Rumplestatskin — When ‘culture’ is the best explanation

A recent blog post about ‘culture’ making a lousy explanation of social and economic phenomena sheds even more light on the bizarre culture that is economics.

The core criticism is that “since “culture” is compatible with any conceivable set of facts, it is not falsifiable.” Which is surprising for a member of the economics club that subscribes to the unfalsifiable belief that some utility function drives all human behaviour.

In a stroke of irony their argument boils down to “our culture is to not accept culture as an explanation of behaviour”.
So why am I so defensive about culture as a useful principle in economic theory?

I guess I should first offer an economic definition of culture. Culture is the total learnt cooperative behaviours of a society, which includes the way members of that society draw meaning from the behaviour of others. Society simply means the relevant group – such as country, State, club, school, workplace, or family.
To be more clear, culture is the way we understand the meaning of signals....

Macrobusiness (Oz)
When ‘culture’ is the best explanation
Rumplestatskin | professional economist with a background in property development, environmental economics research and economic regulation

(h/t Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism)

There are four essential aspects of social life that tend to be ignored in mainstream economics — language, culture, institutions, and related norms. All of these are reducible to rules and rule-following.