made it more obvious how the arcane assumptions baked into economic models have actually led to such devastating consequences throughout society. Sure, it is the case that certain economists hold positions of power, but it is important to remember that Homo Economicus mostly lives in the obscure pages of academic journals. Another reason this would have been helpful is because C&K seem to equate self-interest with selfishness. Though these terms may be used interchangeably in common conversation, they’re different in an important way. Whereas both capture concern with one’s own well-being, selfishness includes the complete disregard for others which does not always describe Homo Economicus. In fact, many models integrate altruistic parents investing in their children’s educations, religiosity, or voting dynamics. More complex models even integrate cooperation between individuals, illustrating the flexibility of the neoclassical approach. The same can be said of the supposed link between Homo Economicus and market fundamentalism. The conclusions of many neoclassical models make a strong case for either more public education, education subsidies, taxes on automation, pensions, childcare subsidies, or a universal basic income. These are hardly policies associated with market fundamentalism and are instead a testament to the versatility of the neoclassical approach. Importantly, these results emerge from models where Homo Economicus is just as self-interested as he or she ever was. All this is not to say the neoclassical approach to economics is perfect. There are many models built on faulty assumptions that, in turn, can lead to faulty conclusions. Furthermore, the allure of mathematical rigor has often crowded out other valid economic approaches to issues. Nevertheless, this type of approach is better thought of as just another tool in the economists’ toolkit to be deployed as necessary, like a linear regression or a case study, rather than an ideology. Overall, Greed is Dead is a unique book in that it combines philosophy with economics and social commentary. C&K accurately identify many of the developed world’s most acute problems from political polarisation to inequality. They also introduce the reader to the ideas of many interesting communitarian thinkers which have only become more relevant. But when it comes to how we got here, their argument becomes much less convincing. Instead of seeing Homo Economicus as the antithesis of a world that values community, C&K should instead see it as part of the solution.