Methods- it’s always been there

This is an excerpt from my working paper which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.

III. Methodological Framework

A. Philosophical Methodology

This research engages with the critical realist tradition in economic philosophy (Lawson, 1997; Fleetwood, 2017) while incorporating elements of pragmatist inquiry (Dewey, 1938; Hodgson, 2004) to examine how social outcomes are intrinsically embedded within price mechanisms. By adopting this philosophical stance, the investigation transcends the positivists’ limitations that have dominated mainstream economic methodology and artificially separated social dimensions from market valuation processes.

Methodological Rationale and Research Design

The methodology employs a dual approach combining narrative explication and formal econometric analysis—a mixed-methods design that aligns with what Downward and Mearman (2007) term “critical triangulation.” This approach recognizes that economic phenomena exist in open systems characterized by complex causality that cannot be adequately captured through purely deductive or inductive methods alone.

Narrative methodologies in economics have been increasingly recognized for their capacity to reveal dimensions of economic reasoning that formal models often obscure (McCloskey, 1990; Morgan, 2012). As Akerlof and Snower (2016, p. 23) argue, “Narrative economics provides a framework for understanding how stories that may have little grounding in reality nevertheless influence economic behavior.” This research employs narrative not merely as illustration but as a methodological tool to uncover how social dimensions are intrinsically incorporated into economic decision-making rather than treated as external considerations.

The research design progresses through three methodological stages:

  1. Narrative case analysis of micro-level economic decisions where social costs and benefits are endogenously incorporated into price mechanisms
  2. Systematic examination of market-level pricing phenomena that demonstrate social valuation integration
  3. Econometric analysis using hedonic pricing models to formalize and quantify the incorporation of purported “externalities” within price

This triangulated approach provides methodological robustness by examining the phenomenon across multiple scales and through complementary epistemological lenses.

Market Integration of Health and Productivity Benefits

Consider the small business owner contemplating providing flu vaccinations for all employees at a cost of $50 per person. This case exemplifies what Hodgson (2013) identifies as the “reconstitutive downward causation” between institutional structures and individual agency. Conventional economic framing, following Williamson’s (1979) transaction cost analysis, might characterize this as either addressing an externality or reducing monitoring costs. However, this framework artificially separates the transaction into discrete “economic” and “social” components.

Following Sen’s (1977) critique of the rational fool construct, we can observe that the business owner engages in a multi-dimensional calculation that already incorporates social costs and benefits into their decision-making process. The owner calculates that seasonal influenza typically results in X hours of lost labor annually, representing not only direct wage costs but also diminished productivity, potential transmission to other employees, and compromised service to customers.

This integration happens not through external regulatory mandates but through what Davis (2003, p. 974) terms the “socially embedded individual” making decisions that intrinsically incorporate both private and social dimensions. The methodological significance of this observation lies in recognizing that the rational economic actor has not abandoned self-interest but rather operates with what Etzioni (1988) terms “I & We” paradigm that transcends artificial boundaries between private and social benefits.

Consumer Valuation of Production Standards

The organic food market provides another methodologically significant case. When consumers willingly pay premium prices for organic products, conventional economics often characterizes this through what Vatn and Bromley (1997) identify as the “commodification of externalities.” However, this methodological framing imposes an artificial separation that does not reflect the actual valuation process.

Following Callon’s (1998) analysis of market devices and Zelizer’s (2012) work on valuation practices, we can recognize that consumers paying a surcharge for organic certification are expressing a valuation that inherently includes both private benefits and social benefits. The price differential between conventional and organic products represents what Anderson and Holcombe (2013) term “integrated social valuation”—a comprehensive valuation where social dimensions are not external to the market but constitute an intrinsic component of the value proposition itself.

Methodologically, this challenges the ontological separation between “market values” and “social values” that has dominated economic analysis since Pigou’s (1920) formulation of externality theory. The organic certification standard operates as what Star and Griesemer (1989) identify as a “boundary object” that allows coordination between different social worlds without requiring consensus about precise meanings—a methodological perspective that permits more nuanced understanding of how social values become embedded in price mechanisms.

Natural Integration of Health, Environmental, and Safety Considerations

These examples illustrate a methodological approach to understanding markets not as fundamentally incomplete systems requiring external correction but as complex valuation mechanisms capable of incorporating multiple dimensions of value. This approach aligns with MacIntyre’s (1984) critique of compartmentalization in modern social thought and Polanyi’s (1944/2001) concept of embeddedness, challenging the philosophical premise that social costs and benefits exist outside market mechanisms.

This methodological perspective diverges from both neoclassical approaches that treat social factors as externalities and from heterodox approaches that reject market valuation altogether. Instead, it aligns with recent developments in socio-economics (Etzioni, 2003; Hodgson, 2019) that recognize the inherent integration of social and economic dimensions in human decision-making.

Formal Analytical Approach: Hedonic Pricing Models

The narrative understanding outlined above finds formal analytical complement in hedonic pricing models, following Rosen’s (1974) foundational work. This methodological approach decomposes price into its constituent value components without imposing artificial separations between “economic” and “social” factors.

Anderson’s recent study, “Wind Turbines, Shadow Flicker, and Real Estate Values” (2024), provides empirical evidence of how economic actors endogenously incorporate what conventional economics would term “externalities” directly into price mechanisms. The methodological significance of this approach lies in its capacity to quantify valuation components without presuming their ontological separation.

This research employs the hedonic pricing methodology with particular attention to what Heckman and Singer (2017) identify as “causal pluralism”—recognizing that price adjustments for social factors represent not market failures but rather evidence of markets’ capacity to incorporate complex, multi-dimensional valuations. Following Mäki’s (2009) discussion of models as isolations and surrogate systems, the hedonic approach allows us to isolate and examine specific components of valuation while recognizing their inherent integration within actual market processes.

Methodological Limitations and Reflexivity

This methodological approach is not without limitations. The narrative cases, while illustrative, cannot capture the full range of market behaviors, and there remains the potential for selection bias in the cases examined. The hedonic pricing models, while powerful, rely on assumptions about market efficiency and information availability that may not fully hold in practice (Bartik & Smith, 1987; Kuminoff et al., 2010).

Additionally, as Bourdieu (1990) emphasizes, researcher reflexivity must acknowledge that the conceptual frameworks we employ shape the phenomena we observe. The methodological challenge lies in distinguishing between artificially imposed conceptual separations and meaningful analytical distinctions—a challenge this research addresses through methodological triangulation and critical engagement with underlying philosophical assumptions.

In summary, this research employs a methodologically pluralist approach that combines narrative explication and formal hedonic pricing analysis within a critical realist philosophical framework. This approach enables a reconstruction of our understanding of how price mechanisms already incorporate social dimensions of value, challenging the artificial separation between private and social components that has dominated economic thought.

Group problem, group solution

Often, when people discuss problems that occur in group transactions, they single out an individual experience and hold it up as a representative example. That’s out of line. If you want to talk about individual outcomes, stick to that setting. If you want to talk about group outcomes, don’t exemplify one individual’s experience.

That’s what I like about the following clip from the Airbnb founders. They’ve come up with their house-sharing idea and worked out the logistical aspects to take it to market. Now, they just need people to try it. Not one person. That won’t make the platform start humming. They need a group.

They are trying to link the two groups of people with rooms to rent and the people who are taken with the idea and feasibility of renting from a homeowner. But they need something more. They need a common cause, an affinity that overlays the group and makes them feel like one. This elevates the sense of trust and is the little push needed to overcome the hesitancy of a new experience.

In groups, no one host can make the system move, no one guest. The individual is nothing on its own. Group analysis has group features, including an underlying group shared value.

Complete text:

Brian Chesky explains how Airbnb solved the chicken-and-egg problem “Marketplaces are incredibly defensible at scale, and maybe it’s because they’re incredibly hard to start. And the problem is simple – they call it the chicken and egg problem.” As Brian explains, it was tough to bootstrap Airbnb in the beginning because travelers couldn’t book homes if there was no inventory, and homeowners didn’t want to list their homes unless people were going to book them. “We didn’t know what to do for a while .We tried a lot of different things. And I can tell you what worked. Summer of 2008, the press announces that Barack Obama is moving from a 20,000 seat basketball arena to an 80,000 seat football stadium. And we said, that’s our shot. You have 60,000 people that don’t have housing, surely at least a few of them are going to need a place to stay… And so we literally started with local people in Denver. Then we started emailing bloggers. We got the bloggers. Then the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News covered us. Then the local ABC and NBC and CBS affiliates. And then the Wall Street Journal. Then the New York Times and CNN are in our living room… We did that in a matter of three weeks.” Brian continues: “We started these little infernos. You start getting a few users here, a hundred here, fifty there… And we did the same thing with the inauguration. And when you have a hundred people here and there, then you obsessively meet them… Paul Graham, our first investor, said it’s better to have a hundred people love you than a million people kind of like you. And the reason why is it’s really hard to build off of a really wide but shallow base. But with a hundred people, you can find out everything they want… You meet them, you spend a ton of time with them, and once they fall in love with your product, they’ll tell every one of their friends. That’s why [Airbnb] took a really long time to start, but it grew much faster later on.”

The best conversation

The Uber/Lyft conversation in the Twin City area provides material to illustrate the dual nature of transactions. Let’s revisit the players. The drivers provide a service to riders for a fee. They also use a platform which takes a cut of the fare in exchange for technology services and national branding.

Drivers left the taxi structure back ten years ago or so. And it does not sound like they want to go back to the taxi arrangement and work for a boss, but are encouraging other ride share companies to enter the market. They are disgruntled with private pecuniary measures, yet satisfied with the soical benefits and flexibility of the job.

Riders are pleased with the services at today’s pricing. Present public transit options like the bus or metro mobility are actually cheaper but do not replace the service. The groups that would be most damaged by the loss of the ride share structure, since there is no substitute, are disabled folks and those who use it to go bar hopping. The social detriment to the first group would be internalized by loss of freedom and a reduction in trips to their medical appointments. Social detriment would be externalized through outcomes from drunken driving.

Another group of riders would have an impact on local businesses and conventions. The travelers who arrive from elsewhere in the US are familiar with Uber and Lyfts through their national presence. Their apps are already downloaded on their phones and they know the drill. The travel community is worried about how removing this transit option will be externalized onto their business.

Other ride share providers have always been able to enter the market. Drivers have always been able to seek out other work at traditional taxi oulets and other types of driver opportunities like school bus driving. (There are regular job postings for this in our districy choice.) Now that Uber/Lyft’s departure may be eminent, five other platforsm are said to be interested in the market. Yet there are regulatory costs.

Uber and Lyft’s threat to leave the Minneapolis area has sparked a lot of interest from outside players. But the cost of operating a ride share business is not for the faint of heart. It costs $37,000 for a license in Minneapolis, plus another $10,000 wheel chair accessibility fee. St. Paul’s license fee is $41,000. MSP Airport requires a $10,000 security deposit and a $500 license fee.

Separately, it costs about $150,000 to secure a commercial auto insurance policy for a rideshare company.

MSN.com

The issue around the driver’s fare split is presented, politically, as the wealthy corporate boss taking advantage of a punch clock worker. This isn’t the turn-of-the-century, nor are we talking about a factory. And since the platforms have yet to make a profit, that visual is difficult to sustain. But this broohaha may be the trick to get other companies to enter the market and have a go. Should they offer drivers a better cut, then the labor flow will move over to the ride share platform.

The key in all this is freedom. If drivers have the freedom to work as taxi drivers, or bus drivers, or drivers for ride share platforms, then they will gravitate to the best situation for their private interests, leaving the failing apps to die off. If riders find services that better suit their needs, then their business will filter over to new options.

Picking numbers and setting up a dam in the system inadvertently sets off financial as well as social repercussions without clearing them through the numerous social structures involved.